Template talk:Nine Entertainment
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former section
editI'd like to propose deleting the recently-added "Former section". Nine has many former assets and if all of them are listed, the template will be too large and they will distract from the information in the template. It would need to include all Fairfax Media assets at the time of purchase (see the ACM template for an idea of how many would be required). I also note that the current entry, AAP was held by Nine for an insignificant period of time (less than two years of the 85 years AAP has existed). I am also in favour of retaining discontinued and defunct assets such as The Bulletin and NetGuide which were not sold by Nine but simply stopped production. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree, if all of the Fairfax assets were to be added then they could be done so in a collapsed format like the Nine Network and Nine Radio sections are. But at the moment, there really isn't a problem, seems we are trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If AAP was sold within days of Nine purchasing Fairfax, then I would agree, but more than a year is long enough for it to be included. Securinehigh (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- The former assets could be added in but they would create a great deal of unnecessary congestion. You would have to add in all the assets of ACP as well as ACP, Stuff which would take up a significant portion of the template. I'd argue they were more intimately connected to Nine than AAP ever was. At what point does the template cease to be a useful navigation aid about the current entity and become focused on assets that no longer exist? --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- If those assets were at one stage owned by Nine, then agree they should be included. Thanks for the heads up. A little project for the future. Securinehigh (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't interpret my saying that the project would create unnecessary congestion as an endorsement that they should be included. Such a project would be in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The assets are listed in the Nine's article which is pushing it enough as it is. That is sufficient. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- If those assets were at one stage owned by Nine, then agree they should be included. Thanks for the heads up. A little project for the future. Securinehigh (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The former assets could be added in but they would create a great deal of unnecessary congestion. You would have to add in all the assets of ACP as well as ACP, Stuff which would take up a significant portion of the template. I'd argue they were more intimately connected to Nine than AAP ever was. At what point does the template cease to be a useful navigation aid about the current entity and become focused on assets that no longer exist? --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If assets were owned by Nine they should be included. The argument that the template would be too large is weak. Yeraafirma (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)