Talk:GMMTV

Character names to use

Pyro z and Prem4826, I'd like to ask since I'm not really an expert on RTGS but I would like to get your consensus as well since I do see that you are also contributing on GMMTV-related articles. I have observed that there are names of characters esp on television series in the articles here which are different from the English subtitles as seen on Youtube for example the one for 2gether: The Series where Frank Thanatsaran's character name is Phukong and not Pukong (based on the article from mydramalist prior to the start of the series though they already updated it). I do base most of them from sites such as mydramalist and drama dot fandom and add references from Thai articles. I'd like to get your consensus on using the names based from the subtitle of the official videos coming from GMMTV Youtube Account.

Another thing is also a consensus if there is a need or no need of adding the nickname of an artist in a series article since most of the series articles I created, I follow the format: <NICKNAME> <FULL NAME>. Though in the Turn Left Turn Right, it doesn't have it. I would love to hear your insights on this one. Thanks! — Emperork (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the character's names should be the same as the official subtitle in order to avoid confusion and not to use the names with no reference. As I understand, those websites you mentioned are also open-wikis to which anyone can contribute like Wikipedia but they don't really indicate references or sources and are not as reliable as IMDb. There's nothing wrong with using them to use them as your initial source but to use as references here on Wikipedia, it would be better if we refer to the original or official source. For the RTGS, I don't really know much about it since it's mostly used with formal or government-related and it's known for being inconsistent in use, so I don't think we don't really need to look into that thing.

For the actor's nickname, according to the MOS:NICKNAME and MOS:PATRONYMIC guidelines, it's unnecessary to include them in the article that is not their own article. And writing with the <NICKNAME> <FULL NAME> format may be misleading for readers to think that their nickname is their first name and their first name is their middle name. However, the nickname may still be helpful in the article. I suggest you to keep it by changing the format to <FULLNAME> (<NICKNAME>), put it in brackets after their full name in order to solve this issue. : --Pyro z (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Got you on this Pyro z. Working now to reflect those changes and will be working also on creating articles of artists since most of them do have articles already in the Thai WP. Thanks for the feedback. Also, hoping to get your insights Prem4826. — Emperork (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pyro z. I'd like to say something more about RTGS. If it is a person name, it doesn't have to follow RTGS rule, it depends on what way they want to write it. So we have to follow the official, not RTGS. However, if there're no official spelling, we may use RTGS to guide how their name supposed to spell. --Prem4826 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Prem4826 and to Pyro z as well. I have been going through Thai articles and simply using Google translate on these while trying to make sense of its translation. The existing articles in Thai WP have been helpful in converting them here in English WP. Great to be working with you both on these articles. — Emperork (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Please review today's Controversies & Incidents section

Someone reading the entry might assume this had something to do with the Cardano Foundation or IOHK. This is not the case. It is a hack, possibly down to poor security. It is poorly sourced (including to Twitter) and written more like news than an encyclopaedia. Please edit this material properly, or remove the reference to Cardano, or clarify that this had nothing to do with the CF or IOHK.IOHKwriter (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Meh. This isn't a "controversy". Long-term ramifications remain to be seen, though I doubt it'd develop into a historical event that shapes the company's history. This is worth a couple of sentences at best. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul_012I would simply delete it, but I do not edit anything to with IOHK/Cardano in case it raises a COI issue. The YouTube site appears to have been restored, so parts of it are now clearly factually wrong. IOHKwriter (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the section. Interested editors could probably add something along the lines of "GMMTV's YouTube account was hacked in July 2021" to the History section, but there's not quite enough relevant background information there to not make this awkward. (Maybe something should be written about how the company releases its work through the site.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul_012 Thanks for sorting that out IOHKwriter (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversies & Incidents section has been added again. It exhibits all the problems of the original entry and is still based on tweets. The writer has made no attempt to seek compromise or discuss this. IOHKwriter (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC) – Sorry, that's been doneIOHKwriter (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Netflix from Network field by one user – Requesting input

I’d like to raise an issue regarding the repeated removal of Netflix from the "Network" field in the television series table. most recently for Enigma Black Stage, by a single user.

To clarify:

Isn't the Network field meant to indicate where a series is distributed, not who produced it?

While this series is not a “Netflix Original,” Netflix is the only platform where the full, uncut version is available. That makes its inclusion relevant and appropriate.

Other shows on the same list still include their streaming platforms in the Network field (for example, Amazon Prime Video, LINE TV, AIS Play, and Disney+ Hotstar) even though those platforms did not produce the shows either. So far, only Netflix has been repeatedly removed, which makes the treatment inconsistent.

It’s unclear why Netflix is being singled out while other articles with similar cases remain unchanged. This kind of inconsistent and selective editing confuse me.

Since this has happened multiple times and continued reverts may lead to an edit war, I’m requesting input from other editors to establish consensus. Unless there’s a clear, policy-based reason for removing it, I believe Netflix should remain listed.

Thanks. Masaya1111 (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of these shows first air on TV, with the streaming platforms usually considered to be reruns. With a few exceptions (like the shows that exclusively streamed on Disney Plus Hostar before the TV run), I don't think any of the streaming platforms warrant listing under "Network", which is TV terminology. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Except it's not just 'some exceptions.' Many shows still list a streaming platform under the network field, even if they didn’t premiere before the TV run. Only Netflix is being singled out and removed. If you're removing it, then remove all of them consistently. And what about uncut versions that are only available on the streaming platform, not aired on TV or uploaded to the network’s app or YouTube like other series? Masaya1111 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I presume your reply was meant for the person who you say has been removing Netflix from the table. You asked for input from other editors, I just gave my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

stop deleting other people's edits.

I added a character column to each series so people can recognize who the actors are in that series. how dare you to delete it? Mojawik (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand you might be upset your edits have been reverted, but please understand Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please follow proper etiquette and engage in discussions in a civil manner. If you truly believe your edits can be useful, you can provide arguments for why you think the column should be included in the table. The community of contributors can come to a consensus if it is actually controversial.

However, I will have to agree with the other editor that the column would not be particularly useful. Per MOS:TABLE, the table size is already large as it is now. The extra information would increase the table size and the table would be even harder to read and to maintain.

The amount of text in each cell of the extra column would make it hard to scan for the information. The column would also only be sortable against the first name listed as a sort key.

The extra column would likely provide redundant information. If you wanted to know about the cast for a particular show, you would be able to find the information on the wikilinked page for the show. If you wanted to know what shows a specific person plays in, you would find that on the artist's page. If the cast information is not available because an article for the show or artist does not exist yet, those pages could potentially be created in the future, as long as they follow the notability criteria.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning not every single piece of information needs to be included. This article pertains to GMMTV. The filmography table should be a summary of the company's works.

The filmography table here is just not an appropriate location for the cast information you want to include. Therefore, I also don't believe the extra column should be included. rlsmr3139_talk 02:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)