Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Actions and opinions

This section is for requests for action and requests for opinions. Post below and start a new subsection as appropriate.

Location of Transmitter

Could you guys include the latitude & logitude of the trasmitter of these stations? That would be helpfull in aiming an antenna, or deciding if there is any hope at all of recieving a particular station.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Button_array.png Table

UPN14

UPN14 exists only as a digital subchannel and as a station delivered via satellite and cable. I'd say merge it into it's parrent station's article as a section, but I wanted to get some opinions first. —A 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this certainly won't be "UPN14" after September 2006. I'd be very surprised if this channel gets the CW affiliation over WBUW. Normally, I'd agree with merging a digital sub-channel into the parent station, but this channel seems to have enough of an independent identity that I'd be inclined to leave it alone, at least until we find out whether it will even exist in 8 months. DHowell 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question will come up in 8 months of "Should keep this page of a dead station with a footnote of it getting blown away?" So I say we should be proactive an get it merged into its parent station's article now. —A 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I think there is an almost 100% chance that WBUW will get the CW affiliation. --CFIF 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost 100%" is still not 100%, and we shouldn't be basing merging decisions on speculation. Besides being a broadcast digital subchannel, it is also a cable channel and local DirecTV channel. If "UPN14" does somehow get the CW affiliation, it should keep its own article (renamed to whatever it is called after the CW switch), for the historical noteworthiness alone of a major network choosing to affiliate with a digital subchannel instead of a full-power station. If UPN14 becomes independent, it may or may not deserve its own article, depending on how "independent" it is from the main station (WISC-DT), and on whether cable systems and DirecTV continue to carry the channel. If it gets shut down, of course at that time it should be merged into the main station article as a historical note. DHowell 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Madison Stuff

Why does WHA-TV redirect to WHA (AM)? IMO, if it is going to redirect to somewhere, it should be Wisconsin Public Television.

I'm not familiar with the stations, but yeah, I can see no reason why it should point to WHA (AM). —A 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the redirect. --CFIF 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article moves needing administrator assistance

The following article moves need administratior action for one reason or another. Are there any Wikipedia admins that are involved with the proect that could help out?

I'm not actively involved with the project, but I do check here every so often, but am not completely familiar with the naming rules. Please let me know if I screwed something up. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks for the help. I'll get those changes made to KAIT and KFTY asap (if someone doesn't get to it first). —A 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I beat you to it. DHowell 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Busy day yesterday. —A 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second round finished --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta stations. We discussed this below at length.

KHBS-TV/KHOG-TV

KHBS-TV/KHOG-TV is billed as "Even though the stations have separate channel numbers and call letters, they are referred to by owners Hearst-Argyle Television as one station." What are the other editor's opinions on the name of this article. If nothing else it needs to be changed to KHBS/KHOG-TV, as KHBS has no -TV postfix; but I'd much rather see this as one article with a redirect. —A 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I struggled with that a little bit when writing the article -- while the title itself certainly isn't conducive to proper searching, the two stations are considered one unique entity. (Gotta love those split markets!) Technically, KNWA/KFTA has the same problem... only difference is that (I think) KNWA associates itself on-air under one set of call letters (KNWA). Amnewsboy 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar problem also with public television stations in certain states like Idaho and Iowa. The solution is to have redirects from all of the drone sation callsigns. I think that the best course of action would be to move the article to KHBS and to have redirects from KHOG-TV. Within the article I think that it is right proper to talk about the two stations in one situation, but I for consitency sake, IMO we should keep all the TV station articles we can named after their callsigns. —A 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would work... but why not just have two redirects -- on at KHBS and one at KHOG, both pointing to the KHBS/KHOG article? Amnewsboy 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAGA

Should article names respect stations that formerly used a callsign? WAGA is currently only used by one television station, but this disambig page has links to an FM station that hasn't used WAGA as it's call sign sence the 1960s, and an AM station that used to use the call sign, but doesn't even have a page. I'd recommend having a disambig link at the top of the page of the TV station article named WAGA. Objections? Thoughts? —A 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous that the disambig points to the radio stations. Simple as that. No one probably even remembers (or cares) about WAGA AM/FM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFIF (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2006

WJCL and WGSA

Two more pages with contested naming schemes. I think that both are clear cut enough to be located at WJCL and WGSA, but based on his actions, user:Radiojon does not agree. I am inviting him here to discuss this issue. —A 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with the disambig page at WJCL. These two stations, TV and FM, have different callsigns. The NC policy on this is clear, they should both be located at their respective callsigns. A disamig link at the top of each stations article is what should be used in this situation. —A 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of WJCL, the FM station mentioned in the disambig page doesn't have an article, and after viewing it's web site kix96.com it looks like it doesn't even use the call sign in it's branding. Someone typing WJCL is most likely looking for the TV station, and so I think WJCL should be the TV station article, with a disambig link at the top e.g. "For the radio station known as Kix 96, see WJCL-FM". DHowell 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless WGSA-CA is anything more than a gloified repeater station, and based on an examination of the page I think that is the case, it should be included in the main WGSA page. Quoting from the above mentioned NC policy: Where a single broadcast outlet operates several transmitters with different call signs, create the article at the call sign which is considered the primary station, and make the other call signs redirects to that call sign. As per the others links on the "disambig page," Women's Golf South Australia only returns 143 hits on a google search, and a dead radio station is arguably not-encyclopedic —A 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of WGSA, the -CA station is just a satellite of the main station, so I think the two articles WGSA (TV) and WGSA-CA should be merged. The AM station no longer exists, and I doubt anyone is going to be expecting to find an article on Women's Golf South Australia under WGSA. If the disambig page should be kept, I say move it to WGSA (disambiguation), add a disambig link to the merged WGSA TV/CA article and move the TV article to WGSA. DHowell 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta TV

In addition to the WAGA that I liked to above, there are 5 other stations that are not at the proper article name. I would simply add them to the list above and wait for Reflex Reaction to help me out; but it looks like there are two users in or arround the area that have disagreed with TV station article moves in the past. So I thought I'd post it here and ask them and the other editors of this project to weigh in. The other stations (listed based on what imo the articles should be named) are WGTV, WPXA, WPBA, WATC, and WATL. I've put my reasonings here: Template_talk:AtlantaTV#Article_names. Input please. —A 05:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presque Isle Categories

I see two subcategories in Television Stations in Maine for Presque Isle. There is "Television stations in Presque Isle / Edmundston" and "Television stations in Presque Isle / Woodstock". However, there is only one Template being used for Presque Isle stations: "Template:Presque Isle TV", which mentions both Edmundston and Woodstock as sub-markets. Furthermore, both Categories were going empty, because neither was included in the Template. I added "Category:Television stations in Presque Isle / Edmundston" to the Presque Isle template, although if someone thinks the Woodstock one would be more appropriate, I will happily change it. If not, should "Category:Television stations in Presque Isle / Woodstock" be deleted, or should both categories be replaced with "Television stations in Presque Isle" or Television stations in Presque Isle / Edmundton / Woodstock"? X Stryker 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-CA and -LP suffixes in market boxes

As the title says, do LPTV and Class A stations callsigns go with or without their suffixes in market boxes? I was under the impression that it was without, but User:CFIF rv'ed two edits to the Miami box where I tried to remove them. Other boxes that had the suffixes in the past were removed by other people in this project, so I thought that was the norm. Now, I don't know. Just what is the policy?

And while I'm here... Links to other markets: keep or remove? To be honest, I'm not at all a fan of them. Kimmykun 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my opinion, but if they are at the same level of ratings as full power stations, I'd say keep them. If you are in a dense metro and you only need to cover say 100 square miles a LP station is all you need. I'd be interested in hearing the other members of this project's opinion on the subject. —A 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the suffixes, it's important to distinguish an -LP/-CA suffix in a station. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to voice my opinion in keeping the suffixes. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward removing the suffixes in the market boxes only. I think it looks cleaner without them, and if callsign accuracy is the issue, then we should also start to add -TV suffixes as well. As it is, a lot of LPTV stations with alpha callsigns brand themselves as XXXX-TV, even though they're technically not a -TV class. CFIF, would you mind expounding, either here or on my talk page, on why you think the callsign suffix is important in the market box? I'd like to understand your position better. --dhett 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to distinguish LP stations from the full-power stations ,and keeping the suffixes are a good way to do it. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the project?

Hi. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months but I still consider myself a newbie. Long story short is that I'm a broadcaster and I recently stumbled upon this project's existence (via my discovery of userboxes) and wasn't sure if I should "join", or even how to contribute. I'm not even sure if my writing this right now was the right communication method (would email be better for how-to questions that don't advance the project)? Fife Club 15:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on down! Look at other TV station articles, like WNBC, WCBS-TV, WTVT, WWSB, and WFLA-TV to see what one should look like. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newscast schedules

I've run into two people on Talk:WAGM-TV who don't think newscast schedules are notable enough. They seem to have confused the descriptions of local programming with a full station schedule. One of them seems to be implying she'll do it to as many articles as she can. Watch out for these editors... Kirjtc2 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give my opinion as a broadcaster, I do not think detailed programming schedules should be listed. But with that I also (to a lesser extent) don't see why news would be any different. Stations do often identify their entire station by their newscasts but newscasts are still just programs, just like Oprah or soap operas. The only logical justification for being bias towards listing newscasts and not listing the rest of their lineup would be that it is produced by the station itself. (Live is not relevant because then you would need to list the network news too.) And by that logic it should be labeled as Daily (or Regular, or Ongoing) Productions instead of Newscasts, and you would need to list any other special programs that the station may also produce on a regular basis. Just my opinion, food for thought, and devils advocate. Fife Club 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original discussion:

TV schedules are not encyclopedic. (see WP:NOT.)
  1. You wouldn't look in Encyclopedia Britannica for a TV schedule.
  2. TV schedules usually only apply to a limited location. Wikipedia is supposed to take a world view.
Please post if you have contrasting arguments. --Fang Aili 22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't look in Britannica for ANYTHING on a TV station though. Local news is one of the main things this station is known for, infact well known due to its small market size. It is relevent and should be included. This is isn't a programming schedule for every single show on the station, JUST news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicinematt (talk • contribs)
This is an encyclopedia. If the station is notable it deserves an article. But if I wanted to know it's schedule, I'd buy a TV magazine (or visit the station's web page). BTW, I can't see a notice on the article that says that it's a news station. And even then, the "many TV station articles do have newscast schedules" summary given by last editor is not an explanation - schedules do not belong here.Misza13 T C 12:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then just go right ahead and delete the schedules at WLBZ, WCSH, WBZ-TV, WCVB, WHDH, WABC-TV, WCBS-TV and WNBC, and that's just what I found in the first 2 minutes. WAGM is not a 24-hour news station like CNN, but it is a general entertainment station and the only local news source in the area (there isn't even a newspaper). Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations actually encourages a description of local programming on such a station. There is no reason to single this station out. Kirjtc2 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in an edit war, so I won't go to those stations and delete the schedule information. I'm not singling this station out; I think schedule information, wherever it is, is unencyclopedic, period. When I happen to come across it, I usually delete it. I don't know where Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations got the idea that such information is encyclopedic. In addition to the points made above, schedules change rapidly, and the maintenance of such schedules (for how many hundreds of stations?) is unnecessary and untenable. --Fang Aili 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. These aren't schedules for entire programming line ups, but rather are schedules for newscasts, which change infrequently. The news that is on Wednesday at 6:00 will likely be on at 6:00 five years from now. News at WAGM-TV NEWSSource 8 is an important part of this television station and what it is WIDELY known for across the United States, especially in the broadcast industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicinematt (talk • contribs)

If news broadcasts are an important part of the station's life then I suggest that you finally note that in the article. But hourly schedules don't belong here (this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA - I have one on my shelf and I assure you, you won't find TV schedules there). Neither do I single this station out - this should be put up for a wider discussion and if more people say no, they go. Finally, please sign your posts with "~~~~" in future. Misza13 T C 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble following this discussion because I don't know if the deletionists are following Matt's point or not. At first Misza13, for example in the post above, suggests that (s)he understands it, then claims that the article has an "hourly schedule," which it clearly doesn't, and I don't see any way that this schedule or any other creates that impression. (Ironically, it seems like the only real way to make it clearer is to make it more like an hourly schedule - although we should note that other "schedules" have start and end times for newscasts.) One thing I do think needs to be made clear to Fang Aili and Misza13: While you certainly wouldn't see broadcast schedules, be it just for news or for the entire day, in any other encyclopedia, as Medicinematt originally pointed out, you probably also wouldn't find an article about this station at all - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which allows it to go into much more complex topics and go much further in depth than any encyclopedia you may have on your bookshelf, even one as exhaustive as Brittanica. Those sorts of encyclopediae, I think, tend to be seen more as minimums for Wikipedia, not as maximums.
That said, I fail to see how news broadcast schedules are encyclopedic, because they usually aren't of much interest to people outside of the area that gets that station, who know it backwards and forwards already. At most, it's more trivia than anything else. However, I wonder if this is the wrong station to pick a battle on this issue, as it's a very compelling counterexample (and the language Matt uses tends to undermine his points and keep the "full broadcast schedule" thing going, because he talks about "general television station" and moves back to the station's importance for news in the same clause), and so most of the discussion on this issue needs to be taken up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations, where I'm copying it. Morgan Wick 07:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and we're back. Thoughts, questions, comments? Morgan Wick 07:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of newscasts and a list of syndicated programming and airtimes on TV stations. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News is relevant as it is the only local programming produced by most stations. Just as we have a complete list of network programs on the network articles (see NBC, CBS, and American Broadcasting Company, where pretty charts for the fall lineups have been created), we should have a list of news and local programs for each station. By necessity, that would include the times for these newscasts. Calwatch 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPN or Uniited Paramount Network

A user, Rollosmokes (talk contribs), has been changing in article refrences from UPN to United Paramount Network, their is at least two articles that he has been doing this to on a regular basis, WWOR-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and WPWR-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He put up some kinda argment on his talk paghe, see User_talk:Rollosmokes#United Paramount Network or UPN, but it should be noted that his argument is while in the historic sence correct, currently would be incorect. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CoolKatt number 99999 also has been doing this. It should be UPN. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Rollosmokes stuff

Rollosmokes on WFTS-TV keeps deleting a piece of text that states it is the largest ABC station on the UHF dial saying "it doesn't belong on Wikipedia". What is your opinions on this? --CFIF (talk to me) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly IMHO I'd have to half agree with Rollosmokes. It is totally useless trivia and it sounds odd in there. However it is still a fact and I don't see any solid reason why it must be deleted totally. My suggestion is to add a section for "Trivia" and stick it there where it would fit better. Fife Club 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least one person agrees with me here. Rollosmokes 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, half agrees with you. CFIF (talk to me) 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In My Own Defense

I have written on my Talk Page my personal opinions on this subject, which is this: while UPN stopped using its full name several years ago, the acronym (or initalism, if you prefer) still means something. It has to mean something; it's not like the letters were chosen at random with no meaning to them. Historically, UPN means United Paramount Network.

