Talk:MyNetworkTV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WZMY

I reorganized some of the content and added a (commented out) infobox for future reference. Should we also make note that WZMY currently uses the myTV moniker? I couldn't figure out a good way to word it. --Inaxdaze 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

I've seen a fair bit of unsourced material on Wikipedia regarding the transition from The WB and UPN to CW and now My Network TV. Most of it has been on station pages speculating as to what network they will end up with. PLEASE make sure to cite a source when you are adding material about fututre affiliations and always use the proper wording. "Kxxx has reported that they plan on being a (network name here) affiliate when the (current affiliation) network ceases to exist in September, 2006." rather than "Kxxx will be ..." until they flip the proverbial switch. It is better to leave off speculative information then having to remove it if it doesn't come to fruition. —A 08:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sister network

What is a sister network?? Georgia guy 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both My Network and the FOX Network have the same "parent" i.e. 20th Century Fox, so by analogy they are sisters. - Matthew Humphreys 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, their parent is News Corp, who happens to also be the parent of 20th Century Fox CoolKatt number 99999 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Or to be even MORE pedantic, News Corp is the parent of FOX Entertainment Group, which is itself the parent of 20th Century Fox and the Fox television companies...Seriously though, my initial answer was sloppy, thanks CoolKatt. --Matthew Humphreys 01:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Roger Ailes?

Should Roger Ailes be listed as a key person? I was under the impression that he was just chairman of Fox News. Does he actually have a connection to this channel? --Inaxdaze 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This News Corp press release suggests that Ailes will be involved.[1] --Matthew Humphreys 01:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Affiliates

Added the list of affiliates that was announced this past week and cited the source.

I'm wondering if (considering the common NewsCorp ownership) if DirecTV will provide a satellite feed for those of us who end up in markets served by an affiliate (like here in Atlanta, where it is looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get an affiliation, barring the final death of Pax). Someone on a message board made that suggestion (for the local Pax affiliate) recently. --Mhking 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move-- My Network TV to MyNetworkTV

More and more, I am beginning to see this network referred to as "MyNetworkTV" in quite a few news articles. On Google, "my network tv" gets around 80,000 hits, while mynetworktv gets close to 400,000. Probably the the biggest reason I want to move this page is because it is referred to as "MyNetworkTV" in all News Corp press releases. Remember, if consensus is reached to move this page, other pages such as List of My Network TV affiliates need to be moved, and all refrences to MNTV would need to be changed, too. So? Agree or Disagree? -Whomp 23:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support per nom, although the original January PR did use "My Network TV". I'd wait until after the upfronts just in case the name is shortened any further; MyNetworkTV still sounds a bit working-titlish to me. Even if stations are adopting it already. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It sounds working-titlish because you're trying to think of it as a network, and I still think of it as being closer along the lines of kids' blocks or the many failed syndication packages over the years - not really a network at all. On topic: The page has already been moved, with only one vote so far. Arguably out of process. Morgan Wick 04:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Update: According to this, the current logo may be provisional. Also, I'm seeing a number of articles, especially in Broadcasting and Cable, refer to it as simply "MNT". Morgan Wick 22:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral pending further announcements. I do have a very weak support per nom should News Corp. announce that this is going to be the network name at launch, but unlike The CW, they have not announced the permanence of this name yet. And the page has now been moved back to the currently-proper title, it seems. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree According to the initial NewsCorp press release, they identify it as "My Network TV." But I do notice how the other releases merge it all into one word. But I think until they put up an official website and tell us differently, we should keep the title as-is, and avoid the shifting back-and-forth that the CW page is having with their title (to "The" or not to "The"?) Chasektn 05:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"O & O"

Is the general reading public now to be construed as to be so media-savy as to need no further explanation of this term? Yeah, I know that it means "owned & operated" but does nearly every computer-literate English-speaker nowadays? This is a serious question, so for now I won't "be bold". Rlquall 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where anyone would get that impression. (I'm not suggesting that was the case with whoever added it. (trying very hard not to break WP:NPA)) I fixed it. Morgan Wick 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A new FOX station?

Fox with another station? King Shadeed 1:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else annoyed by the idea of 'My Network TV'?

