Talk:List of programmes broadcast by Sony SAB

This edit request to List of programs broadcast by Sony SAB has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Ziddi Dil Maane Na in current broadcast, and remove Kaatelal & Sons. -- Parnaval (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Also add Shubh Laabh in upcoming broadcasts.^[1] -- Parnaval (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Ziddi Dil Maane Na was already added to the list of current broadcasts. I've added Shubh Laabh to the list of upcoming broadcasts but used a better reference. Eevee01^(talk) 07:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to List of programs broadcast by Sony SAB has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Dharm Yoddha Garud In The Upcoming Broadcast With Release Date And Timeslot, Which Is 15 Oct @ 7pm Also, Add Baawra Mann In The Upcoming Broadcast With The Tentative Release Of Nov 2021 Dharm Yoddha Garud Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENg7NuzHtiY

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2409:4052:E96:4E23:53B4:3D0F:BE85:E425 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

can you please add "Pashminna - Dhaage Mohabbat Ke" to upcoming broadcasts Hypothetically007 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 WP:NOTTVGUIDE says mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. The guideline does not state that "historically significant" means only original programming, and this article already includes non-original dubbed former programming. Media Mender (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

What is "historically significant" about a program that it airs which it had no part in producing/creating/etc.? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Historical significance depends on a show's impact and coverage, not who produced it. Acquired programs can be significant to a channel. Media Mender (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree and believe there is a precedent to include only original programming. Should also remove the dubbed programming. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That discussion was local to a different page and doesn't set precedent here. What matters is the consensus on this page. Since there's no consensus, I'll request a third opinion. Media Mender (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

My reading of NOTTVGUIDE would seem to indicate this is referring to a prohibition on future programming and explicit schedules of past (and future, obviously) programming. No one uses a "TV guide" for past programming, save for very niche circumstances. Regardless, this show was broadcast by Sony SAB, correct? If that is correct, its inclusion is warranted. CNMall41 your WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST argument is not compelling; Your "precedent" is a discussion you participated in, on an article which averages fourteen times fewer views than this article. Instead, we should be referring to WP:LISTCRITERIA, which states, in-part, "Would I expect to see this [thing] on a list of X?" In my mind, I would expect to see a list of shows broadcast by Sony SAB on an article titled "List of progammes broadcast by Sony SAB". It's fine if you have established precedent requiring only original programming on the other page, but it does not carry-over to here. Indeed, if we are going to argue OTHERTHINGS, we quite explicitly have lists named "list of original programs..." My only caveat be that the proposed item be sourced to show explicitly that it has been broadcast by Sony SAB, which I believe Media Mender had done. If you want to question the reliability of the source, that is a different matter. Which, it appears you may have a point, and I would strongly recommend that Media Mender try to obtain a better source. On the other hand, the source is not making an outrageous or extraordinary claim. But again, it's a separate discussion which I trust you two can reach a consensus on. However, feel free to tag me if you feel you cannot. MWFwiki (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3O, and I understand your contention, although I do not agree with the entire assessment. I agree about the various names of lists such as "programs" versus "original programs" which can be confusing to some which is probably a reason why this should go to RfC. I also agree that a better source is needed, although that is moot in my opinion since I do not agree it meets criteria for inclusion. For LISTCRITERIA, note it says, "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." That is exactly what is happening here. It is being used as a programming guide which under LISTCRITERIA would be considered a "means of promotion" which is why the criteria says Wikipedia "should not contain indiscriminate lists." What is the relevance of it? For NOTTVGUIDE, it does cover historic lists where it states, "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." There is no historical significance to anything here. As far as OTHERSTUFF, I cited only one of the most recent discussions instead of taking numerous hours to link edit summaries and removals by other editors on same or similar pages. I can do this if we go to RfC but do not find it necessary at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Per "[c]riteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence", a show broadcast by Sony SAB is absolutely relevant to an article entitled "list of programmes broadcast by Sony SAB." Again, you have an argument, here, just not the one you think or seemingly prefer; Your argument is simply that this show is not verifiable per an RS, at least as-is.

You are also seemingly confusing programming lists and schedules with (also known as TV guides or programming guides) with a Wikipedia list article. We simply don't want the article to devolve into "The Simpsons, every Sunday night at 8pm EST, 9pm CST, etc, but only on XYZ station" or some hyper-detailed, TV Guide-esque list. How is this being utilized as a "programming guide?" Can you locate what time slots and channels the show runs on? What subsidiaries of Sony SAB are running it (if any)?

Further; Mere mention of show's factual existence is not promotional.