I believed that this site took historical accuracy seriously. But, those of you who believe (incorrectly, in my opinion) that UPN doesn't stand for the above any longer obviously place little value on what is historically accurate. Instead, you believe what the corporate gatekeepers want you to believe. To me, that is a sad comment to make.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how stubborn or incorrect they may be. I guess we'll all just agree to disagree when it comes to this topic. Rollosmokes 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But NO one uses "United Paramount Network" in reference to UPN. It's just UPN--it no longer stands for something. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not a member of this WikiProject, it's clear that although UPN used to stand for United Paramount Network, it doesn't anymore. When you go to the UPN web-site, it says (c)UPN. And the WP article states "UPN (which originally stood for the United Paramount Network)..." In other words, it's no longer the full name. One can't "disagree" about the name: it's a fact. And 'historic accuracy' has nothing to do with this debate: from what I gather, the edits didn't say "formerly United Paramount Network", they said "United Paramount Network", which is not correct. Having said that, editing the article in this manner is not vandalism (as someone stated above). It's a case of a simple mistake, which is not vandalism.--Firsfron 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, does anyone refer to CBS as the "Columbia Broadcasting System". No. You know why? Because that's not the official name anymore and it was shortened to just "CBS". Same thing with UPN. CFIF (talk to me) 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And nowhere on Wikipedia do we put in infoboxes [[CBS|Columbia Broadcasting System]]. Why should UPN be any different? (Of course, that's about to be a moot point...) Morgan Wick 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founded Dates?

I have a question that can apply to almost any station but I've got one example in mind. How do you determine the Founded date? Sounds easy but do you use the station call letters or the channel number? My example is WAXN-TV. The name of this article and the name of every television station article is by call letters so therefore it is logically an article on WAXN-TV. Although it is mentioned as part of the history of how WAXN was founded, it is not an article on WKAY which was a totally different station which previously used that channel frequency to broadcast from within the church which owned the station. So since the article is on "WAXN-TV" shouldn't the founded date reflect when WAXN-TV took over and went on air? I can see "rebranding" situations as being really the same station but this is at least one example where not one thing was the same. New owners, building, employees, programming, tower... everything changed so it was truely a different station (and it's an article on the staion - not just the call letters). Opinions welcome, please. Fife Club 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though technically, if you want to get all picky about it, not a member of this WikiProject, I'd like to go one step further and suggest that completely unrelated stations that happened to share the same channel number - even with the same call letters - should not be included in articles, with perhaps a link to a separate article on the same station. However, if a station effectively moved channel number that should be reflected, and a history of calls is certainly appropriate, especially within a given market. Of course, some stations are a bit more complicated than I make it (and of course I'm talking to you, WHDH-TV). Morgan Wick 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody address my question about call letters not always being the same station? I mean often it is and I know this is happening a lot now with lots of stations remaining the same station but changing call letters for MyNet and CW - but this is not always the case. Like the example above, sometimes a channel frequency is purchased and an entirely new station takes over, they should no inherit the founded date (and other history) of an unrelated station. Beuller? Beuller? Fife Club 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either no one here knows how to respond to your question, or no one here cares about the answer. I'm not sure why the latter would be the case, but I suspect it would be because this was debated and a long-standing policy put in place, or people are just caught up in inertia. I understand and agree with your point, or at least that it should be debated, but the silence tells me that we're a bit alone in that... Morgan Wick 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have an opinion. (I didn't see this question before or I would have responded sooner.) I had to deal with this question for my Web site, and the answer is usually fairly simple: it's the license that matters. The history of a station begins when the license is issued by the regulatory authority and only ends when that license is terminated. Stations may be sold, but they are still the same license. Programming may be changed, entirely at the licensee's discretion. Likewise branding, network affiliation, and callsign in jurisdictions that use them. The history of the second WHDH-TV didn't start when it became an NBC affiliate, nor when David Mugar sold it to Ed Ansin, nor when WNEV-TV changed its callsign to WHDH-TV. It began on May 22, 1982, when the FCC revoked RKO General's license and issued a new license to New England Television Corporation for a commercial television station on channel 7 in Boston, Massachusetts.
For stations in the United States and for recent history (back to 1978), all the necessary data to figure this out is in the FCC's Consolidated Database System. Every licensed station in the U.S. is assigned a Facility Identification Number (FIN) which remains constant throughout the station's existence. The CDBS application search page will allow you to find the complete history (again, going back to 1978) of ownership and facilities changes (although owing to limitations in the data source most ownership changes do not identify the owners before or after). Most applications filed since 2001 are required to be made in electronic form, which makes it possible to examine sales agreements, detailed descriptions of company ownership and structure, and technical exhibits related to facilities changes. Call sign changes, for reasons known only to the Commission, require a separate search. (Note that the call sign history database, in particular, does not get situations like WHDH-TV right, either; the information necessary to do it right simply did not exist in the old pre-CDBS databases, and a lot of things got mixed up when the FCC made the transition. Since the call sign history is not actually necessary for the FCC's regulatory purposes, little effort was put into straightening it up.) 121a0012 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuMont Affiliation

The Wikipedia page for the DuMont Television Network lists 150 TV stations as DuMont Network affiliates in the 1950s, and cites references for each station. Many WP TV station pages do not make any mention of DuMont affiliation (in fact, many/most state "none" in the "former affiliations" infobox). I think a mention of the DuMont affiliation, a historic footnote, might be in order. A sentence such as "The station was also a Dumont affiliate from ___ to ___." or "The station also cleared programs from the DuMont Network." might be appropriate. The infoboxes could be corrected, too. Further info could be added, too, to expand the stations' history. I did a quick check, and it seems the majority of Wikipedia pages of former DuMont stations do not mention DuMont at all, and many of the articles specifically state (falsely) there were no other affiliations. I want to go ahead and make the changes, but it's a big project, and I figured I'd mention it here first.--Firsfron 02:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to better verify some of those references first, I think. Morgan Wick 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why. Many references come straight from the TV guide listings of that era, a contemporary source. The very first reference link (for WBRC) is a well-respected expert site on early Birmingham Television [1]. The second link (for KTVA) is also local, and doesn't appear to be mistaken, either. The third link, for KPHO, comes straight from the The 1950 Broadcasting Yearbook, another contemp source. Fourth link (KEYT), straight from March 1954 TV Guide. Fifth link, from the Early Television Museum, no slouch in early history of the medium. In other words, it's not all of these many sites that are wrong, it's Wikipedia that needs to be updated. --Firsfron 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said some. Some of the later ones are not as respected. Some of them come from [2], which doesn't come across to me as being too authoritative (you may beg to differ). In Cleveland and Columbus, two stations each are listed as having DuMont affiliations in 1956 and back into the 40s, which doesn't seem right. I know there are probably some other questionable sites as well. At the very least, the hodgepodge of sites used should give us pause. I don't question your aims in general, and you do have a point and I don't mean to question you or try to stop you or anything, though I do point out that you added a number of those stations yourself, many in the last month, so you shouldn't whine too much about DuMont mention being added to station articles right away unless you did it yourself. Morgan Wick 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate feedback, both positive and negative, Morgan, although I do whine an awful lot. The page does use a hodgepodge of sources, true, but sadly, there doesn't seem to be complete, non-fragmentary records of a network out of business for the past 50 years. While one or two reputable sources for the whole list would be preferrable, I haven't found any such reference source. There is a mistake on the Cleveland entry, however. Thanks for the heads-up.--Firsfron 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Television Stations

Should i compose of a list or database or template of television stations with callsigns in Japan (JA-JS) or the Caribbean (VS, Z) (as examples), by city/market/state/province? Raccoon Fox 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category Sort Letter

Hiya! I haven't been around that long, and have recently undertaken my first (informal) project, which I just realized ought to be integrated / cleared with this (formal) project. Stylistically, I believe that anywhere you have a TV station category that is populated by stations all with the same first call letter (The NYC market for example), the stations should sort on the second letter: WABC should appear under "A", etc. Wherever you have K's and W's (and/or C's, X's, etc) in the same category (ABC affiliates for example), the stations should sort under the first letter: WABC would appear under "W". This is primary a stylistic principle to make finding stations within a category page eaiser. So, do y'all agree with this style, or should I cease my edits? And if I should continue (I've done all of NY with sub-markets already), should I consider myself part of this project (and add the appropriate template to my user page)? X Stryker 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is a bad idea, and a bad precedent, i know it was done with radio stations, and i belive that this was a bad idea as well. I fail to see a reason to rop the W or K or C, it will auto alpha by the second latter when the first is the same automaticaly. Also when ppl are looking for articles for stations, and they go into the categories to look, they are going to look to how they identify the station, and i would guess 90% of the time, the a peroson would identify the station, then doing it by callsign, by the full call not part of it, so they would be looking for WABC not ABC, on say in the case of philadelphia would you be looking to KYW or YW. Also they way the articles are catergorised should be the same across the board, other wise you will have useres who are not familar with how it is done, doing the cagetories in markets which use a combo of W, K, C, and X re catting it so that a K and W would be under say r which would not make much sence in my opinion, and while this minght not be tha case for the tv markets, for the larger scope categories, i.e. networks, this would be an issue, only adding to addationly work for editors. The current situation i belive is fine and does not have any issues that could leade to further problems. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one vote against, anyone else? Why shouldn't TV and radio stations use the same standard?X Stryker 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Boothy, awful idea. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Should I start restoring back to first letter sort now, or wait for further commenting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstryker (talk • contribs)
Yes, restore them. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xstryker. If all articles have the same letter to start, then there is no point in not putting in the category link and the TV market template. CoolKatt number 99999 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said made no sense whatsoever. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What coolkatt didnt tell you is that he did the the excat way i said i it would happen (see [3]), he re-did the sorts for all of the cats, so that for example you would have both WCBS and KCBS under C insted of the respective W and K. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, sorting by second letter is much better, because I think sorting by first letter is very redundant. CoolKatt number 99999 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you havnt noticed that it auto sorts by the next letter when the first letter is the same. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't exactly been agreed to, so stop making these changes. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will wait, but still we need more votes CoolKatt number 99999 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another dead-set-against vote. WKMG isn't known as "KMG", but as "WKMG". They're still going to look under "W". It's just as much a part of the callsign as the other 3 letters. Kirjtc2 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will also vote against sorting by the second letter. It's counter-intuitive: the majority of people will obviously be looking for a station under, you know, the actual call-sign.--Firsfron 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, pre-emptively stopping anyone who tries the "auto-sort" argument again: What I think is being debated here is the headings within the category listings. Are there two, "K" and "W", or do we have smaller areas for each letter of the alphabet corresponding to the second letter? Yes, KING-TV sorts before KYW-TV no matter what, and KCBS-TV sorts before both of them, but under the current system they all sort under "K", and there are no more headings beyond that - they go from A to Z by second letter, but it's not easy to find the second letter you want. This system would sort KCBS under "C", KING under "I", and KYW under "Y". Which of course shows why this is probably a bad idea, because while it would be OK for KCBS, "K" is a more likely index for KYW than "Y", and no one would look for KING (which brands by the word its call letters form) under "I".