One of the things that appealed to me about The CW is that it would eliminate a network from the air. UPN and The WB, IMO, crowded the marketplace to the point where both networks seemed interchangeable and redundant. Now in the wake of The CW's announcement comes another company adding another 6th network to broadcast television. It's just too much. Then all of the nervous local stations that would have been forced to going back to being an independent (which I was interested in seeing, since it's been over a decade since many of them were) quickly jumped aboard the 'My Network TV' bandwagon. So basically it seems like the same ol' stuff, just a different day and names. — Dtowng 9:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...WB and UPN were going after the same target audience, and neither were completely successful because they were fighting over the same (or a very similar) audience: the youth market. Now the CW is focused on that same market, while MNTV is apparently going after... well, I'd guess a hispanic audience, based on the telenovelas. I think both nets have a chance, because they're targeting different markets. Also: The CW is much stronger than UPN or WB ever was: they've got hand-picked affiliates in most cases, with MNTV mostly picking up the scraps. If you're waiting for a bunch of independents to re-emerge, I guess you'll have to wait to see what happens with i (formerly PAX)'s 100 or so stations, since that net is in deep financial trouble...--Firsfron 13:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My Network had to pick up scraps? Tell that to people in Cincinatti, where UPN was on Class A WBQC-CA which had a nasty fight for carriage on Time Warner Cable while WB was on Sinclair's full-power WSTR - but because of Sinclair's big affiliation agreement with My Network, Fox Lite is on the full-power station and CW has to piggyback on the digital coattails of WKRC. Tell that to people in Hawaii, the largest market without a CW affiliate - simply beause KIKU only shows UPN because no other station will, showing Asian programming the rest of the time, but Raycom inexplicably decided to affiliate KFVE - a VHF station arguably on par with Big 4 stations! - with the Fake Network. Tell that to people in Syracuse and Paducah, where one of the UPN or WB affiliates is low power, but the other is owned by Sinclair. For a time some station people inexplicably saw My Network TV as a better investment than CW because they were running scared from "reverse compensation" (despite the fact it's arguably coming even for the Big 3) and Fox had some really flashy presentations, and made decisions they're probably already regretting. Just some of the bad decisions are marked with Wrong situation! on User:Morgan Wick/2006 Network Shift. I personally agree with Dtowng, but more because of my own personal project (the affiliation I'm REALLY pissed about, strangely enough, is KRON San Francisco) than anything else (though it would have been nice to see another independent renaissance, but I guess no one knows how to do an independent station - especially since no one's creative with it these days anyway, and throw up a bunch of syndicated programming, even on network stations in off-network hours. No wonder small stations want the security blanket of a network to cling to - even if it's only for branding purposes, considering My Network is only programming 12 hours of the week! What I have learned from all this is Wick's Law of Television: The number of networks with stable carriage in most of the country cannot decrease. DuMont doesn't count because the vast majority of its stations were UHF at a time UHF stations weren't viable at all.)

The legacy of My Network may be its introduction of Hispanic-oriented programming not of the George Lopez mold in the English language (and something like it may have been inevitable, given the seemingly low prospects for telenovelas on the Big Five despite their proven success). While CW will look to replicate the path Fox took to becoming the true fourth network (it'll need to jettison its CBS influence along the way, though), My Network will look to create a rivalry with Univision on the order of the UPN-WB rivalry. Just as Univision has made a living with Hispanic-oriented programming in Spanish, My Network may have similar success in the English language - beating out the ratings UPN and WB were getting, but not quite able to make that next step into the abyss. Success will thus be contingent on the Hispanic presence in each market. In LA, where nearly half the population is Hispanic as of Census 2000, more than the white population, KCOP will probably do fairly well and possibly better than KTLA will with the CW. Miami is majority Hispanic, and it is only due to the wonders of station ownership that it does not already have a My Network affiliate; I hope it finds a way not to go digital, even if that means taking away a religious or low-power station. In New York, Hispanics make up a quarter of the population, and WWOR will putter along just fine. In San Francisco, 14% of the population is Hispanic and KRON will probably find a niche, albeit a niche it probably wasn't anticipating. Our Hawaii article doesn't even list the Hispanic population of the islands, although that of Honolulu is about 4 percent, so it's a bit of a toss up whether KFVE's gamble will work out well enough not to come crying to CW. You'd be surprised to learn that Syracuse's Hispanic population is bigger than even that, at five and a quarter percent. In Cincinatti, where about one percent of the population is Hispanic, Sinclair will probably eventually realize their mistake and flee to CW before I'm out of college.

