Talk:MS NOW

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 19 November 2025. The result of the move review was endorsed.

Having seen this coming months ago, I made a thread about this above, but it seems no one read it. In any case, from the looks of it, most of these !votes flat-out ignore policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, incorrectly asserting that just because a company has "officially" rebranded means the article should immediately and "uncontroversially" be moved without further examination. This is false. I am seriously considering an MR in spite of the fact that this was a SNOW close — a litany of weak arguments that run counter to policy does not make a strong argument, so per WP:NHC they should have been given less weight. I regret not seeing this RM earlier, though it was closed less than 24 hours in, so I (and possibly others with a better grasp of policy) didn't have much of a chance to weigh in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Pursuant to step one of WP:IMR, I am asking that you revert your closure of this RM. Although !votes were, indeed, overwhelmingly in support of the proposal, I have reviewed each of them and was astonished to find that none except for the first one even attempt to make an argument based on policies and guidelines. The rest either flatly contradict policy and precedent (particularly WP:COMMONNAME and its supplement WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, and WP:CRYSTAL) or simply say "per WP:EVERYONEELSE", which are not valid arguments. As an administrator, I am sure you are aware that consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented, and irrelevant arguments not based in policy should merely be discarded per WP:NHC. WP:RELIST explicitly states that discussions that lack arguments based on policy should not be closed, while WP:RMCIDC states: Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. This was a premature close (again, less than 24 hours!) for a premature move (before the dust has even settled on the name change). Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: And, as an administrator, I am sure you are aware that, according to Wikipedia policy, if you disagree with the outcome of a move discussion, the correct action is not to request a re-opening of a closed discussion, but rather to request a review of it by an uninvolved third-party. The rules were followed here when a move discussion was opened by Acroterion. And, as even some of the very guidelines you cited state, it is up to the closing editor/administrator to decide if a community consensus has been reached through a discussion. So, while I will state that, in my opinion, Acroterion probably should have made a request to an uninvolved third-party to review the discussion at hand & determine if a community consensus had been reached (even at this early a point in time), I believe you are also in the wrong here by directly approaching Acroterion & requesting a re-opening of a closed discussion. So, I am asking that you rectify your involvement here & correct your action by following through what you stated you were considering above & requesting a review of the move discussion by an uninvolved third party. What you need to realize is that enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines is *not* subject to solely one person's interpretation of those guidelines, but again, a community consensus of what the guidelines imply. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

ClarkKentWannabe, first, InfiniteNexus is not an admin. They were noting in their comment that Acroterion is. Second, IN is right that the first step of a move review is not third-party review, but a request to the closer to reconsider. IN's minor error here was placing this appeal at this talk page as opposed to the closer's user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies; I was unaware that IN isn't an administrator. I suppose I assumed based off the comment IN made towards Acroterion that IN was. Also, after doing some "digging", you are indeed correct that the correct response in disputing a discussion's outcome is indeed to engage in good-faith discussion with the parties involved, and, if possible, suggest a compromise that everyone can agree with. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrators are generally held to a higher standard than other editors, as they are expected to have a strong grasp of policy in order to be able to exercise good judgement, which is why I was surprised to see that it was an administrator who closed this discussion in haste based on a handful of ill-informed !votes that literally said "move because they 'officially' changed the name", which is not consistent with policy at all. Nonetheless, I will of course assume good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A few things:

• WP:MR is the appropriate venue for a contested move closure.
• MR has a number of requirements, starting with a direct request to the closer. I will consider that part of the process satisfied.
• I did not open the discussion - it was initiated by ThirdEye96. I may have inadvertently provoked the formal move discussion, but was uninvolved in it.
• My administrative involvement was briefly move-protecting to stop a ping-pong move series, including cut-and-paste moves, which I lifted when it became apparent that the matter could be handled by regular move discussion, which I neither started nor participated in
• @ClarkKentWannabe: InfiniteNexus isn't an administrator
• I considered leaving the process to run for something approaching the full length of the usual discussion, but saw little point. That may have precluded InfiniteNexus from bring up a COMMONNAME objection, but I don't see that as clear-cut as IN might for a straightforward rebranding, in which the name change necessarily precedes common usage for at least a brief time. I would say time would be the primary issue at any potential MR.
• I brought the rename up at AN, in the context of the technical issue concerning the RM banner, and asked for help with tidying the article categories and links. I noted that some things, like the MSNBC category, should not be renamed, or should be carefully reformatted to reflect the break in branding, rather than summarily renamed. That brought no comment.
• I am happy to initiate a discussion if that is desired; it would be focused on the time available for comment, and whether SNOW was the correct decision in closing, precluding some substantive policy-based objection not covered in the other comments. Note that an objection based on summarily dismissing the bulk of the comments in favor of one view concerning COMMONNAME may not be the decisive matter that IN believes it to be. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Again...