The real problem here, I think, is the limitations of the software, which only allows articles to be sorted under first-letter column headings, and doesn't allow certain categories that might need it to have headers for the first two letters. Morgan Wick 06:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think I have fixed all the ones I had changed (mostly NY area and bordering states), and now I am going beyond that to other areas where someone else set up 2nd letter sort and changing them back to first letter sort. Currently working on Tuscon, AZ. I hope y'all don't mind if I add this WikiProject to my User page. X Stryker 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'd love it if you would sign up on the main project page. Just click on "project page" at the top of this page, and scroll down to "Participants". (This assumes you have the default skin, but I think it's the same in all skins.) Morgan Wick 20:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And I fixed all the Florida stations that were 2nd letter filed in every category. Next I'm moving on to Kansas and Virginia. X Stryker 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, having a different standard for radio and tv is wrong and confusing. This should really be addressed by both projects agreeing on a single standard. Vegaswikian 18:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the project should consider adopting the perferd standard that the prject has, as the issues are the same. By doing non full call cat sort, you have inconstant cat sorting, this is espically apparent in the border regions, which stations in markets are shared across the border, leads to a probblem in when you in a missippi river area, where it not uncommon for station in a market to have both K and W calls, then their is the problem with ownership cats and so on. SO you make all the exceptions for thses areas that leades ot nothing less then innacurate sorts, and inconsistant sorting. Full call sort is the best way of addressing this issue, as even if thr first letter is the same, it will auto sort on the second, which works just as well i markets where the first letter is the saem as it does in markets where the first letter is different. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like CoolKatt is back to doing this "category sort letter" stuff despite no consensus. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a supprise, he also posted to X Stryker basiclay contridicting the discussion that wa on here, apparently this is in responce to Vegaswikian post above, but who knows. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Vegaswikian, stations should be sorted by second letter otherwise categories are useless. CoolKatt number 99999 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this type of sorting has been far from approved by THIS WikiProject, so I'd suggest you stop. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you stop labeling other people's edits as vandalism, like mine. Either it gets sorted by 2nd letter or no cat at all. CoolKatt number 99999 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh...nope, sorry. I don't believe this WikiProject came to that conclusion and I have no clue how you can unilaterally come to that conclusion. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CFIF, you are going too far in labeling my edits as vandalism, when it is clear you are the real vandal. Now stop or I will have no choice but start an RFC. CoolKatt number 99999 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My edits are constructive to making this encyclopedia better, while yours obviously are going against the policy of this WikiProject. So who's edits are the real vandalism? Not mine. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will cool it! I will stop OK? And while I am at it, I am sorry I made those legal threats, I know I shouldn't have done it, I won't do it again I swear! God, this is driving me insane! CoolKatt number 99999 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999

Apparently this editor liks to add speculative edits, i have caught him most recently on WILF (see: [4]), and have removed the txt regarding, this is not the first time i have come across the and from the user, so useres should be on the look out, not edits like the type that he has added fall under WP:NOT, and should be trwated accordingly.

What about freedom of speech? We should be able to predict the future under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. CoolKatt number 99999 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, read the poilcy, you edits violate, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, noe this is not free speach fourm, this is an Encylopedia, content must be verifiable, speculation is not. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I give up CoolKatt number 99999 06:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not bound by the US Constitution. If there was that First Amedment rule, you wouldn't be trying and failing to protect your talk page from editing and putting crappy and false information all across WP. CFIF (talk to me) 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any need to resort to names like "crappy" or to exaggerate ("false information all across WP"). CoolKatt has contributed some nice work to WP articles. While users here may not agree with his edits, and may even remove them if they are unsourced, there are many good reasons to follow WP:Civil. --Firsfron 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand why he persists to add worthless and cluttering info to WP when others tell him to stop. I had to go through a lot of trouble to revert his "United Paramount Network" additions. Also, what troubles me, is that he does not respond to any of his messages on his talk page, and clears it out only after 10(!) messages which were never resolved. Another thing which disturbs me is him taking up valubale space on WP for these "ultimate group deal" pages which are fantasy, like User:CoolKatt number 99999/WCPO Post-Group Deal, for example. CFIF (talk to me) 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said I give up CoolKatt number 99999 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CFIF, Please stop referring to other editors' work on WP as "Crappy", "Worthless", "lies", "stupid", "dumb", "sloppy", "substandard", "dumbass", "BS", "ridiculous", etc. When you write things like that, in edit summaries, or on talk pages, you are violating WP:Civil. Whether or not you believe the edits to be less than high-quality, or correct, your comments only serve to inflame the situation. You are thus causing problems. I've already asked you once here, only to see you again call another editor's work "worthless" above, where you can clearly see the editor can read what you are saying. Edit summaries are to reflect why you are editing the page or section, not your opinion of other editors' work. A look at your edit summaries list is quite troubling, because it shows a pattern of violating WP policy. Please stop.--Firsfron 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, CK#99999 is very annoying in his relationships with other Wikipedians, true, but the majority of his TV station-related edits are benign copyedits or even actually contribute to the content of the article. Treating him like a vandal, as in the post that started this section, is a mite inappropriate. (I really wish he'd stop replacing "W" with "We're" in call-letter meaning areas when the chances are slim to none that that's what the people who requested those calls meant, though. See WPCW and WPMY.) I think he should be entitled to his fantasies, but he does need to read WP:NOT before creating gazillions of user sub-pages on them. (If I wanted to violate WP:POINT I've got an even more out-there fantasy I could fill reams of ficticious Wikipedia pages on...) Most of all, we need to find a forum where he can speculate and insert personal opinions and analysis to his heart's content, because that might be of use to me as well. (Right now I put a limited amount of speculation on User:Morgan Wick/TV Markets, and even that's going to end before too long.) But let's not target someone who has made many constructive edits.

After all, it could be worse. He could be like BenH. Morgan Wick 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is anyone I do not like being compared to, it is BenH. I even cleaned up some of the articles he created (see WDAM-TV and WSCV). So, please, Firsfron is right, let's stop this. CoolKatt number 99999 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, CoolKat, the edits you made to the articles I was working on, were very much welcome and appreciated. You saved me several hours of work. I don't understand the reason behind the TV subpages, though. What exactly is their purpose?--Firsfron 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't comparing you to him, I was pointing out that you're nowhere near him. But I, too, think this has run its course. Let's move on to more important things. Morgan Wick 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Market Templates

Is it just me or are all these market templates getting out of hand? You've got tiny little low-power stations nobody has ever heard of, digital assignments, stations in neighboring markets (especially along the Canada/US border), colored bars, the works. I say we pare everything down to major network affiliates and full-power independents. There's no reason for them to look like anything more involved then, say, Portland Maine TV. Kirjtc2 04:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree i have been trying to stress the point for a while, though i would not have a problem with lowpower stations being in the template, as long as they are not a repeater of another station.

--Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to pare everything down to major network affiliates, we'd be guilty of violating NPOV. Who decides what's a "major" network? What's the criteria? An encyclopedia should be unbiased, and, whenever possible, include all information. It doesn't matter if no one's ever heard of these little stations: we should report what's there, instead of ignoring something because it's considered "small".--Firsfron 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low power stations are okay, and in some templates, neigboring stations are necessary. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How? There are links to neighboring markets where required (and even where not required). I just removed WNYA and WTIC from the Springfield MA template, for instance. Listing those as Springfield stations is misleading and in some cases, just plain wrong. The rule of thumb anyway on station pages is to include the originating markets only. As for the low-power stations, I fail to see what listing a tiny 5-watt station, that's not on cable and runs preachers all day, right alongside the NBC and CBS affiliates does anything other than add clutter. If it has a network affiliation or is at least somewhat known in the community (i.e. WMLW or WBQC) it's OK, but not the remotely-controlled-from-Idaho ones. Kirjtc2 20:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CFIF. Removing stations because they aren't major affiliates isn't our job: we're here to provide a NPOV encyclopedia. And if someone were to come to Wikipedia specifically to research information on small 5-watt stations, I hope they'd be able to find it. Who are we to decide "what is well-known" and what isn't? Making that guess violates NPOV because it calls for a judgement to be made on size/power/money.--Firsfron 12:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then Template:U.S. broadcast television is POV, because it makes a distinction between major (Big 6, becoming Big 5) and minor (America One, FamilyNet, UATV, i) networks. Actually, I'm serious about that, because My Network TV arguably isn't a major network, if it's a network at all in the traditional sense. Morgan Wick 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to some extent. It's hard to say where MNTV will wind up. I've read reports that claim it's more like a syndicator, while other sources, including the network itself, claim it's really a network. I guess history will prove this, one way or the other. But it's one thing to refer to a network as "major" or "minor" (although I'd prefer "smaller" even in this case), and quite another to start deleting stations as "too minor to list on Wikipedia", which is what someone above was proposing. There is a difference. --Firsfron 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really disagreeing with your main point. I'm still neutral on this issue. Carry on... Morgan Wick 02:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wanting to know how are market templates like Template:Detroit TV are designed??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN MAY 28 2006 9:35 PM EDT
Well if you want my opinion, i would keep it the same but drop all of the stations who are out side of the market, such as the toronto stations. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

This page was getting LONG, so I moved a good part of the content over to an archive. Feel free to pick up the slack, or change how much content should be placed in this archive.. Morgan Wick 01:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciated.--Firsfron 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999, again

Well seems that he is back up to his old way again, speculation [5]. Is new thing is to put out of market stations into templates and then the templates into the ststions, becaused they are recived by cable, so i guess if were going that way, we should put all of the templats on the superstations and the stations done nationaly by the DSS syatems or being able to be recived by C-band. See: {{Wheeling TV}}, {{Clarksburg/Weston TV}}, {{Johnstown/Altoona TV}}, WPHL-TV, KDKA-TV, and others. He will claim WP:Own or something, but maybe he should look at Image:Tvmarkets.gif to see what tv markets are and why the atations are liset as such. If we are going to go with the CoolKatt number 99999 version of things then i mine as well just start tagging the templats for deletion, as then they are being made useless. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One, I decided not to re-add the speculation. Two, satellite TV is not important in templates. Three, if a station is on cable in a market (NOT SATELLITE), it should be listed as such. Four, stop this now. CoolKatt number 99999 04:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing-superstations also not imporatant. CoolKatt number 99999 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if satelight is not then neither is cable, as both provide the same stlye of sevice in different modes. It is alo not uncommon to have stations from out of market ares brough into another area by cable, that does not make them a station in the DMA, their are only a handfull of stations that have exemptions to be in a different assinged markets then they are physicially located in, and the only one i know of is a small station in california, no station that i am aware of is dual-assinged, and if their is one it is not one in the top 50 markets. Also the Sat is decider, as local stations are assinged in sat the same way they are in cable, and it praticlay is possible to get every station in the top 50 everywhere in the US, yet that does not mean that they are assimged to every DMA. Also in Jersey, it is not uncommon to be living in the NYC DMA, ie Mercer County, and recive all of the major stations not only from NYC but Philly to, but that does not mean that the Philly syaytions are are NYC stations. Ok os you didnt re-add it, you added speculation to an article, again. BTW whernt you leaving or something. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the speculation ONCE. I did not add it back. Satellite and cable are 2 different things-satellite providers provide largely the SAME channel line-up across America. Cable providers do NOT. CoolKatt number 99999 05:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ones the session, either way you still did it. And your wrong, since the advent of digital cable the ir are more similarties between the cable and sat in ther brodcasting packages, not in the way that you by them but in their offering of stations, they pervious, and their is a big simlarity in what OTA brodcast stations that can offer. By law dss providers, i cant say fo C-band, are restricted in what stations OTA brodcast sations can provide in the dowlink to you box dependnet on your physicial location in a specific maeket. Their are simial restricitions on cable providers. All of which are under the must-carry regulations, see [6], or the real legal wording [7]. . --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cable signals piped in to other markets? I don't think there's a reason to add those in, except possibly in a handful of exceptions. I guess maybe the WOLF/WILF situation? Hard to say. I really don't want to get into mixing cable and over the air stations, as I think that will just generally add confusion (we already have plenty of cable stations with fake call signs, this just confuses the issue further). Whatever we decide, it has to be a standard, so that all the templates are the same. I'm personally fine with status quo (leave things as they were: without cable stations mixed in).--Firsfron 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WILF isn't an exception, it is located in the SWB market yet is closer to State College then to SWB, i think. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been taken too far, especially with Canadian templates (where US networks are available on cable). {{Toronto TV}} had the Buffalo stations, and {{London TV}} had Detroit. You might as well put WXYZ-TV on {{Fredericton TV}} since it's on cable here. :p I still think the entire market template system needs a total overhaul. Kirjtc2 15:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolkatt is at it again. He continues to place the {{Susquehanna Valley TV}} template within WPHL-TV (along with his token, trivial mention of cable coverage in Harrisburg), thus starting what may be a vicious edit war. All this after he and I were asked nicely to chill out before we run afoul of the 3RR rule.

I agree with those who think out-of-market templates don't belong in television station articles, solely on the fact that the station probably doesn't mention these areas in their IDs. (When have you ever heard WPHL-TV ID itself as "Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Lancaster"? It has never happened.) Coolkatt will have you thinking that they do. I've already joined the complaint list at Requests for comment/CoolKatt number 99999, and I will revert back to a previous edition. Just a warning in advance. Rollosmokes 04:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: CFIF and myself are working on some kind of new way to censor CoolKatt, who had now gotten out of control with his incivility and insistence on reverting articles to versions that feature his poor, amateurish additions and trivial references. We know about Request for comment, but it seems like a very slow process. Already, one administrator (David Levy) has refused to intervene, so it is up to us to build a much stronger case against him. If any of you, the members of this WikiProject, have had any problems with CoolKatt with regards to: 1) his adding stuff in a vandalizing manner; 2) him referring to your work as vandalism; 3) accusing you of being uncivil; or 4) himself being uncivil towards you, then send me an e-mail. Rollosmokes 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say we are going to censor him (that's sort of uncivil). We are, though, are trying to fix this problem. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Market template proposal

Here is my proposal for standardized market template guidelines.

  • Low-power stations All low-power stations should be included, unless they are a translator of a station within that market. If they are a translator of an out-of-market station, they should be included. The translator should then link to the parent station.
  • Out of market stations Out of market stations should be included if

1. They serve parts of the DMA (e.g. WCJB-TV on {{Orlando TV}}, WINK-TV on {{Tampa Bay TV}})

2. They are the area's affiliate of a network, e.g. (WESH on {{Gainesville TV}}, WWL-TV and WKRG-TV on {{Biloxi/Gulfport TV}}).

3. Are based in another DMA but serve another DMA (e.g. WOGX on {{Orlando TV}} [based and serves], and {{Gainesville TV}} [mainly serves]).

  • Links to other markets Unneeded.

--CFIF (talk to me) 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the low-power stations now, but I still have qualms with out-of-market stations. Take the WINK example...someone who might not know better might look at the template and assume that WINK is in Tampa. Yes, some places (Sarasota?) might get both WINK and WTSP, but that's more of a curiosity that can better be described in the station articles. Remember, we're writing for the general public and not necessarily TV nuts.