If you really don't like it, of course, just dismiss it as not a network and pretend they're independent anyway (at least, unless and until MNT makes you notice). And I wouldn't look to Pax for a wave of new independents; most of its stations are owned by Pax itself, and even those that aren't are suffering enough along with Pax that they're probably in for some problems of their own. I wouldn't be surprised if Pax eventually has to merge with My Network and we do the affiliation dance all over again, which will readjust affiliations in just a few markets to make things a little less weird. (Very, very few, but hopefully including places like Cincinatti.) Of course, more likely than even that is Pax simply falling off the face of the earth and taking its stations with it... right off the air. I'm far more interested in the collapse of Shop at Home, even though there are far fewer stations rebroadcasting it, because whoever owns those stations - especially whoever buys the O&O's - has a chance to build a viable new station essentially from scratch. And inevitably some will contract a brain freeze and try to board the sinking ship known as Pax (no, not that, call us "i" instead! It stands for "independent"! Yeah, really!). Morgan Wick 04:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Morgan, MNTV has had to pick up the scraps, in many cases. Honolulu is one exception. But check out DMAs like #5 (Boston), where CW has an affiliate, and MNTV has nothing. Same goes true for markets 17, 18, 19, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 59, 61, etc. CW is so much stronger. I still think there is room for both networks, though, since MNTV is focusing on the hispanic market, and CW is sticking with younger viewers.

CW has every major market covered, down into the 70s. MNTV is missing 17 affiliates in those same markets. That's what I mean by picking up the scraps.

As far as Pax/i is concerned, no one, not you or I or anyone, can really predict what might happen there. Even though i(on) owns them, there's certainly a chance they could go independent, because the company owes millions in debt. I would love to see an i merger with something, though: wouldn't it be cool to see something actually worth watching on i?--Firsfron 05:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just mad it's not 100% scraps, but you'd be surprised how many markets saw a My Network affiliation before a CW affiliation, even those I haven't listed. The reason I brought up the i ownership is because I'm skeptical anyone would be able to turn stations with a taint of i broadcasting into viable stations willing to compete in the market, even if they did it with a network affiliation. If i goes bankrupt, its stations may be sold, but I'm not sure it would clear their debts. Just out of curiousity, exactly who does i owe anyway? (Or would i's stations simply be auctioned off to the highest bidder?) Morgan Wick 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I get what you're saying. As far as i(on) goes, Pax collected millions of dollars in debt over the course of seven years: buying stations and programming that it wasn't fully prepared to pay off. Paxson's hope was that it would all pay off in the end, and during the early years, he was close to right. Pax was sometimes getting up to 3% of the audience around 1999, when they were showing new episodes of Candid Camera, Doc, etc. But they still weren't making a profit, so they cut back on the original programming, and by 2003, they only had two original series left. The loss of the original programming cost them considerable viewership, which caused a gradual tail-spin. They've never recovered, even with their near-constant infomercials. According to an April edition of B&C, they owe $250,000,000 a year: it's been refinanced, so they just owe the bank.--Firsfron 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

After watching the upfronts and seeing the first promos for the network this week (including Bo Derek describing the net on the American Idol red carpet show), I have to say I'm unimpressed that this network will actually take root unless they go full on and take on Univision with SAP channel audio and CC2 so they can get two languages on the same show. Looking at the lack of success of SoapNet over on cable (personally I think DVR, iTunes/IPTV and VOD will do in that channel by 2010) and at the synopses of the first arcs of Secret Obsessions/Desire, I don't know what to make of it especially now that they've decided all the other programming they announced in February may never show up at all.

