Talk:CBS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CBS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Television: Stations Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: Television Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Radio Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Baseball: Yankees Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York Yankees (assessed as Mid-importance).

Big Brother Mid‑importance

	Television portal The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and CBS has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.Big BrotherWikipedia:WikiProject Big BrotherTemplate:WikiProject Big BrotherBig Brother
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 8.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

CBS Entertainment Group

Should we add a section for CBS Entertainment Group? After all, it is only one of five divisions of Paramount Global that either needs its own article or a section in the CBS article. RamsesTimeGame (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, such a section does not belong here. The only thing that belongs here is that the network (the sole topic of this article) is under that division of the parent company, Paramount Global. It's just a division of the parent company, bears no independent notability, and doesn't need a separate article. The current redirect is proper and there's a reason every time you try to turn it into something else you get reverted. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating article.

Creating “CBS logos.” NY8642 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked this article for CSD. It is wholly unnecessary, is comprised entirely of original, unsourced research, and Wikipedia does not typically include separate articles dedicated entirely to logos. GSK (talk • edits) 13:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, such articles have been deleted before. NBC logo does exist, however there's no need for a separate CBS logo article, and the section in the article covering the history is sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated section

CBS#Philippines is horribly outdated. Both Q (Philippine TV network) and CNN Philippines are already dead. QTV ceased to broadcast in early 2011, CNN Philippines left the airwaves in February this year (2024). Section must be modified or updated accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this article mention anything about Fender?

Fender was sold to CBS in 1965 and was the owner until 1985. I would said this is a pretty significant business venture, yet this article doesn't mentions anything about Fender; while, the Fender page mentions CBS quite a bit. 2001:8003:234C:FE00:1112:8085:9A9A:9E47 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

There has been a lot of editorial battle over the placement of logos in the infobox, bleeding over to logo placement elsewhere.

Per Wikipedia:Logos#Placement, we can place trademarked logos in the infobox, but only in the infobox. The eye logo is a live trademark, as are various combinations of the eye and the letters CBS such as this and this. So the logo should appear no where else but the infobox. Then should we have two CBS logos in the infobox? I'll argue no, for the following reasons:

A single image to represent an entity is standard for the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary and simple by nature. We don't, say, have a young and old picture of someone who had a long acting career.
The logo guidelines do not seem to face the idea of having multiple historic logos, but it does say that for a college one should not have both the school logo and the sports team logo, which leans to the idea that multiple logos are not called for.
In this particular case, the historic logo is a clear part of the current logo. I think either would be fine, would make other CBS-linked logos recognizable.

I am deleting the logos from the body of the article. I would encourage others to move logo disagreements to this talk page rather than ongoing edit war. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point of only having one logo in the infobox from the point of view of clarity. However the point is not to publicise the company but to illustrate the article. This perhaps ought to mean the current logo or in the case of a defunct company the most recent one. However there might be a good reason to include an "out of date" logo. If for example a company was once a nationwide or international brand but now operates from a corner shop in Rotherham ,Yorkshire it makes sense to use the one which was familiar world wide. Another example would be if there was an article titled " Paramount Pictures of the 1930s" it makes sense to use the logo used in the 1930s rather than one used in 2025.

I do not think trade mark law ought to affect what we put in a Wikipedia article (either in the infobox or the body of an article. Trade mark law is designed to protect the company's sales and prevent passing off. Wikipedia is not producing or selling a cola style of drink or a type of beer. It should be possible to include different versions of the Coca Cola logo or the Bass red triangle.. Copyright however is a different matter. We may be prevented from using a copyrighted mark which is still protected everywhere.in the article. This has an unfortunate effect. A company might agree to use of a current logo but not one used in the 1980s. The company may want to put forward a "modern" image. Wikipedia is more concerned about the general history of the company and its effect on the world. There might be an article on the use and design of company or brand logos in general and their history and should not be bound by the company's views. Nevertheless we ought to reflect all versions of the "brand" from say Heinz in the 19th Century to the same brand in the 2020s. A history of company design is as important as the types of product it has produced over the years. I agree if different logos are pictured they should be referred to in the text or at the very least in the captions. Spinney Hill (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to alter the guidance on how we treat trademarked logos, that is something that would not be achieved here but might at Wikipedia talk:Logos.

And the old logo is not particularly "out of date"; it is still part of the logo, still under trademark. The article is not just on the current status of the company, and it has the advantage of representing the company throughout most of its history (and seems likely to remain for a fair while no matter how the font is changed.) As such, it's a stable item. But again, I consider either that or the current formulation to be acceptable, just not both at once. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accountless users have been attempting to replace the full logo in the infobox with just the eyemark... and while there's at least a reasonable case for doing so, we cannot have both the eyenark and the caption that this is the logo since some time in 2020. It's got to be on or another. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is wikipedia hiding this?

Paramount agrees to settle Trump lawsuit for $16 million https://www.axios.com/2025/07/02/trump-paramount-cbs-harris-interview-lawsuit-settlement 80.98.149.77 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding this? Many things aren't on Wikipedia because no editor has added them. Have you added it? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that. I’m guessing it might not be cited correctly or as Nat said, it was never added. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, how is a minor lawsuit noteworthy? It seems like trivia. Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just undone an attempt to insert material on this, as it was a copy-and-paste from a news article, and thus WP:COPYVIO.

Having said that, I'm not sure I agree that it needs no mention, though perhaps the bigger mentions should go at the pages for 60 Minutes and Paramount (I've not looked to those pages to see.) Coverage is substantial, the acceding to Trump's demands and its perception as a bribe intended to allow some larger corporate merger differentiate this from and its damage to CBS's reputation for news separate this from a typical lawsuit settled for a similar sum. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:NCIS: Sydney has an RfC

Talk:NCIS: Sydney has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. newsjunkie (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CBS possessive

The article has been using CBS' as a possessive. The manual of style's section on possessives makes it clear that this should end in 's; note in particular the example of :

For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, the US's partners, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added, consider rewording (Jesus's teachings becomes the teachings of Jesus).

My edit correcting the possessives was undone; I am restoring it, to match with the MOS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally against common usage and as I was taught at school- certainly in England.However you may be right Spinney Hill (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]