As for markets without an affiliate of a particular network, the neighboring stations should still be seperated in some way, for the same reason I discussed in the last paragraph. And for pete's sake, no US stations in Canadian templates (and vice versa). Kirjtc2 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No out of market stations.The templates are supposed to be per mekert not per recption or default-afflilates, not all markets have affilates for all networks, and some markets have more then one, out of market station only represent stations that can be recived on the fringe, and adding stations that can be recived will add to templats having numerious stations, and could easily lead to places like NYC having 70 or 80 plus stations as ppl who live in this market can also recive stations in Phila, SWB, Albany, or Hartford-NewHaven, but none of thsoe stations are NYC market stations. If your going to add out of market stations then just deleting the templates as they will be innaccurate. As for border zones, keep the canad stations if they are part of that merket, and really this is only an issue with one market, Detroit-Windsor is a combi, Toronto-Buffalo is not. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some sections of that, I have to disagree. If a notable network affiliate from one market is carried on cable in another market and/or the default affiliate for that said market (like WTAE-TV and WPHL-TV), then it should be listed. CoolKatt number 99999 02:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WPHL has a translator in Harrisburg, so that's OK by me. But WTAE is simply a distant signal in the Wheeling and Morgantown markets. Again, I say that we're writing for someone who has no idea about local TV stations - they don't know WTAE isn't actually in the market. It's misleading to include them there. Kirjtc2 05:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if notable out of market stations are available one way or another, they should be listed. CoolKatt number 99999 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not in the market! End of discussion! Why do you keep on reverting my changes to these misleading versions, and have the total gall to call me a vandal? Kirjtc2 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certain stations serve two markets.....WCJB in Gainesville serves three. Apparently, you don't get it. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of what markets a station serves. It's a case of what market a station is located in. WCJB makes no claim of serving the entirety of the Orlando market. There may be an area served by both WCJB and WFTV for ABC affiliates, but that's not the point of the template. If we take this to the extreme, we could have 100 stations in each one! Kirjtc2 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to keep WP:CIVIL in mind. To touch on Kirjtc's earlier point, as long as certain stations are clearly marked as being out of market (as, for the most part, they are now) or cable-only, I think that particular point can stand. I think it's mostly broader issues that I focus on below that are worrisome for me personally. Morgan Wick 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Kingston, ON/Watertown, NY? User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 23:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CKWS and WWNY don't necessarily compete with each other, and the other stations (except WWTI) aren't even seen in each others' cities on cable. They should be split up. Kirjtc2 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CFIF's case #2 and (to a limited extent) case #3, but not case #1 at all, for reasons already mentioned. The problem is that we really don't know what the templates are supposed to be for, exactly. At its shortest, it's probably, list all the stations in a market. Fine. Is that all the stations available in the market? The whole market, or only parts? Do we include cable? And so on. (CFIF's all-inclusive philosophy smacks of potential cruft to me.)

We can't go strictly by cable, or we get all sorts of out-of-market stations that really don't belong. We can't go by reception either, because then we'd have a whole mess of out of market stations. So I think we should go only with OOM stations that are seen on cable AND are viewable OTA for the majority of the market. Even more radically, I would suggest that we should dump all OOM stations, except those that specifically gear themselves towards that market (like case #3) or provide an affiliation to the market (the latter should be clearly marked as OOM) - AND they then have to meet the same criteria of cable and OTA viewership. Stations that provide an affiliation to a market but only on cable would then be marked only by "For the WB, see WPHL" on the Harrisburg template.

Alternately, we could just go with what stations are available from satellite local-channel services, which is available for most sizeable markets and tends to include independents, religious, and Spanish-language (but rarely low-powers). Or we could go ahead and look for those stations available on cable, but separate them out to another section if they don't meet the OTA requirement. Morgan Wick 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. This link has a list of which stations are carried in each market on Dish Network, we could use that as a base to work from. Kirjtc2 02:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's really several ideas that aren't necessarily the same thing, but that's neither here nor there. Morgan Wick 04:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with CFIF's stand on LP stations, and I will abstain from voting on the rest. Kirjtc's Dish Network link above does show some promise, though.--Firsfron 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for inclusinon on TV market template:

  1. Should only display the stations that are in the respective DMA listed for the template. NOT stations that are in a different DMA but can be recived in the respectiev DMA (see exception in #2 ). NOT stations that are transmitted by either sat or cable that are from another DMA to the respective DMA on the template. Using the link that been proposed, http://ekb.dbstalk.com/19, this would disquailfy stations listed in grey or light blue, unless they meet the cretiera for exception. The only other reason why a station that is out of the DMA is listed on a DMA for another market is if it has a Must-Carry for the out of market DMA.
  2. Include all lowpower stations for a DMA that are not repeaters for a full power station, unless the station idents as the lowpower/repeater or idents the repeater in it's primary ident, see WBMA-LP. If a lowpower station also has a several repeaters, then the callsign that is used as the primary ident should be displayed only. If the repeater is a repeater of a station out of the DMA, then the repeater should be displayed with it redirectiing to the main station article.
  3. Local cable stations: The stations should only refer to local cable/sat stations. Thes stations would include reginal sports networks, regional news networks, sigificant public acess stations, or other stations who is distributed via cable/sat whose focuse is on the specific region/DMA in question. This would NOT include, OTA broadcast stations that are aviavle on cable/sat systems in the DMA, nationaly cable/sat stations.
  4. Local digital only: These stations should only refer to stations that broadcast in the digtal format only, not subs, and are ststions that re part of the DMA in question.
  5. non-comercial Stations: non-comercial stations that are part of a regional netowrk, PBS stations mostly, should refer to the Netowrk Name for the the Article but the individual calls in the templates with the calls redirecting to the network, (note:PBS stations reasticaly are the only "stations" that should really have more then one DMA template on them)

This is all i can think of now. Other wise i am going to start renaming templates as they will be inaccurate. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but a few points:
1. Agree, with the exception, but at least make a note when an OOM station that otherwise does not meet your requirements is the provider of a Big 5 affiliation to a market. Otherwise people will look at the Gainesville market and wonder "Wait a minute, why doesn't this market have an NBC affiliate?"
4. I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
Final point: Please don't start "renaming" templates, that comes across to me as WP:POINT disruption. Morgan Wick 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Out-of-market stations should be included if and only if there is no other affiliate of the same network in the market and it is clearly labelled as being from out-of-town. Cross-border stations (i.e. Seattle stations in {{Van-Vic TV}}) should not qualify as they usually duplicate other templates in their entirety and the stations involved usually make little or no effort to serve their cross-border audience, nor should distant affiliates with no OTA signal in any part of the market and that are only distributed by satellite, i.e. WABC in {{QHK TV}}. I would also suggest that if these stations are included, they be on a seperate line from the in-market stations. Kirjtc2 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers:
1 Because not all markets have affilates with all networks. And the only reason why the are able to watch them, is either their cable provider has signed a contract with that station to provide it's customers with an network affilate, or they are picking up a national feed from the network. Even via sat, if you in an area that does not have all the affilates, you either have the cloest affilate, by contract, a network feed, or you'll get it from one of the large markets like LA, NYC or Chi. But in normal television operations, OTA, if ou live in one of the control cities for the market, your not, normaly (with the execption of fringe stations), are not going to recive recption form that affilate. The plain and simple thing is that not all markets have all affilates, and some of the larger ones might have more then one. The onl reason why an out of maret station should be listed is if it has been grated must-carry rights for the market, which should be listed with the fcc, otherwise, it's dependent on each cable opertor in a designated market. Also what are you going to list them as, local cable, cant do that as the are not local nor are they cable stations, also if your going to classify an out of market station as a local cable why not put CNN their either, or TBS, or WGN, the would be just as local as the out of market station would be. Stations that can be recived?, that wolnt work either, as ou have an station that bordcast a siginal that can be possibly recived in that dma placed in the template, cable or not, thus leading to an inifante and subjective amout of stations being listed in the templates, espicall in the markets that have a large physical size, or markets that are surrounded by numerious other markets. Repeat again, not all markets/DMA have affilates with all of the netowrks.
As for 4, their are markets that have stations that beorcast in the digitl format only, i.e WNVT.
As for the renanme, i find the currnt inncuate edits to be more distruptive, and so i have no probley with reworiding templates that i come acorss that are not accurate. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmm.....that made no sense....the spelling was sort of off. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sort of off" meaning "making me wonder if English is your first language". 1: My point was not that I would ask the question, but that others would, and those others are not likely to know everything you gave in that long spiel. I would simply note, using my earlier example, in a line after the local Gainesville stations, "(Note: No local NBC affiliate. NBC is seen on cable only from Orlando station WESH.)" No need for a separate section; we don't even have to include the template on the page for WESH. On 4, you didn't really answer my question, because I had no clue what you were proposing (let's forget the fact that so far as I can tell you were the first one to bring up these digital stations). Personally, I think digital-only stations should be treated under the same criteria as analog stations, and possibly shouldn't even be given their own section of the template, but integrated with the rest, with a small "digital only" indicator - especially with the upcoming transition to all-digital a few years away. On renaming: If you are reverting edits other people are making to further their views on what the templates should be like, let's all remember that this is an honest content dispute, and there is no reason to violate 3RR and it's silly to decide to protect all the market templates so let's not have to, OK? On the other hand, if you're changing existing "inncuate" (sic) information, you're no better than the people you're criticising. Morgan Wick 01:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well as usually this project has shown to be nothing more then a joke, again, as useres seem more conserned with spelling them tring to make accurate templates. Also if you going to list the calbe stations then mine as well list all of the finge statiopns that are also in the market, as that is what you are doing anyway, basiclay it the lets list how many stations we can put into a template, with no r3egard of the market, bscause a cable cimpany carries it. It a simple concept people, NOT ALL MARKETS HAVE AFFILATES FOR THE NETWORKS, so bsiclay on the templates that i monitor i am pulling form the prject, and put them in the correct, that being stations based oon their DMA. And will revert on cite based upon inaccurate information . --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You completely missed my point, on both counts. It's one thing to not care about spelling, quite another to misspell words so much that what you say becomes nearly incomprehensible. And my point has been and continues to be that "NOT ALL MARKETS HAVE AFFILATES FOR THE NETWORKS" is not a fact the average Wikipedia user, or even random Joe trying to research small market stations, is likely to know or even realize. To include the specific OOM stations I want to keep is misleading, but to omit them will be confusing. I think I've proposed a suitable compromise. Morgan Wick 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said, more intretsed in spelling then in the templates. Adding non DMA stations in innacurate, that is all that needs to be said, inaccurate. If you going to add them, then why not add evey station that can normaly be recived ota in the market, that are not market stations, because if you going to add becuas a cable company in a market has signed an out of market station to provide content for a netowrk that is not in the DMA, you mine as well do the same for the finge reception, as it not less then the same thing. No out of market. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you on one thing. This project is a joke. No one pays any attention to WP:CIVIL (not that you violated it in this post) and I think I'm the most sane one here. If we had to solve a dispute involving a single letter we wouldn't be able to without degenerating into flamewars, revert wars, accusations made on talk pages, requests for administrators to intervene, general back and forth insults, nothing getting decided whatsoever, and so on, ad infinitum... Morgan Wick 07:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's a joke because the participatns are less intrested in promoting accuracy that would be useful for an encylopedia, but rather try to make things more cruftish, i must have mistaken this site for an encylopedia ratther then a blog. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I do agree with Morgan's compromise, as long as the out-of-market stations are CLEARLY noted as being so. There is still no reason to include more than one affiliate of the same network in a template, however, unless it's a case like WKYT/WYMT or WFTS/WWSB where there are two affiliates physically in one DMA. Otherwise it's just cruft. Kirjtc2 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have removed WTAE from the Wheeling and Clarksburg-Weston templates but added a note about ABC (and Fox in Wheeling) to the bottom. I hope we can all agree on this. Kirjtc2 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CoolKatt has changed that to another version. Kirjtc's version is here. Looks OK, but I'm iffy on the bold. Morgan Wick 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't mean for it to be bold - it's just a coding error. Kirjtc2 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or DID you mean for it to be bold? oh, I pun, I pun! Morgan Wick 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just recently caught Boothy443 vandalizing {{Johnstown/Altoona TV}}. He needs to learn that notable stations need to be listed in the templates. CoolKatt number 99999 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why i am putting the templat as being correct, it no longer displayed the stations in that marktet, btw why dont you tell everone about the addational speculation that you added, [8], but hae i would not expecat anthing less then innacurate templates and speculative edits. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's really trivia, not speculation, unless you think Time Warner is going to go on a station-buying spree in the very near future, which I consider unlikely. And I'm getting fed up with everyone in this whole discussion. The fate of Wikipedia does not hinge on this issue, people. Morgan Wick 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with that. CoolKatt number 99999 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, check this stuff out Coolkatt: there is nothing notable about placing out-of-market stations in any templates, and vice-versa. That seems to be the consensus here, and I agree with it. Please stop vandalizing articles with your useless trivia and other junk or YOU WILL BE REPORTED (again). Rollosmokes 05:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That can be considered a threat. You now have been warned, Rollosmokes. CoolKatt number 99999 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People, people, please! WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, everyone! I doubt there's any real "consensus" about placing OOM stations in templates; CFIF and CoolKatt want to put them in, I want to put them in if they provide an affiliation to a market without one (which is more conservative a stand than I started out with, I believe), and Kirjtc, Boothy, and you oppose their inclusion. That's roughly down the middle. Please don't further your POV with changes to the templates while debate is still ongoing, and don't dismiss such POV changes or reverts thereof as "vandalism". (Boothy, edit summaries like "edit to reflect that this template no longer reflects stations that are assinged to this DMA" suggest the edits they describe violate WP:POINT. Please hold off on such loaded edits until discussion is finished. And I'm watching everyone for 3RR violations.) Morgan Wick 06:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This project has way too little civility, and can we please stop referring to other editor's work as "vandalism"? --Firsfron 08:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about stations that cover more than one market or region -- not just stations like KCWX in Austin and San Antonio, but statewide/provincewide networks, than have transmitters statewide? Recently, on the Télé-Québec page, Kirjtc2 removed all templates, except for the Montreal one, where it originates, citing that only the template for the station's home market should be included. What about other educational / PBS networks, like OETA, UNC-TV and, the granddaddy of them all, KET? Should they be limited only to Oklahoma City, Raleigh and Lexington, respectively? --azumanga1

