Talk:Lifetime (TV network)

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

Television: Stations Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Television Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance). Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello! I was just wondering what channel Lifetime gives on... <redacted> I've searched non-stop to find out what channel but I just can't find it. So please! Help me out??!! --65.49.212.66 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Linda--65.49.212.66 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each cable company chooses which channels it wants to put each network on. In other words, Lifetime appears on a different channels depending on the region and/or cable company. --70.81.251.32 (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a weekday schedule there - but does anyone know what the weekend schedule is? And if you do, could you add it? Or tell me what to add? (Also - are all the movies on the channel orginal movies, or are certain timeslots always orginal movies and certain other slots always real movies? That way I could color-code the schedule thing better. So please help me!) Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 05:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please log on to http://www.mylifetime.com, make a photo copy of the new Lifetime TV logo and place it on the Lifetime Television page as soon as possible? AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally done. I wasn't going to just post that logo from there because I wanted a clean version. One came up on

chatter) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please relocate the Lifetime programs to a new page titled List of programs broadcast by Lifetime as soon as possible? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pleaes photograph the old Lifetime TV logo and place it in the logo section? The photo is on the following website: http://www.fourstarchef.com/lifetime.html AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as public relations, it is indisputably relevant to discuss the deterioration of the language used on Lifetime Television. Formerly, the language was respectful of the audience, but in recent years Lifetime Television has become more vulgar. Perhaps this is some quixotic attempt to try to sound more gritty and realistic, but it seems merely just a reflection of lowering of standards. Censoring serious issues is hardly a route to a good Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk • contribs) 17 April 2009

Your personal opinion has no place here. If there has been serious discussion of this in

reliable sources, then the topic could be addressed. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The TV network is created by gender feminist for gender feminist to feed on women's fears that they will be raped and murdered in their own lifetime and also promotes female supremacy and portrays the entire male gender in the most negative light possible. If you would like any sources to support my statement then go on any site both for it and against it or watch any of their moves which most if not all of them are mean spirited at best. There fore the article needs to be written in the nature that the network operates and portrays its work. --203.206.73.28 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has an opinion of weather or not the article should be rewritten from the perspective of an average viewer then let me know. --203.206.73.28 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion has no place here, 203.206, especially since you have some kind of bizarre vendetta against "gender feminists",

reliable sources, then and only then would the topic be addressed. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Orange Mike--your "no place here" comments seem a bit stridently in favor of, and limited to, protecting the content of this network's article. There is no place here for condescension or PR agendas either. Let's be more respectful to others please. Alanrobts (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More then half of feminism was destroyed by the network, it needs to be stated that it broke the back of their reputation just as the War on Terror has created a major increase of Islamophobia.--106.68.34.168 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOOURCES: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.25.42 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this section because it appears to be about the network that preceded Lifetime, Viacom's Cable Health Network, which merged to form Lifetime in 1984. It is uncited and there is currently no wikipedia entry for the Cable Health Network.

The service originally aired women's daytime programming, and later, talk shows, Monday through Saturdays, and on Sundays from November 1983 to June 1993 carried programming for health professionals.

Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:8BB0:2DC8:4A4:2D14:8A75 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a recreation fantasy with the same plot as the Lifetime TV movies.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a PR piece--there is no content that presents any critical or dissenting view of the network or its programming. For example, Lifetime's original movies, which have received substantial negative press due to quality issues and tabloid approaches, are not addressed other than in a short, descriptive paragraph (an example omission: the Brittany Murphy biopic, which wasn't just panned--it was condemned). The entire article feels celebratory, despite the considerable controversy this channel has stirred for its latter decade at least, when it diverged from its original feminist format. Alanrobts (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alanrobts, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so feel free to try your hand at editing the article. But before you do be sure to read

WP:RECENT and apply those policies to your edits. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia discourages a separate section on "Criticisms", as that encourages excess. Generally criticisms should be briefly mentioned in other relevant sections of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I propose that LRW get a separate article because it is its own channel and even though it may be a stub, it has sufficient information to stand on its own. Billboard Man (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Agreed Billboard Man, the article was previously separate but had its text wiped out and redirected without any consensus [11]. Seeing how there's plenty of sister channels with their own articles, I see why it can't. The article could more likely have been expanded by now with programming and history info but seems to have been neglected instead as part of the current article. DA1 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifetime (TV network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429051310/http://tv.otroscines.com/2014/04/llega-un-nuevo-canal-en-el-mes-de-julio/ to http://tv.otroscines.com/2014/04/llega-un-nuevo-canal-en-el-mes-de-julio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly recall it being called "Lifetime Television for Women" in the pre-digital cable days. This was later shortened to just , "Lifetime". This could've been a marketing gimmick for the New York area. I really don't know, but it's worth looking into. Wlmg (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Confessions of a Go-Go Girl has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14 § Confessions of a Go-Go Girl until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect A Snow Globe Christmas has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14 § A Snow Globe Christmas until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]