My apologies; I was unaware that InfiniteNexus isn't an administrator. I suppose I assumed based off the comment they made towards you that they were. And, I also apologize for wrongly assuming you were involved in launching the name change discussion. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you for your response. To clarify, will you or will you not revert your move and reopen this RM to allow it to run its full course and for the relevant policies and guidelines to be assessed? If so, we can continue our discussion regarding COMMONNAME in the RM; if not, I will proceed with the MR. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've self-initiated an MR. You are welcome to participate. I've suggested that the discussion be reopened so that you can present your case, along with any others who may wish to participate, but I do not see a case for moving it back to MSNBC right away without a consensus for that, whether or not you believe that all 20 supporters of the move should be ignored. That would be controversial. Keep in mind that the MR discussion must focus on process and consensus, and is not a venue for discussion that would be part of the RM discussion (confusing, isn't it?) if it is reopened. I see no harm in reopening the discussion here, but would value the views of outside observers first. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

In the Online section: "With the rebranding of the channel as MS NOW, the website was moved to ms.now." There should be a date in there to say when the rebranding happened. ~2025-37402-86 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I am a daily watcher of The Beat w/Ari Melber. I think his microphone is too close to his mouth because his voice sounds like it is going through a screen. It sounds like vibrating and unclear. Please investigate. Thanks ~2025-41721-39 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. We do not investigate. Send comment to MSNOW. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The user below has a request that an edit be made to MS NOW. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 395 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

The History section includes inset images of logos in use at the time for each period covered. Should it also include the new logo for the 2024-present period at the "Rebranding" subheading? WeekdayUpdate (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In November 2025, MS NOW was the second most-watched cable news network, averaging 599,000 total day viewers, behind rival Fox News, which averaged 1.376 million viewers, and ahead of CNN, which averaged 429,000 viewers. In the key demographic of adults ages 24–54, the channel averaged 55,000 total day viewers, behind rival networks Fox, which averaged 123,000 viewers, and CNN, which averaged 70,000 viewers. In the same month, The Rachel Maddow Show was the only non-Fox News show to appear in the quarter's top fifteen cable news programs, both by total viewers and the A24–54 demo.

Forgive me, I don't know about standard viewership metrics. Based on a plain layman's reading, this does not appear to make sense nor correspond to the source. From my perspective, these numbers should be better-explained to Wikipedia readers.

1. It has 599,000 day viewers, of which 55,000 are adults aged 24-54? Uh... who are the other 544,000?
2. The source states that 599,000 is the TOTAL viewership in November. Wikipedia appears to be adding the word "average" for no semantic reason, leading to incorrect readings.
3. The most straightforward reading of (1) and (2) is that the word "average" should be struck all three times from the first sentence of this paragraph. I don't know if this is correct, but it would appear to make more sense. However, I am hesitant because it still doesn't make total sense; if the monthly total is 599,000, how can the daily average for a subgroup of viewers be 55,000? It would logically need to be less than 20,000.
4. In the source, there is the additional metric of "88,000 viewers in primetime". In first reading this seems like a contradiction; wouldn't primetime be a component of "total day", and thus smaller? Perhaps "total day" refers only what is known as "daytime TV" (i.e. during work hours), and has the word "total" stuck in it for no particular reason (unlike primetime, which isn't called "total primetime").

It is entirely possible that there is no error here and these metrics simply need to be explained a bit to me. In which case, I'd propose that they should be explained to everyone. ~2025-34957-92 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

"Total day" is a term of art in ratings and means all 24 hours. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)