They're trying to create a network based on a concept that's been proven to work with one culture, but is iffy in another. Am I going to want to tune into MyNet to watch telenovelas which have recycled scripts and the kind of talent you usually find in instructional films and what was syndicated product in the early '90s (e.g. Catwalk and Swan's Crossing, excepting Sarah Michelle Gellar and Neve Campbell)? I don't know, and it's not helping that some MyNet affils were picked up by channels that are heavy with sports coverage (you don't know how thankful I am CW in Milwaukee is going to the no-sports WB station), thus you're going to have alot of angry soap fans. You thought pre-empting Veronica Mars for basketball got viewers pissed? Do you want to be the switchboard girl apologizing to the lady on the other end of the line because she had to miss a crucial plot point on Desire and is a regular caller to the ABC station because severe weather coverage ruined General Hospital?

There's more that troubles me, including the fact that they're advertising that they're the first broadcast network launching with all-HDTV programming. Not a hard claim to make in 2006, but it's a selling point killed by the fact that MyNet isn't airing sports or filmed dramas which show off things alot better, this is going to be soaps on digital video with people who work on the cheap and don't have the best makeup artists that know how to work with HD. Soap fans from what I've read on the internet aren't demanding that much with HDTV, they're looking at story more than picture detail. If you're going to promote all-HD, you better also promote that your programs have good writing to boot. And what happens if these soaps end up flopping right away, is Fox prepared with the extra programming they announced in February and ready to hit the reset button? All they seemed to do at the upfront is announce the schedule and put up the for sale sign for product placement, there doesn't seem to be a good plan in place to have a Plan B if The CW pulls off a good start and strong launch. I'm going to watch carefully and see if this can work, I still have faith in the MyNet concept and I know there will be launch jitters to start, but they need to come out of the gate eyeing up both CW and Uni and telling them that they're not just throwing filler on the air, that these are shows people will vote with their remotes to watch. Nate 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In a way that this new network would somehow be ripping on the Spanish networks -- providing equal shows only in English and I thought they would come out with a pretty decent schedule as did The CW??? To a degree -- wouldn't you agree??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT MAY 27 2006 9:10 PM EDT

I agree that MNTV is trying to cash in on Univision's market. When Nielsen started showing the stats of the Spanish language nets, WB and UPN often had lower ratings than Univision. If this programming catches on, it will take a big bite out of Univision's market.--Firsfron 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is, it's a heck of a better idea for News Corp. to have another primetime station than 4Kids to have one. If that were the case, we'd be stuck with reruns of Kirby! Right Back at Ya! I wonder what the Saturday Morning lineup will look like?

im annoyed that there will be less independents(as several my network tv affiliates were previously independent) ,by the way there wont be a saturday morning line up.Yet-another-user 09:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In markets where an independent is going MyNet, either the UPN or WB station will go independent to even it out, so the net change should be about zero. Morgan Wick 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

UPN hasn't actually have any kid's programs for a while. --Libertyernie2 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why they came up with a station like this in the first place. The only original programming is Fahion House and Desire. That's not awhole lot. And any news on if they are going to show 4KidsTV programming weekend mornings? I live in The Springfield-Holyoke MA market and we might have to share MNTV programming with Hartford and WCTX (which only people living in like West Springfield, Longmeadow, and maybe Chicopee could get signals from). So, i don't think this would last very long. Psp900 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fox.2

I heard a rumor that mntv willbe renamed FOX.2, and the Telenovela format will be scrapped.Seamus215 21:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that will happen yet. It should stay off the article for now. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives Reruns on My Network TV Owned and Operated Stations

Since Desperate Housewives reruns won't be running on My Network TV itself, but rather on just the network's O&Os (and maybe some affiliates, too), I think that any information about DH reruns airing on the O&Os would be better suited to the individual stations' respective articles. Hence, I've removed the info and links pertaining to the deal to put DH reruns on the MNTV O&Os.--TwoTone 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Since someone chose to reinstate the DH info, I've gone ahead and removed it again.--TwoTone 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming online

Just as a personal historical note, I'd like to be watching when my local UPN syndicate goes offline permanently and gives over to MNT. What time of day will this be happening> -Litefantastic 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what this is. The only thing that will be changing at your station from a programming standpoint is that the two hours daily of UPN programming will be replaced by the two hours of My Network programming. (And there's a full day of other programming between the two.) The only real thing that could be considered a precise changeover point would be your station dropping UPN branding for My Network branding, in which case I would wait until midnight, and then watch again early the next morning if it didn't come then. (Note: some stations may change their branding earlier; for example, WMYT in Charlotte has already done so.) Of far more historical interest to me is what UPN and WB will do to sign off on their last nights of programming ever, although that has nothing to do with the stations. Watching when My Network TV first starts in primetime would also be mildly interesting. I'm planning on doing both, as well as watching when the CW first comes on. (Where do you live? That would really help.) Morgan Wick 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like those affiliates joining MyNet won't be able to carry UPN's final days. UPN signs off 9/15, while MNTV signs on 9/5.

