Talk:RTL Group
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
 | This article was edited to contain a partial translation of RTL Group from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Possible NPOV violations-please check
editPossible negative POV pushing at RTL Television and here. Haven't reverted as I don't know the subject.--QuantumEngineer 13:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the inserted text. To be frank to me it seemed to be baseless rambling. RoToRa 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Europe's largest TV, radio and production company?
edit"Europe's largest TV, radio and production company" - really? Bigger than the BBC? I'd like to see sources for that. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I know it is hard to believe for any Brit but there are way bigger media comapnies and TV networks in Europe. RTL IS much bigger than the BBC, even the ARD network is bigger... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.79.133 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Largest is something which is capable of objective measurement, once you define what "largest" means (and I don't see that here). However, "leading" isn't. "Leading" in this context is a weasel word, and the whole article smells like an advert. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've slightly reworded (I'd be happy to see it re-described as #1 in Europe if there is a source for that), and removed the "advert" tag which IMO was a major exaggeration. This is a large successful company and must have done many things well. The article is a refreshing change from the typical niggly-to-hostile company article - see Johnson & Johnson for an egregious example Chrismorey (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
merge SpotXchange
editA product line that is non notable outside of its association with the parent company. content should be merged here. WP:PRODUCT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: SpotX has several independent references, suggesting independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an English Site
editI object to seeing banners such as "Parts of the article is an indiscriminate contents. (September 2015)". I don't know what it's trying to say, but it's not saying it in English.
Start with "Parts of the article are" or "Part of the article is". Look up the verb 'to be' with google (not wikipedia, that's what got you into trouble in the first place). Once you've got that far, (Take your time, no rush), you would then need an adjective, such as 'red', 'slow', or indeed, "indiscriminate". There's no place here for a noun, such as 'contents'. Nor would 'batman' be useful, or 'London Bridge'.
Please could someone, who understands what the O/P meant, take it away and do something useful with it?
Same applies to the comment above. What is 'non notable'? (It appears that non notable is a Wikipedia expression. Its still lousy English. Try insignificant or maybe 'not noteworthy' instead). 82.134.197.202 (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)dutchdavey
- 'Indiscriminate' was meant in the sense of the relevant Wikipedia policy: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems that your concerns regarding grammar in the 'cleanup' template have been, at least in part, Klbrain (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
Contreversies Section
editI don't know, it feels a bit biased to me, what are your thoughts? Atharva210 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)