It was actually User:Bearcat that originally suggested only the originating market's template be included for Canadian stations, because for provincewide stations like CHCH half the articles were just templates. (Canada is different from the US with regards to this...in the US, it's only really a problem with PBS stations since most commercial networks have their own affiliates in each market instead of just rebroadcasting the big city's station across the state.) I should also say that I wasn't sure exactly how to handle Tele-Quebec. This is purely anecdotal, but come to think of it, back when my cable company carried Tele-Quebec they listed it as "CIVK Quebec City", which may mean it could also be considered as a "flagship" so to speak, perhaps warranting inclusion of the Quebec City template. 10 templates might be too many in my opinion, but one may be too few. Add them back if you want. I don't have an opinion either way with the PBS stations. Kirjtc2 00:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we used to have province-by-province market templates... Morgan Wick 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current usage for multi stations networks, like UNC-TV, MPT, NJN should continue as is (this moslty effect PBS affilates), which is that the network should be named for the network name with the calls redirecting to the article (unless the call has some siginifant history outside of it's current usage), the templates for the areas in which the calls are for the netowrk are for should be all added to the netowrk article. If the netowrk primarly goes by it's calls, ie WHYY-TV, [[WETA-TV], WQED, then the call should be used for the article name and that any other stations that rebrodcast the station should redirect to the main article, templat usage same with other PBS stations. So in other words, keep the usage as it is, or should be used.
As for KCWX that station would quailfy for inclusion in both templates based upon this rule, and this is the only exception that i see making for out of market stations.
A. If a station officaly idents it self to another market, must be used in the legal id for the station.
B. If the ownership/operator of the station includes it in another market then it is located.
C. If the affilated netowrk for the station includes it as serving more then one market.
D. If the station has been granted must-carry status form the FCC for a market outside of it's home market.
KCWX, would quaily, as it's legal ident, from the article is for both areas, and UPN, considers it to be the affilate for both markets [9], Belo, the operator of the station however does not, [10], listing only as San Antonio, but i would go with the netowrk affilation over the corp. SO anyway it would work. Another station in question WTAE would not quailfy, as it does not ident outside of Pittsburgh, Hurst-Arg, it's owner considers it's a pittsburgh station [11], and it's netowrk affilation ABC, only consideres it the affilate for pittburgh only and no other markets, affilate list Ohio affilate list, WV affilate list, WTAE does not serve any markets in Ohio or West Virginia, and WTAE does not have must-cary status for markets outside of it home, so their for WTAE should only be listed on the Pisttburgh templat only. Being that this is not TV guide, stations should not be listed becuas they are on cable in an out of market, as stated above not all markets have afflites woth all netowrks, and it is not uncommon for Cable operators in small markets to contratc service with out of marrket stations to provide network content, that does not make these stations part of that market, nor does it warrent their inclusion over fringe station recption. Also this only seems to be inclused in the small markets, so what about the major east coast markets, that where even on cable it is not uncommon to recive stations from both markets incuuding the major affilates, this has been the case in NYC/PHL, espically around trenton, and in BAL/WAS around Annapolis. So if were are going to the cable inclusion for one, then it should be doen for all. And what about the stations that are full power in markets that are not carried by cable throughot the market, WMGM-TV is a full power NBC affilate in the Philadelphia market, the philadelphia market also has WCAU as an NBC affilate, yet when i lived in phill i never recived WMGM. Also putting in stations as serving as "affilates" or stations in the are on cable in an area is misleading, as it seems as if the station is carried by all the cable providers in a given area, which i seriously doubt. The templats should saty the way they were intrnted, and that is to show the stations that are assinged to a given market, not what you can watch, else then is TV guide. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. While this may not be TV Guide, some stations (like WTAE) -- not all -- need to be listed if they serve an area one way or another. So Boothy443, stop removing factual info, or just don't edit here at all. CoolKatt number 99999 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Boston and New Hampshire? Most of New Hampshire is within the Boston market, and all the major stations in that state are in the Boston market? Since, under the current proposal, we can no longer link the New Hampshire template to the Boston template, would it make more sense to merge the two together into a single template? azumanga1

We haven't had any talk on this in a few days, so I'm wondering if the apparent current consensus (treat LP/CAs equally with full power stations, list OOM stations seperately from in-market ones [if at all]) should be made the standard. Kirjtc2 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. AlexDW 12:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed too, but we need to take care of User:Boothy443 (who I just noticed was blocked) and prevent him from reverting any edits made to these templates regarding OOM stations. CoolKatt number 99999 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read in Kirjtc's remark, there's no real consensus to include OOM stations at all, just that, if they are included, they should be listed separately. Later today I'll go violation-hunting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Wick (talk • contribs)

Network Templates

In recent days, I have noticed WIKISCRIPPS 07 inserting templates for network affiliates in Michigan. For an example, see the bottom of WPBN-TV's page, where he has one for NBC's Michigan stations installed. Personally, I think it's unnecessary. Comment? azumanga1

I actually like them....they seem useful. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like these ones too. The question is what to do with states that only have 1-2 markets...the templates would look fairly awkward then. Kirjtc2 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to help some. CoolKatt number 99999 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have some works in progress here: User:CFIF/ABCFlorida

User:CFIF/CBSFlorida

User:CFIF/NBCFlorida

User:CFIF/FoxFlorida

--CFIF (talk to me) 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big 4 stations in Florida, I see. I will work on some for Ohio. CoolKatt number 99999 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The largest TV market in Florida is Tampa Bay, so, in theory, WFTS (ABC), WTSP (CBS), WFLA (NBC), and WTVT (Fox) would be the Florida "flagship" stations for those networks in the case of feeding live state events. CoolKatt number 99999 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, California has a lot, I mean A LOT of stations. I will need lots of help on the California templates. CoolKatt number 99999 04:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the progress (discounting "other" stations): Michigan, Ohio, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia -- all done. I am now moving on to Texas. CoolKatt number 99999 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My KXRM2 page will be used to create templates CBS Arizona, NBC Arizona, ABC Arizona, Fox Arizona, CW Arizona, MyTV Arizona, a special template Spanish Arizona, and Other Arizona.

The WB and UPN templates will be at CW/MyTV. The affiliations are all sealed up here in AZ. -Tracker 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To see all the templates, click here: Category:Intrastate Broadcast Templates. CoolKatt number 99999 03:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Michigan, Ohio, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, Alabama -- all done. CoolKatt number 99999 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talent

I have qualms with adding talent (current, notable, or not) on a station's page. For past talent -- who are we to say who's "notable" and who isn't? For current talent -- that means somebody has to go through and change an article EVERY TIME somebody on-air gets hired / gets fired / leaves. Is that REALLY necessary? Amnewsboy 07:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of these also include links to their bio pages, and I even found one that had their e-mail addresses. Personally, we could do without the talent lists on the Wiki -- if they wanted to know who's doing the news, they could go to the site. (A list of past talent and alumnni is okay, it's the current talent, especially at smaller-market stations, that tend to cause problems.) azumanga1

Editing and "Vandalism"

Hi guys, I just want to caution you all to please do not refer to your fellow editors' work as "vandalism", even if you don't agree with it. We're all aware of what vandalism is and is not, and even if something that someone writes is incorrect, could be phrased better, is speculation, or even violates some of the decisions made here, when you revert it, you're NOT reverting vandalism. The past few weeks, I've caught at least five of the editors here reverting "vandalism", and now that we've had several people here ask everyone nicely if we could please stop with personal attacks and talk of "vandalism", we still have a few editors who don't think it applies to them. Now I'm leaving mesages for users, and all I'm getting in response is "Well, he did this..." or "why are you backing him up, when...", etc. We can be better than this, guys. You don't want to get a three-day block like one editor just did, do you? Come on, guys. Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration. Also, please don't bother to respond to this with, "Well, he did this"-type replies. Thanks in advance,--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VAND and be sure you know what vandalism is not. "NPOV violations", "bold edits", "mistakes", "bullying or stubbornness", "harassing or making personal attacks" (all verbatim quotes from section headers) are, unpleasant as they may be, NOT vandalism. Morgan Wick 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including the link, Morgan. I should have done so.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: CoolKatt number 99999

CFIF and myself are working on some kind of new way to censor CoolKatt, who had now gotten out of control with his incivility and insistence on reverting articles to versions that feature his poor, amateurish additions and trivial references. We know about Request for comment, but it seems like a very slow process. Already, one administrator (David Levy) has refused to intervene, so it is up to us to build a much stronger case against him. If any of you, the members of this WikiProject, have had any problems with CoolKatt with regards to: 1) his adding stuff in a vandalizing manner; 2) him referring to your work as vandalism; 3) accusing you of being uncivil; or 4) himself being uncivil towards you, then send either of us an e-mail. Be sure to include your Wikipedia screenname when replying. Rollosmokes 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. By your own edit history, you're guilty of 2), 3), and 4) yourself, Rollosmokes.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I wouldn't say we are going to censor him (that's sort of uncivil). We are, though, are trying to fix this problem. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is getting really ridiculous, and be sure to read WP:VAND to see what vandalism is not: for example, my revisions. Just leave me alone, and everything will be just perfect. CoolKatt number 99999 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh...leaving you alone isn't gonna help, you're just going to upset people even more. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything will be just perfect"? Do you have some grander plan you're not divulging, or are you trying to mold Wikipedia in your image? Because a lot of people don't think it's "perfect". We need serious discussion of these issues. By the way, I'm telling everyone to be aware of what vandalism is not, and that includes you. What you're doing, I agree, is not vandalism. But neither is what anyone else is doing. Morgan Wick 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that under your WP CoolKatt, legal threats would be allowed, since it's okay apparently for you to make them and go unpunished anyway. He just wants everybody to throw a pity party for him. --CFIF (talk to me) 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CoolKatt has filed a pretty-much one-sided Request for Comment against me. I'm shaking in my boots right now thinking about it!! Rollosmokes 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not a member of this group (for my own personal reasons), I'd like to put this out to those of you who are: though he has made some decent contributions, CoolKatt's overall behavior continues to be counter-productive to the Wikipedia community at large, With arbitration pending, and a permanent block possibly subsequent, I propose that he should be removed from participating in this Wikiproject until further notice. Comments? Rollosmokes 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does being a participant in the Wikiproject even mean, anyway? People can implement the guidelines on here with or without being a member (see: you). Morgan Wick 04:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significantly Viewed Stations - The Solution to the OOM Problem?

The FCC's Media Bureau web page has several pieces of information relating to cable and satellite rebroadcasters, including a list of significantly viewed stations[12]in each county. These are lists of the stations that get noticable ratings in each county (over 3%, I believe). The lists include in-market and out-of-market stations. If you match counties to markets, and filter out the in-market stations, you can discover which out-of-market stations the FCC believes to be serving parts of that market.

It is important to note that the SV list refers to over the air reception, and does not include cable viewers. It is important for cable, however, as the SV list shows which stations a cable operator can import without worrying about SyndEx, network exclusivity, etc., so it is a fairly good indicator of which stations might have cable carriage in a market. The SV list normally only concerns itself with full-service (or "must carry") stations, as low-power stations are governed by slightly different rules.

I hope this information help to shed light on the out-of-market situation. I am not entirely sure if it is necessary to include OOM stations in the market templates, but if we do, this is probably where we should start. AlexDW 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the solution...let's see what happens next. However, I propose that the market templates be protected from editing until a majority consensus is reached regarding this issue. That's my two cents -- and I'm not even part of this project yet. Rollosmokes 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds promising. I agree, protection doesn't seem to be far off at the moment. Morgan Wick 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the entry for WPHL-TV needs protection as well. There is a revert war going on over that article right now, due to this issue. AlexDW 12:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to this particular discussion, but it's regarding the the Rockford, Illinois TV template I initially created sometime ago. When I intitally did this, I added the major over-the-air stations (Channels 13, 17, 23, 39 and 51), and I while can certainly appreciate the efforts and contributions by my fellow Wikipedians regarding the template, I took off the addition of PBS stations WTTW (Chicago) and WHA (Madison) sometime ago, simply because their over-the-air coverage areas doesn't effectively cover the immediate Rockford area, although both stations are available on cable, and the Rockford area doesn't (unfortunately) have a PBS station of its own. I'm seriously considering removing WTTW and WHA from the Rockford TV template for those reasons. The seven stations from Rockford (the five mentioned above and the digital subchannels of 13 and 17) should be the only ones included. Having grown up in Rockford (and currently living in the Los Angeles area), I can tell you that that both the Madison and Rockford markets do share a lot of overlapping coverage areas, but they're totally seperate television markets. WHA itself is sorta of a superstation, because it's the flagship of Wisconsin Public Television, and it's only carried in the Milwaukee market (via cable) because Milwaukee's PBS outlets aren't members of WPT.--ShawnHill 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azteca America DF

We sure have a lot of K*DF stations out there: they have the same programming, Azteca America. I know of 5 so far: KADF-LP (I created a new article), KPDF-CA and KUDF-LP (I created THEIR articles), KHDF-TV (that's next) and KODF-LP. Would they be merged? KPDF and KUDF are a cluster, KADF is owned by some local guy, and KODF by Mako Communications.

