Talk:Viva (Brazil)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

Requested move 23 April 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Viva (Brazil) be renamed and moved to Viva (Brazilian TV channel).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Viva (Brazil) → Viva (Brazilian TV channel) – WP:NCBC 162 etc. (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: What is the objection here? 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to less concise and more long-winded disambiguators is not helpful for readers. The current ones are great and do the job, and the Nickelodeon one has been discussed before. I'd object to all of the above if I could, because clearly the bold moves by Intrisit were beneficial for the project, but I guess they were undiscussed so I can't do that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bold moves directly contradict our longstanding naming convention at WP:NCBC, and are not beneficial. The full disambiguation is necessary "if the title shares a name with unlike topics." In this case, Viva and Nickelodeon can refer to things that aren't TV channels ("unlike topics") and therefore the full disambiguation tag is used. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to start a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting), but in the meantime, these should be uncontroversially reverted. 162 etc. (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other topics that I know of that vie for the title "Viva (Brazil)" or "Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)". In theory there could be something that's not a TV channel that shares the name, but in fact there isn't. Per WP:CONCISE, a title should be long enough to identify the topic but no longer than that, all other things being equal. Adding "TV channel" just adds verbiage for no particular reason. — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to discussion. Note that if no consensus forms, Viva (Brazilian TV channel) is the stable title. 162 etc. (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No other entity called "Viva" in Brazil so the present disambiguator is sufficient, and per WP:CONCISE we shouldn't make it longer for no particular reason. — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not just the one who moved it to this title via the draftspace a week ago, but per Amakuru's assertions above. Since Sammi Brie's overhaul of the NCBC guideline between 2021 and 2022, it calls to question the justification of the "TV channel" disambiguator as against the pre-2021 revisions which you oppose the other way and call for a title change. At least, celebrate having all but 2 titles at your requests at RMTR reverted back to where they were; I'll revisit that in due course. Intrisit (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Also to the closer, a "no-consensus" result should revert to the previous title as the page was moved by Intrisit at 14:07, 16 April 2025 without RM or without any discussion (and this should have been sent to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves). Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]