Talk:CBS

Charlie Chaplin

Today I edited away the claim in a photo caption that Charlie Chaplin "chose CBS" to introduce the public to his voice after having done silent film for 20 years, because there was no source, and because the notes on the photograph provided no basis for the idea that this was his first use of radio.

Doing further research, I find that Chaplin was on the radio as early as 1923, before CBS was even on the air. As such, not only should my edits not be undone, we may want to consider removing the image altogether; it's hard to see that CBS did anything particularly notable for Chaplin, nor vice versa. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucille Ball responsible for the CBS eyemark?

I've heard a story that goes that Lucille Ball didn't like CBS' "spotlight" logo, and requested that it be changed to the familiar eyemark used today. Is this true or another television urban legend? MightyArms (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Online, I could only find this text about the CBS logo on a Tumblr page: "It was created by William Golden based on a Pennsylvania Dutch hex sign as well as a Shaker drawing. Early versions of the logo had the lens telescope to reveal the acronym. It was often depicted against a field of clouds. The new logo made its broadcast debut on October 20, 1951, five days after the premiere of their mega-hit “I Love Lucy.”" [[1]] In retrospect, I would guess not, but I hope this helps. Isthmus55 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tiffany Network

I think this part in the lead needs more clarification:

It has also been called the Tiffany Network, alluding to the perceived high quality of its programming during the tenure of William S. Paley.

Where does the name Tiffany factor into this explanation? Is the "perceived high quality" of CBS under Paley being likened to the quality of Tiffany lamps? 199.120.30.205 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Split Proposal

The history section is too long and may be better off separated to a different article. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Creating article.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

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)