Note: If not, would just KPDF-CA and KUDF-LP be merged? They are the same in all aspects except DMA, calls and channel number. -Tracker 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please consider adding to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Thanks! Walkerma 04:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BenH - Blocked

BenH (talk · contribs) has been making many edits on tv stations and shows that make no sense. Not to mention that he is stubbing articles that aren't even stub-sized and is ignoring requests by others to stop doing that and place articles in categories where these articles already exist. This reminds me a lot of Ronald20 (talk · contribs), who did similar stubbings to tv stations without listening to others. Something must be done. ErikNY 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had it with this tool, so I complained at the Admins noticeboard and he's blocked for 24 hours to get him to talk. Hallelujah! --CFIF (talk to me) 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was finally blocked -- but only for 24 hours. We need to take more steps into preventing future "attacks" from BenH. CoolKatt number 99999 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO! Can you not see my above post? --CFIF (talk to me) 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:CoolKatt number 99999#Stopping BenH read this please CoolKatt number 99999 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we got ourselves a BenH-sympathizer: [13]. CoolKatt number 99999 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we file an RfC against BenH? CoolKatt number 99999 05:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Sue Anne were in this Wikiproject, and constantly had to revert his edits, maybe she'd see what a problem BenH is. I have had enough of Ben's lack of spelling and his farce contributions. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently...the admins don't find BenH a problem

Help me get this guy banned so we can help make articles better instead of having to constantly revert his poor edits. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC in progress

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH. Let's hope the admins ban him! --CFIF (talk to me) 01:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to voice my opinion on BenH within the RfC, but where do I do it? CoolKatt number 99999 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it by your signature on the "users certifying....." part --CFIF (talk to me) 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, so never mind CoolKatt number 99999 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of television stations

While not all are organized this way, for some US states and Canadian provinces the "Television stations in X" categories are further subcategorized by market or region, with TV stations consequently appearing in the dedicated market category instead of the main state or province category. However, there seems to be a reversion war brewing on some of the new "network affiliates in X" templates as to whether those templates should includeonly or noinclude the "Television stations in X" parent category from the station articles. See {{CBC Ontario}} for an example.

So, my question: has there been any kind of consensus here to permit duplicate categorization (state/province and individual market) in cases where a state or province category is subdivided by market? If there has been, then I'd like to see it and if there hasn't been, then it's against Wikipedia's policy on duplicate categorization to include that parent category on the templates. Bearcat 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of US Television Stations

I have created two new lists of television stations in the US on my user page: User:Alexdw/Full and User:Alexdw/ClassA. They contain only licensed analog television stations in the US; they don't list stations with only a CP or STA. I might do a list of low-power/translator stations if time allows. These lists were generated directly from FCC CDBS data, and have been sorted by state and channel number. They do duplicate some of the information contained in other lists, somewhat... but they are up-to-date, and fairly clean. Some of the redlinks on these lists could probably be fixed with simple redirects. Feel free to update/edit these as necessary, I hope they help. -- AlexDW 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made further progress, and have added a list of primary television stations by callsign (User:Alexdw/StationCounting), and a list of (current) redlinks in this list (User:Alexdw/Missing). By primary television stations I mean full-service or Class-A... these lists do not include secondary, or non-protected low-power/translator stations. Out of 2,241 primary television stations in the United States, we currently have articles/redirects for 1,671 of them, and are still missing 570, giving the Project 74.5% coverage of US primary television stations, 79.8% in the East and 68.6% in the west. Note: this doesn't count redirects pointing to the wrong article, or stations needing infoboxes... it just means that something is at the other end of the link. -- AlexDW 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've finally put up a list of low-power stations, and I have updated User:Alexdw/StationCounting page to serve as a general Project Progress page. --AlexDW 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If these ever make it to an article, the place names will have to be wikilinked and be uncapitalized (obviously capital letters where needed). --CFIF (talk to me) 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming Alex meant for these to be project pages, not articles. The purpose is to show the members of the project what's missing, so new pages can easily be added, without searching for what you're looking for. The progress bars tell how much of the article creation project is left. This is a common practice among WikiProjects: these pages aren't seen by the "public". So there's no need for wikilinking place names or uncapitalizing anything.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the general idea. I had intended them to be used as a reference, both to document the progress of our project, and to update the state/national lists with. The lists were generated semi-automatically from the CDBS, which is why the cities are capitalized. I will have to write some more scripts to de-capitalize and wikify the city names... I refuse to do them all by hand. There were nearly 9000 licensed analog stations at last count, most of them low-power translators in the Great Plains, so it would be a non-trivial task.
If I could mix W9WI's "raw" database with the FCC CDBS, I could probably automatically produce the state lists fairly quickly. I would have to have a database matching cities to DMA's, but that could be done on a state-by-state basis. I'll look into it... later. :-) I hope that the information that I have provided is at least useful to the project. Happy editing, everyone... it's time for me to get some sleep. --AlexDW 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going in-depth

I notice a lot of well-developed TV station articles which don't go in-depth into their news operations. Yet some do. Compare the articles of NBC-owned stations WCAU and WVIT: see a difference? WCAU's aritcle goes well in-depth into the station's news operation, but WVIT's does not. We should make this another priority of this WikiProject, don't you think so? CoolKatt number 99999 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying we should expand stubby articles? Sounds good to me. Maybe you could add some infoboxes to articles while you're putting in your state templates and channel X categories... --AlexDW 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSTP-TV

I believe the list of low-power transmitters is wrong on KSTP-TV, due to KSAX and KRWF being in closer proximity to the area and both being owned by the same company. --Ksax 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the lists for both KSTP-TV and KSAX/KRWF with information from w9wi.com. This should more correctly reflect which translators repeat which stations. --AlexDW 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another BenH? (not a sockpuppet)

Donotsayno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making some reeeaaly poor and ridiculous additions to TV pages. I'm sort of on Wikibreak, but I'm thinkin' we have our next BenH-type editor here. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this guy a couple times, and even though he has uploaded some images, he's also made quite a few nonsensical edits. I see he also has a tendency to fill blank spaces in infoboxes with "none", which is a big pet peeve of mine. Right now, assume good faith. —Whomp [T] [C] 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isuer is ridiculous [14]. "Now that the cats out of the bag". --CFIF (talk to me) 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. My. Goodness. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's baaaack! [15] Kirjtc2 13:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it with this crap. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Opinions

TrackerTV has created a barnstar proposal relating to Broadcasting. I would really appreciate it if interested people could give an opinion here.--Ed 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This barnstar may be used in assoiation with your Wikiproject--Ed 21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

-Just wanted to let everyone know I changed the Project Box at the top of the main page. I was marked with a small "p" when it shoudl've been an uppercase, in order to correctly display the box on a user page.

--Rick Abbott 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UPN/WB/CW/My transition

We're coming up on a month away from the shutdown of UPN and the WB, and the formation of the CW and My Network TV. When that happens, there will be a LOT to do.

Articles will need to be updated, with infoboxes reflecting new affiliations. Market boxes will need to be updated with new affiliations as well. Company boxes will need to be reformatted. NETWORK affiliates in STATE boxes will need to be completely overhauled, with new ones created for the two new networks. Lists of television stations will need to be updated. Stations that are waiting for the last minute to change branding will need to see those updated and logos flipped into the infobox.

We will need to do all of those things for around 200 media markets... simultaneously.

To make matters worse, we'll need to do this twice: once on September 5, when My Network TV starts, and once over the period of September 18-20, during which time CW affiliates will be showing reruns in anticipation of the actual launch of the network. (That is, unless we decide to do it differently.) Also, by the time MNT starts we'll need to make sure we know how each station is handling their "UPN/WB or My" dilemma. Thanks to a very helpful B&C article, we now know that Fox-owned stations will drop UPN, and other stations will decide for themselves whether to drop UPN/WB or move them to late night. Shortly, I'll post a copy of the List of My Network TV affiliates with modified columns; you will be able to contribute if you know what a station is doing. By September 1, all stations should have schedules for the 5th, so I'll go to station web sites and verify everything. (ETA: It's now here: /MyNet Stations.)

For the other tasks? WP:AWB or a bot will help with some of them... but others will likely need more of a human touch. (Yes, I know AWB is not a bot.)

Here's how I see everything:

  • Updating articles: Updating infoboxes would be a good job for AWB or a bot. However, one reason why I want a human touch is because I think this is a good opportunity for some cleanup. Namely, I want to tighten a lot of the stuff relating to the Race to Affiliate, especially removing speculation that no longer even matters. (Interesting, verifiable info, that remains a historical topic, may remain.)
  • Market boxes: Another job for AWB or a bot. The formatting for these has become very standardized. Just set a bot to "remove UPN or WB" and "de-italicize CW or MNTV" (or variations thereof) and "remove "starting 9/06"" and voila, instant updating. The first, MyNet-related run through, would be a better job for AWB than a bot, due to the need to verify what each station is doing with their old affiliation, as well as the need to remove "starting 9/06" for MyNet but not the CW.
  • Company boxes: This is something that, personally, I want to do myself, without automated help. (Not as though automated help would help much, given the need to shake up stations between rows and change names, especially for CBS, Fox, and Tribune.) Call me crazy, but there's a part of me that likes the thrill of intricately picking through and figuring out which stations will go where. Most definitely, I am definitely going to merge the UPN/Independent sections of the FTS box and re-name it MyNet O&Os late in the night of the 4th. (That would be during the 11pm hour in the West, or 2am in the East, so it would mos' def' be OK at that time.) If I do all the company boxes, I plan to go down B&C's list of top 25 station groups, starting with CBS and working my way down to Gray and Nexstar. If there are any other companies not on that list that have company boxes, let me know. I would also probably want to perform this all at once, not once at MyNet and once at CW, but that brings up the issue of when to do it, as well as how to deal with the interregnum period. One idea would be to lump all the CW stations together at MyNet launch, but subdivide them into each network, and keep the stations becoming independent into another category. ("When" is a problem in general; though we theoretically have two or three days at the CW changeover, four or five for the UPN stations, the changing branding will command attention that will need to be covered at once. My Network requires a CRUSHING amount of work with, really, only one day to do it, if we hold ourselves to not doing anything before or after the network officially launches. Therefore, we may want to spread out the work, at least on that end, a little.)
  • NETWORK affiliates in STATE: I don't much care for these boxes, myself. They seem vaguely crufty and unnecessary. But, we have them, although I'm not touching them. They are not really built to be handled by a bot, considering we'll probably want to create new ones. Most of the original ones were made (and placed) by CoolKatt number 99999, who will probably still be banned while his ArbCom case is ongoing. I'll need a volunteer to sort out the stations in each state and create the templates. I suspect User:TrackerTV and User:CFIF would be the leading candidates. These can actually be made ahead of time, although make them right now and they could be deleted for being on no articles. AWB, or maybe a bot, can handle the actual placements.
  • Lists of television stations: A good job for AWB. We just need someone to run it. On second thought, there aren't that many of these, so AWB won't be much help. But we do need a volunteer, as I don't think a bot would be useful or practical.
  • Changes of branding: Due to differing conventions and different branding launch dates, a bot, and maybe even AWB, just won't cut it. Not to mention we might still not have logos available for some stations until just about at the changeover. When new sites launch, worse versions of logos (like any shown only on-air - yes, I'm talking about you, WPIX) and logos using preliminary brandings that don't actually get used, or versions of logos that get changed before going on air, can be replaced with website versions. If we recovered a logo from pre-launch, we'll probably also have a website version, and will need to determine a) which is better and b) which is more likely to be fair use per WP:LOGO.

In addition, User:Morgan Wick/2006 Network Shift can be used as a resource, if we determine we might want that, especially with regard to things that cover both CW and MyNet. For example, I can use it to mark if we have a new logo, which will flag which articles need to have logos tracked down when the change comes. That page can be used for other purposes as well - we just need to determine which ones we would need it for. (I do not mean to imply that my Network Shift page WILL be used for whether we have a logo, just that it COULD, if we wanted it to.)

I can handle some tasks at the MyNet changeover, but the CW changeover coincides with when I'll be moving into a college dorm (which will entail figuring out how I'll get along with a roommate) and starting classes at Seattle U, so I don't know how much time I'll have for these sort of moves, considering I don't even know how much access to my computer I'll have. I can probably take care of anything that's not finished by the time the CW "officially" starts on the 20th, even though that's the first day of classes...