You can cite as many other Talk pages as you wish. They have no relevance, here, excluding a policy. MWFwiki (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"Your argument is simply that this show is not verifiable per an RS". Not exactly. My argument is that even if it can be verified through a reliable source, not everything that is verifiable deserves inclusion. If we are going to show original programming, that would be significant as it relates to the station and its production, purchase, or otherwise with that show. If we are simply showing programs because they decided to air them, this absolutely would serve to promote the station. Google "where can I watch [fill in show title here]" and see the results. Has nothing to do with time slots in my opinion. Since it was brought up about "programming" and "original programming", this likely should be discussed wider to have all of the programming lists moved to "original programming." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"They have no relevance." I also disagree. See WP:SSE which although an essay, helps explain OTHERSTUFF (which describes deletions discussions, which this is not one). --CNMall41 (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It is widely understood that OTHERing in-regards to non-deletions refers to WP:OTHERCONTENT. Regardless; Since you insist on OTHERing and don't feel the inclusion is justified, I went and looked at OTHER pages. List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by MTV, and List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim all utilize "acquired programs/programming," and these are the "big dogs" (and this list is by no means exhaustive). If you insist on this course of action, I would strongly recommend proposing a move to "list of original programmes broadcast by Sony SAB." MWFwiki (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Again...I understand your content...but do not agree. I did not "insist on OTHERing". You brought it up, twice. My contention was quite clear about original programming but you may be correct in that this needs moved to original programming. I am not sure about the policy on "big dogs" either but not sure if that is even relevant since size of companies do not dictate Wikipedia policy. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are mentioning other things... you're mentioning other things. You initiated by bringing-up other Talk pages; "I would disagree and believe there is a precedent to include only original programming"

Regardless; It's not the company size. It's the article size and popularity which is my reason for calling them the "big dogs." These are reasonably well-trafficked and edited articles (particularly relative to this article and the articles otherwise mentioned; One of the articles I mentioned has a 7,000 % higher average daily traffic than this article). Regardless, I have rendered my THIRD, and my opinion remains unchanged. Your next steps are either to attempt to seek broader consensus, go to dispute resolution (assuming Media Mender still wishes to contest the reversion, obviously), to request consensus on a page move, or to drop the stick, at least in-part. If Media Mender wishes to interpret this as having consensus for the time being, I would not object to that. MWFwiki (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Not to argue, but seems like a lot of unrelated things being thrown out here (article size, traffic, etc.). Regardless, there is not consensus. I still object based on the reasons stated so WP:ONUS would still apply here.

CNMall41 — FYI, you didn't sign your comment, above. No one mentioned "article size." My comment regarding "article size" was poorly-worded; I was referring to popularity, etc... merely that these are seemingly major articles which all include content that you claim does not belong. You yourself mentioned WP:SSE; List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by MTV, List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim, List of programmes broadcast by the BBC, List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, List of television programmes broadcast by ITV2, List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids, and List of programmes broadcast by Comedy Central (UK & Ireland) all include non-original programming. And this by no means exhaustive; I simply grabbed the articles that popped-up first. Some explicitly state "acquired programming" while others don't mention it one way or the other, but if you look at the shows' articles, it's clear that it's not original content/produced by another entity.

Regardless of this, and in an attempt at further mediation without needing things to escalate, would you amenable to me requesting a fourth opinion? That way, we may possibly avoid further dispute and trying to canvas the broader community; This is a relatively niche article so we may not get many responses if we go that route, but obviously it is 100% your right not to agree to this. However, I have an editor in-mind; They mediated a dispute between myself and another editor. They developed a good compromise. I have no relationship with them beyond this. Would you be willing to accept this to close-out the dispute? I will tag you and the other user on the editor in-question's Talk page so that you may see how I explain the dispute, etc. Is this amenable to you? Otherwise, I will step-away and permit you two to resolve the content dispute. MWFwiki (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with the 3O you provided. And, I appreciate you providing you perspective. We can agree to disagree which is why we have discussions. Right now, I have an issue with ONUS not being followed by the OP but that is a separate issue. A fourth opinion or RfC is fine but I believe it would be a waste of time as looking closer this likely needs merged to the parent or moved to an "original programming" list anyways. Anything regarding what does/doesn't belong on the page can be discussed at that time instead of having numerous discussions running. But, whatever you choose.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I hear you. However, @Media Mender likely feels that the ONUS has shifted to you to contest the content. If this were a more controversial addition, a controversial topic, or entirely unsourced, I would agree with you. But as it stands, it is a minor addition to a relatively niche page; We're not going to achieve some massive consensus one way or the other. However, I will request a fourth opinion. If you still disagree, at that point I would suggest doing a move request. MWFwiki (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

That was stated in my comment below. This will either be a proposed move or a proposed merge and the fact I did not revert makes everything moot as the OPs preferred version is there. Not sure why we are still discussing here but it is becoming exhausting. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh? No need to get snippy. You're more than welcome to drop the stick at any time; No one is forcing you to reply. MWFwiki (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not getting snippy. I am getting exhausted. I stated the point was moot, yet you continued. I am unsure why. Stick was dropped three messages ago when I said the point was moot. Your continued pile on is taking joy out of editing so would suggest you DTS at this point since there was no point in extending the discussion you did. Feel free to have the last word but do not make comments insinuating I am being uncivil when you are the one who continues a dispute that has already been resolved by DTS. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Per MWFwiki's 3O assessment, I've restored the content with multiple reliable sources confirming its broadcast on Sony SAB. Media Mender (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

3O isn't binding and despite pointing out WP:ONUS you still circumvented consensus. I will not revert at the moment as this likely needs merged to the parent page anyway since it only has five current programs which can easily fit there. In the meantime, you do not need three sources to verify something. I would use only one, which by the way none of the three say it was "acquired" so you are creating original research. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

As recommended by MWFwiki, here are multiple reliable sources confirming that Eken Babu has been broadcast on Sony SAB. Media Mender (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)