Right now, so we avoid having to do so at the last minute, I want to have everyone figure out what they're doing and how, and when, they're doing it. Let's make sure we're all on the same page and all ready to move come September. Morgan Wick 23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a good list, Morgan. Thanks for compiling it. All of these things are easily done by AWB or using the 'What link here' tool. AWB can do this list in a few hours (probably less), if the user controlling it is experienced with the AWB tools. Since I've logged a lot of hours (OK, days) on AWB, I'll volunteer, although I don't know what my schedule will be like at the two launch dates.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance about all of this Morgan...I looked at the MyNet list you made and it's a great format. I've just spit out another email to WACY to see what they're doing, and hopefully I can get a response out to them about UPN post-September 5th (right now Fridays are the only night with all-UPN in primetime), though waiting for schedules may be the only way to find out what most stations are doing (I'm trying to get everything covered for my local area in WI). If we get email responses about schedules back, should we post them in the talk page of the individual station, that way all tracks are covered as far as confirmation?
I see the other big problem with MyNet is that the day before is a holiday, which just doesn't help editor-wise. Nate 07:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering why MyNet is launching on the odd day of a Tuesday!
I personally would actually expect some people to be MORE available with the holiday... no need to spend time working, meaning that time could be used to edit Wikipedia.
I forgot about that Labor Day weekend. Depending on UPN's plans (knowing they will lose their biggest affiliates, they may decide to have a "Farewell to UPN" special two weeks early, even though the network itself probably won't end), we might be able to stretch out the MyNet changeover period to fit over the Labor Day weekend (that is, if they DON'T do something like that). Morgan Wick 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and that means if we count up to 8pm September 5th, we have four days from September 2nd (the first 'last day' possibly being September 1st) to make all of the changes and I think not everyone will be out doing other things. I don't think UPN would do any kind of special on a weekend, mainly because they never programmed Saturday/Sunday (so not counting the XFL) and several affiliates also air the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon, which would pre-empt it anyways. Maybe they would do it in primetime on the 4th though, I'm not exactly sure...Nate 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th was what I had in mind. I know when UPN does and doesn't have programming. I've been following the network upfronts for four years now. Morgan Wick 08:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, just thinking aloud myself, covering all the bases. Nate 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid deletion of the pre-made NETWORK in STATE templates, then perhaps they should be created as User subpages, and then moved at the appropriate time? Or, perhaps, we could just AfD the whole lot and forget about it... (And CfD the "Channel XX іn US" categories, too.) --AlexDW 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TfD, not AfD, would be the place to go for NETWORK in STATE templates. Morgan Wick 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for it, I found I had to correct CoolKatt's work on the Wisconsin templates alot because he went with city of license, not market served for each city, so I had to add the market in slash form (Suring/Green Bay for WIWB for instance). If they could have a better format they'd be better, but as they are now they're just adding redundant information found in the state/network categories. Nate 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right... TfD. Hey, I was only half-joking... ;-) --AlexDW 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're about two weeks from MyNet launch and we haven't really decided anything, so I'm going ahead and calling the corporate templates. Again, let me know if there are any applicable templates not on the top 25 station groups. It looks like many a to-be-CW affiliate will be branding with the CW ahead of time, and the networks themselves are forgoing their old branding, and I suspect when I do some checks tomorrow most MyNet stations will be dropping their old affiliation, since SmackDown! is the only thing worth showing. So, I'd like to get everyone's opinion: should I leave UPN and the WB subdivided on the market templates on the 5th, or convert them all to CW two weeks ahead of time? And should we do this for other things as well?

It looks like updating articles, market boxes, and TV station lists (I originally meant the ones that are "by call sign" and a page per lead letter, but I think we still have lists per state as well) are AWB jobs and can be done by Firsfron, and others if anyone wants to take some load off Firsfron. Work seems to already be being done on the NETWORK in STATE templates. I'll call cleanup and tightening of articles. Simple branding changes and even logos we already have may be AWB jobs (if I wanted to I would make the corporate templates an AWB job), but the process of adding logos where we didn't have them before will probably need to be done by the WikiProject in general. Morgan Wick 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from my research it looks like the vast majority of MyNet stations will be dropping old affiliation, so if no one objects I will be converting everything to the CW when I pull out the MyNets... is it next weekend already? My, how time flies. Morgan Wick 00:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh...

[16]. If this is true, we could be seeing a ton of people claim CW affiliation has already gone into effect, possibly even for future My Network TV stations currently affiliated with the WB. I just caught User:AdamDeanHall forgetting that branding ≠ affiliation for Chicago stations, so my mind is on this.

Where could possibly be a centralized place where we could remind unknowing editors (those not part of this project) of this fact? Or will we have to put reminders on every station that will become a CW affiliate?

Or... should we oblige them, and consider stations CW affiliates now, so as to decrease our work load later, as described above? I don't like this option, since it's not really accurate, but it could be easier on us now and when the CW actually launches. Morgan Wick 04:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KTFL nominated for deletion

Just to let you guys know, one of our articles is up for deletion. The article for KTFL, the FamilyNet affiliate in Flagstaff, Arizona, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTFL. Do you belive that this station deserves an article? Can anyone expand it beyond its current stub? --AlexDW 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying to close it per precedent and the WP project here. TrackerTV 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! I did think the whole thing was rather silly, especially as we have articles for stations that haven't been on the air in years! --AlexDW 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the guilty party for one of those. KQBN-LP was a mistake and if I had it to do over again, I would not have written it. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion (Tracker?) I wouldn't be offended. --dhett 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my recent flurry of activity, I steered clear of KTFL. I had originally put it in the PHX TV Template, then removed it, as its status was unknown. I wouldn't have added the article, but the stub is there now. I think it should be deleted, but if it isn't, I can add more info than what's in the stub now. I just choose not to, pending the outcome of the station - I still don't know whether it's shut off for good, or if they're just going digital-only and haven't come on air yet. --dhett 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Question

After seeing what I thought were some stylistic problems with the "Fox affilates serving the state of New Jersey" box in WNYW and WTXF-TV, this led me to question this: since New Jersey has only two network stations licensed within its borders (WMGM-TV and WWOR-TV), are network templates needed for this state (or, for that matter, other states which lack affiliates of a certain network)?

If the consensus is in favor of them, I've used the basic template format and revamped the Fox template box, and created others for New Jersey. They are:

{{ABC New Jersey}} / {{CBS New Jersey}} / {{Fox New Jersey}} / {{NBC New Jersey}} / {{PBS New Jersey}} / {{UPN New Jersey}} / {{WB New Jersey}}

Of course, since most of the stations are in the NYC and Philadelphia markets, all of them (with the possible exception of the PBS template) may be unnecessary. Of course, the UPN and WB templates will become obsolete inside of the next month and will be replaced with CW and MNTV. Comments? Rollosmokes 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the idea of network-in-state templates to begin with, but I especially don't think they're needed if there are no affiliates in a state (like DE for all networks; NH and NJ for most) or only one affiliate (RI, CT, VT, UT, NM or HI). Kirjtc2 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a network template could be made for New England? Just a suggestion, as I'm not attached to any of the state templates at all, but it would eliminate the need for seperate templates for RI, CT, MA, VT, NH and ME. It still wouldn't address single-affiliate templates in NM, UT, or HI, though...--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHDN-LP, WHDT

We have a little problem regarding the entries for Boston's WHDN-LP and Miami's WHDT-LP (repeating WPB's WHDT) -- a person, going by the user name "WHDT" insisted that the low-powered calls ended with "-DLP", then later "-LD", citing his FCC license. However, the FCC database still uses the -LP calls. We changed then back to what the database said, but WHDT insited that they end with -DLP / -LD. Personally, I don't think he represents the station at all. Comment? azumanga 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proper suffix for a low-power digital station would be -LD, but you're right — CDBS shows it as -LP. Unfortunately, CDBS is not authoritative and, even more unfortunately, is the best we've got. IMHO, the article should stay at the -LP location until CDBS shows it as -LD. As far as WHDT being the licensee, I would personally be skeptical of that. Similar problems exist at W10BM. --Alexdw 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reading user WHDT's comments on his rap sheet, I tend to concur that he's here only to start trouble. He's even double-guessing CFIF, for Pete's sake. -- azumanga 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CDBS may not be authoritative, but the FCC Rules are. The format of call signs is specifically defined in 47 CFR 2.302, which doesn't even mention "-LP" and "-CA" which are long-established. (The former by statute, IIRC.) The rule for requesting assignment of a call sign on a broadcast station is section 73.3550, and it only mentions "-FM", "-TV", "-LP", and "-CA". The general LPTV station identification rule at 74.783 specifies "-LP". However, there is a specific rule for digital LPTV call signs at 74.791, and being the most recently-enacted rule, we must assume that it controls. That rule specifies, for seminumeric call signs, a suffix of "D" (e.g., W02AAD), and for all-alphabetic call signs, suffixes of "-LD" and "-CD". I'll go update the relevant background articles. 121a0012 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've been seeing in CDBS, that would actually be W02AA-D, although that may just be "for display purposes". With reference to the -LP/-CA prefixes, those get used interchangeably throughout CDBS, unfortunately. Usually, a non-Class-A station will get listed with a -CA prefix if they have a Class A construction permit (or sometimes just an application). I assume that Class A stations with -LP suffixes just didn't want their station idents. There are also pseudo-suffixes, like -DT or -DR, whose statutory legitimacy I am unclear on. To make matters worse, usage in the field often differs from the fairly simple regulations. Indistriminate use of the -TV/-DT suffixes, contraction of translator calls (like K18AJ in Montana), even stations making up totally new call signs for themselves (normally LPs). Just thinking about it is giving me a headache... --AlexDW 12:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"-DT" doesn't exist. You'll see "DR" (not "-DR") in CDBS as a pseudo-service class; it indicates that the record you're looking at is for a rulemaking proceeding. Similarly, you will occasionally see "TA" as a vacant TV allotment and "TR" for an old analog TV rulemaking (and likewise "FA" and "FR" for FM). The CDBS download README file explains many but not all of these codes (and a lot more which are only used internally to the database schema). 121a0012 04:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MNTV affils list up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of myNetworkTV affiliates. A user who I don't particularly care for after he stalked and harrassed me has decided to put this list up for deletion with no solid reason. --CFIF ☎ 04:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning appears to have been really flimsy, and I do not believe it was meant as a good-faith nomination. I have blocked the user for three hours for violations of WP:POINT and disruption. It does appear to be harassment.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article, BTW, has been speedily kept. Apparently everyone else thought the reasoning was flimsy, too.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce up affiliates list

We should spruce up the CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX affiliates lists to The CW and MyNetworkTV standards. They, honestly, look like crap and are outdated. --CFIF ☎ 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but would like the improvements to be extended to America One, i, etc.--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I have been updating them here and there, but they really need a complete re-write. Now that we have (at least) stubs for all the "real" stations, maybe I should start working on this stuff, eh? :-) --AlexDW 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Initially I thought maybe we should keep a second, parallel set of lists in the current style for casual readers who may not have a good idea where their market ranks in the list of DMAs, but, besides being very unwieldy (and the fact that people can use "Find in this page..." in their browsers anyway), the networks themselves maintain the latter style for lists on their own websites - perhaps as long as we link to those? — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with that idea, in fact I've been working on a "DMA" style affiliate list for ABC, and plan to do so on other networks. I copied and pasted the list code from the Fox affiliates list and I haven't been finished with it yet, though the top 25 markets are complete. You can add stations to the list (include satellite stations!) at my sandbox. --grejlen - talk 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake City translator list

I have created a lists of Salt Lake City translators on my user page and would like feedback before posting to the main workspace. Most of the Salt Lake City television stations have so many translators (35+ to 110+), listing them in each station's article would be far too unwieldy. User:Dhett/List of Salt Lake City translators lists the translators in a separate space; each station can include a link to its section of the list. KUPX, KTMW, KPNZ and KUTH were not included, since none has more than five translators; KUTH has none. All of the other Utah stations also have a manageable number of translators, if they have any at all. The list has a talk page - comments and suggestions welcome there. --dhett 05:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of newscast schedules?

To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Newscast_schedules.2C_redux, where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently....

....some think newscast titles and times violate WP:NOT. Based on my readings of the policy, Wikipedia is also not paper, and sometimes, to help put information into an article and make it a quality article, you have to sometimes Ignore all rules. --CFIF ☎ 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update List of television stations in North America by media market

[17] --CFIF ☎ 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the new DMA ranks don't technically go into effect until September 23. Should we wait until then, or just make the changes now so we don't have to worry about this later? —Whomp t/c 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better to get it done now than forget about it later. --CFIF ☎ 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHDH-TV, and the 8/16 "Meltdown"

On 8/16, the 11PM newscast on WHDH-TV in Boston was cancelled after the first few minutes, due to persistant technical problems. This has made the news in the industry, both in Boston and nationwide. However, someone has been repeatedly removing the paragraph regarding this event. I had no choice but to lock the article due to persistant vandalism. I had to lock it because I'm sick and tired of reversing the article over and over again. Any comment? -- azumanga 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading what the tag involves, I had to take the protection off, as, apparently, it deals with more than adding a tag. But still, something needs to be done. -- azumanga 04:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it might have helped to read the Wikipedia:Protection policy carefully first. If he attacks again, and won't discuss, go to WP:AN or WP:AIAV and try to get him blocked. Morgan Wick 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG format

I think we should officially discourage the use of the JPEG format in logo images. It makes sometimes already poor-quality images worse, and also just makes images worse with the compressing. Try PNG. --CFIF ☎ 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.7.77.145

I've been having alot of reverts/talk warnings lately with this user, who has been adding nonsense slogans to station pages (see WJZY and WDJT) and making CW/MyNet changeovers way too early; they also tried to assert that KBWB was San Francisco's My affiliate based on a relaunched website alone, and has been creating incorrect show lists on station pages. The user hasn't been responding to any messages left on their talk pages, so any guidance about how to proceed with this user would be useful. Nate 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIAV. It'll only result in a short-term block (damn IPs) but you'll get him/her off your back for a while. Or leave out commented-out messages for the user in the articles themselves near where reversions will occur for persistent areas of friction (if that made any sense). Morgan Wick 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and filed a report, but they had a 3RR block earlier in the week and were back to their old tricks in no time. Maybe they'll get the point now. Nate 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuMont article improvement drive

Hey guys,

DuMont Television Network is up for article improvement. Please vote for the article's improvement, and please add whatever you feel might help the article. Some of the voters made the point that Wikipedia has a ton about recent TV pop culture, but not that much about TV history. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHEC-TV

I have made some changes to the article on WHEC TV (AKA News10Nbc) For starters I have used a better version of the station logo, the old version of the logo was a bit muddy. Secondly I conversed with Jack Allen, webmaster of [18] regarding the statment in the page that the station might be re-aquired by Gannett. He says he does seem to recall such a rumour but not very clearly, and there seems to be no way to verify it. Also, the Wikipedia should not report mumbo jumbo, but facts.Johnzw 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSAZ and Wikipedia

The wraps came off of KSAZ's new website today, and I quickly found problems, specifically plagiarism: right here. Hey, if KMAX and KOVR could pull it off for CBS, why wouldn't Fox? I am contacting the station immediately about the use of content from WP. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's that they say about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery? Morgan Wick 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, just as long as they CITE US! Johnzw 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace FCC database TV Query?

I stumbled across this site, it is TV/FM/AM query all in one, and compiles data directly from the FCC database. It is a lot better than the FCC database, showing former callsigns, a contour map, and other vital info all on the same page....is there any way we can replace the TV/AM/FM query with this? CFIF ☎ 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recommend it. Although it does compile all of the information on one page, there aren't any links to more substantial information, such as parties to assignments of license or transfers of control. Their contour maps, like CDBS, require a separate link, but the CDBS contour maps are much more accurate, taking into account directional antennae, whereas the RecNet maps do not. RecNet's other info isn't always accurate either; they had a KSL-TV translator listed in Bemidji MN, when it was actually in Mink Creek ID, and any inaccuracies in CDBS are also in RecNet. I prefer that we continue to cite the FCC site. --dhett 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: RecNet takes directional antennae into account, but not terrain. --dhett 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WBLU-LP cruft

4.224.177.18 (talk · contribs) has just gone through the painstaking work of creating tables for WBLU-LP's primetime schedules for the past seven years. Should this be deleted, or what? —Whomp t/c 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it twice, I don't think it adds much to the article except making longer than it needs to be and meets WP:NOT. I sympathize that it's good research, but for a small LP in Lexington, I don't think people are looking for back schedules for one station. It's basically redundant of the back network schedules for each season anyways besides local programming hours. Nate 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just a few hours ago 128.163.116.152 (talk · contribs) readded them again, and left a rather thought-provoking message at his/her talk page. I did reply by stating the obvious, but I'm not sure that will help much. —Whomp t/c 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KXLY-TV, Spokane

I've been watching this article for months. It contains useful information, but I question the way it's worded. It seems to me that it doesn't conform to an NPOV; almost like it's being edited by an employee of the station. It reads more like a commercial than a Wikipedia entry. --AKA, 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{advert}} tag to it. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Syndicated Television programs

Recently there was a discussion among the Wikipedia television community on whether or not newscast schedules belonged in station articles. I happen to believe that they should, as it constitutes a highlighting of that station's locally-produced programming.

In contrast, I do not believe that TV station articles should contain lengthy listings of syndicated programming, either past or current. For one, such listings -- especially of current programming -- is trivial information at best. And also, whole articles would run long as other editors scour the old TV Guides and newspaper listings to find the shows missing from the list. This could go on and on and on...

While it would be feasible to highlight certain shows as they relate to the station's ratings performance or for any other notable reason(s) (such as pre-empting network programs), extensive listings of syndicated product shouldn't be included. On this basis, I removed such material from the following station entries: WSOC-TV, WLOS, WVEC-TV, KOCO-TV, WYFF, KFOR-TV, KOKH, KWTV, WHNS, KOCB, KAUT-TV, WYCW, WGXA, WAGT, WJBF-TV, WRLH-TV, WTKR, WIS-TV, WTVD, and WSPA-TV. That's enough for one late Saturday night/Sunday morning. I'm sure there are other articles that still are as these were, but I'll save them unbtil I get some feedback. Rollosmokes 08:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added to this list: WKBS-TV (Philadelphia), WECT, WMYA-TV, WGGS-TV, South Carolina Educational Television (the list of British sitcoms also fit the description here), WRCB-TV, WTVC, WDSI-TV, WDEF-TV, WBBJ-TV and WRAL-TV (though I would try to squeeze a mention of the station's continuous airing of The Andy Griffith Show into the main text). Rollosmokes 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more: WBTV, WFTC, WTOG, WTVT, WINK-TV, KSTC-TV, and WUCW. Rollosmokes 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spotteddogs big break

http://www.tvnewstalk.net/forum2/index.php/topic,6827.0.html

The page reads "Today, legal papers were filed and we're in the process of taking actions against Scott Brown to hopefully put him away for a long time... or at least get him offline." This is from TVNewsTalk.net. Some of our users (CFIF, Spotteddogs) go there. This could finally mean that those AFD nominations we have had to put up with may come to a close. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I'm writing this as I listen to some majestic video game music that fits this occasion.)

Category clutter

We were having a dispute on navboxes at WT:PCP. I brought up this project, and the user came back:

"WP:TVS has a poor record of cluttering pages with ugly, useless navboxes. I strongly urge that we not repeat their mistakes. We should not be adding the kind of commentary that is useful for lists to every single Pokémon article, nor should we be cluttering pages when categories were designed to serve this exact purpose. - (posted by A Man In Black)"

We need to review our category and navbox structure: A Man In Black is so right. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should convert all market boxes to the "Show/Hide" version, like {{Greensboro TV}}, so if people don't want to see the "cluttering navboxes", they don't have to. Personally, I don't think categories are good for our purposes. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean something like Greenwood TV or Meridian TV? Lee359 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPN/WB network affil categories

Just wondering if we should remove these from station pages now that both networks will be defunct as of Monday. I don't know if we keep them up for historical purposes or not. Nate 03:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the caegories should be deleted, but the lists should stay. I propose they be moved to List of former WB network affiliates and List of former UPN affiliates. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Network Templates -- PSIP or Actual?

Recently, a user named "Scrabbleship" created new templates featuring the new CW and My networks, but for digitals, has been using PSIP channels instead of actuals. For example:

Template:MNTV Texas

I changed one of these from PSIP to actual, but Scrabbleship changed them back, citing "conventions".

Do we have standards on how we treat subchannels? If so, do we use PSIP or actual (or both)? -- azumanga 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going with virtual channels working on some of the Midwest templates since most stations have gone to advertising as 'watch Channel 5 on HDTV on Channel 5-1 and our weather channel on 5-2'; Most TVs usually tune by the virtual channels anyways so it only adds more confusion. Nate 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming KUWB to KUCW

On Sept. 18, Clear Channel moved the KUCW call letters from its station in Coos Bay, Oregon to KUWB in Ogden, Utah, giving the Coos Bay station new call letters KMCB. I moved the old KUCW article to KMCB, but cannot move the KUWB article to KUCW, as there is now a redirect blocking the move. I submitted a request to WP:RM on Sept. 19, but there's a backlog, so I don't know when the move will take place. Vegaswikian started a survey and discussion on the KUWB talk page, but it's not exactly what I would consider a controversial move. Can anyone here help out? If not, consider this a heads up that the article for KUCW still resides at KUWB. --dhett 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be patient about the request, it's about the only thing to be done for now. As long as everything is set before the pagemove, once it's taken care of it'll be a fast process. Nate 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it. Incidentally, if there are other UPN or WB-to-CW call signs that need to be done, let me know and I'll perform them without the long backlog request process. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, any registered user can move articles - I was able to do the KUCW → KMCB move - but because KUCW still existed as a redirect to KMCB, it blocked KUWB from being moved. Putting a WP:RM on the article was the suggested method of dealing with it, but in reality, I think it would have been easier to just request a WP:RfD on the KUCW redirect, and then when that was gone, move the article. Oh well. Thanks much for your help!! --dhett 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dhett, I wasn't very clear. Yes, I'm aware that regular users can't normally move articles on top of existing pages. But I don't have that problem. You are of course welcome to post the problem on the backlogged WP:RM, or wait days for a consensus on WP:RfD, but I try to check here regularly, and if you know of an uncontroversial page move (like a call sign change) where you can't perform the move, you can post it here or on my talk page, and I'll be glad to move it, and save everyone a little trouble. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were clear. I put that first sentence in, not for you, as I knew you already knew all that, but for any readers who may not have known. I knew that there were people here with administrative privileges that might take a special interest in keeping TV station articles current and accurate - and since I'm not the most patient person in the world, as accurately pointed out by Nate, I thought putting a request here might expedite things. I will be more than happy and grateful to avail myself of your assistance in the future, as I've seen the backlog on WP:RM and don't see the need to discuss uncontroversial and obvious changes ad nauseum in forums such as WP:RfD (almost like the Wikipedia equivalent of the U.N. at times, in my opinion). Again, thanks for all your help, and for your offer to help out in the future. --dhett 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only one who has drawn parallels to the sometimes frustrating bureaucracy, Dhett. Thanks for explaining (I get dense sometimes)and happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Callsign Meanings Subpage

You may have noticed how I've included in several pages meanings of old callsigns, such as those for WWMT (WKZO), KWQC (WOC), WYFF (WFBC), KBWB (KTZO), WNWO (WDHO), and KMYQ (KTZZ). I have started a new user subpage to catalogue meanings for all the callsigns, listed by market. I will probably break it up into smaller pages, since putting all the markets into one page will be WAY too long. Any thoughts/advice? Gatorman 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Channel Designation - suggesting it for the info box

I would like to suggest adding the Tentative Channel Designation to the info box. This is the channel the station will most likely be operating with come the analog cutoff date (or sooner for some stations that elect to do so with FCC permission). In many cases the TCD is the digital transition channel (stations presumably electing this to not have to buy or retune their transmitter and antenna). In many cases the TCD will be the original analog channel (perhaps because the stations feel their channel number market branding is that important despite DTV's ability to translate channel identities). And in some cases the TDC is entirely different than either the digital channel or the analog channel. Many stations will have to flash cut to the new channel or new transmitter with little or no testing opportunity on the big day so many TV sets "quit working".

Between now and the big day, some of these TCD assignments may change, so someone needs to be on top of things to keep them up to date as info is available (usually from the FCC), as the big day approaches.

I have no idea how to change the template. So if I can convince you guys to adopt this idea, I hope someone can add the TCD to the template. But I do have one suggestion when doing so. Make it use a name (that editors would use) that implies it is not so much "tentative" but more along the lines of meaning "final digital channel". The reason for this is that on that big day (between 2009-2-17 and 2009-2-18) merely changing the template to display the channels in a different way, putting the "final digital channel" first and no longer calling it TCD or Tentative Channel Designation, and changing the old analog and digital channels to either display "old analog" and "old digital" respectively, or maybe even not display them at all, would allow the info box to reflect all the final changes on the big day, without having to edit thousands of individual pages.

The latest info from the FCC on Tentative Channel Designations can be found on the page I created for it. Skapare 06:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Anyone else? Kimmykun 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo guidelines

We need logo guidelines....I'm so tired of seeing tiny little compressed JPEG logos with crap in the background.

The new guidelines should discourage the use of logos saved in JPEG, it just looks awful. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone actually cares, here's some basic guidelines that I came up with:

  • Place {{tv-logo}} as the licensing for all logos
  • Please save logos in a PNG format. Avoid JPEG or GIF images as they tend to compress
  • News logos should almost never be considered the main station's logo. Please try to find a logo that is used across the station, not just for news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFIF (talk • contribs)

It appears no one cares. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I think this is a good idea. —Whomp (myedits) 16:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't gotten much response until now.

Anyway, here's some examples:

--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that in the case of Image:Wsvn 2006 logo.PNG, that logo is only used on the station's website, and not on air. An example of this is mentioned on WHDF, which lists two logos that were never used on air. IMO, these and all other logos like these should be removed, as the article is about the station itself, not their website. —Whomp (myedits) 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, Whomp.
Strafidlo (talk · contribs), while being in good faith, seems to upload some particularly bad logos that replace better versions of the same thing. For example, he uploaded File:Wbbh nbc2 tv.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when File:WBBH2.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a better and cleaner version of the same exact thing. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we're agreed, then? Whenever possible, PNGs instead of other image formats, try to get a station logo instead of the news (or weather, or whatever) logo, and use the tv-logo tag when uploading. I'm surprised this isn't already one of our guidelines, and if there are no objections, it should be added to our main page. Sorry I didn't comment earlier; I just thought the advantages of a .png over a .gif or .jpg were obvious, and didn't need commenting on. I know this is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia's image guidelines page. For the record, I fully support cleaning up the look of our images on WP:TVS. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing all my logo uploads in PNG for the last two months because it's so much cleaner (see WLYH, WFLA-TV, WDCW's WB era logos, and WCGV), so I totally agree with the policy. I think also whenever possible we also use PNGs with transparent background to present a clean image. I've been trying to convert where I can (esp. logos with clean white or other colored backgrounds). About the only problem I've been running into so far with this is CW affiliates where the logo used is colored white w/a green background, I've been leaving those alone. Nate 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Went ahead and tagged as {{tv-logo}} any logos I uploaded in the past few months. Gatorman 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something else too...in the infoboxes for stations with digital subchannels affiliated with other networks, I think the "original" station logo should be larger and take greater precedence at the very least, if not having the subchannel logo removed entirely and placed in the section concerning said subchannel. Any thoughts? Kirjtc2 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along those lines; putting those logos as thumbnails (or in a few cases, galleries) wouldn't hurt. —Whomp (myedits) 18:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News music packages

I've seen editors adding info on news music packages lately. I really think such a list is completely crufty (99.9% of people couldn't name one music package if their life depended on it), and have considered removing them. Any comments before I start doing so? Kirjtc2 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total cruft. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Masta 1024 was the one who added most of them, so I would suggest leaving a message on his/her talk page before removing anything. This person also added lists of stations who used each music package (see The CBS Enforcer Music Collection for an example). My opinion: get rid of it all. —Whomp (myedits) 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. The only people that care about the music are "news geeks" (like me), and it's just trivial information. We have Southernmedia's NMSA for this. I don't really have a problem with pages for the music packages, though as long as the listings for each station aren't there. Ntropolis 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Television_stations_task_force/Archive_3&oldid=1146032305"