"Was" versus "were"

Sorry about the truncated summary line (darn that errant Enter key push). Here's what I would have said had there been enough room:

"None" is singular, not plural (it stands for "no one" or "not one"); thus, "was" is correct here. Yes, I know that puts me on the other side of Fowler (who is more flexible), but to me this is a rare case of one needing to be more prescriptive than Fowler. In any case, I cheated and rewrote the sentence to avoid any possible ambiguity on the subject.

More importantly, I also hope that the rest of my rewriting and copyediting pass muster.Yeechang Lee 10:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

Please add external links judiciously. Not every news story covering the network needs to go on here. Otherwise this section could reach the length the equivalent CW section reached once upon a time (obscenely huge). Morgan Wick 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed all of the news articles. From now, I could see it turning into a huge mess of dead links. —Whomp [T] [C] 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move 2: My Network TV to MyNetworkTV

http://mynetworktv.com now shows the name as MyNetworkTV. This is a new website. Should a move also occur? -Tracker ^{([[User talk:TrackerTV|>talk)}]] 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• It may be written that way in some places (in this case, the current website is just an ad), but the title of the website is "My Network TV". For now, I would oppose the move. —Whomp [T] [C] 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support The most recent NewsCorp press release refers to it as "MyNetworkTV", so I believe this could be the official name. This move, of couse, could be changed as more evidence supports the official name. I'll email my station (WDCA, MNTV O&O) to see what they think the name is. --StephenK 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacksonville

What I think should happen in Jacksonville: Fox should move to WJXT, and Clear Channel should take advantage of that, moving CBS to the higher-rated WAWS, and have WTEV take My Network TV. Who else agrees with me? CoolKatt number 99999 00:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A plea to fellow editors

Unlike some others here (you weirdos know who you are) I have no particular personal interest in tracking what station goes to which network. I am only interested in readability, accuracy, grammar and punctuation, and encyclopedic content, and along the way somehow ended up contributing multiple edits to this article. Toward jointly meeting these goals, I ask fellow editors to keep the following in mind:

• Terminology. "News Corp" is the right shorthand for News Corporation. "FOX" (with all caps) means the broadcast network (Fox Broadcasting Company) *only*, while "Fox" refers to a variety of *other* News Corp entities. In this article, it always refers to Fox Television Stations Group, which (as opposed to FOX) owns My Network TV. "The WB" and "The CW" should always include definitive articles with leading caps.
• Wikipedia discourages unsourced speculation in articles, and rightly so. You may be absolutely, positively, sure that WXYZ in Nowheresville, Arkansas will affiliate with My Network TV, but unless it's happened (or you can provide a source that speculates as much) don't add it in. (Along those lines, I probably should have completely deleted the sentence alleging a MySpace connection with the name; I did a) move it to a more-appropriate location and b) rewrite it a bit, though.)
• As Morgan Wick rightly put it a few edits back, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's why he strongly suggested that everyone only add in information on markets within the top 50 largest that lack My Network TV affilations. There has to be a limit to the quantity of detail in any article and top 50 is one that makes eminent sense in this context. Don't take it personally if this means you can't add information on the machinations that led to station A in your sub-50 market affiliating with The CW and station B being left out of the fun; why, *dozens* of other people are in the same boat!
• Active tense is a good thing. I admit that this is a much-more subjective point than the previous three. Thus, I only rewrite articles into active tense while making other, more objective edits. However, I believe my edits in this article and elsewhere offer abundant proof that active is both more accurate and reads better than passive tense. Yeechang Lee 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

'Obsessions' title change?

KDFI my27, the Dallas affiliate, has began running ads with the Bo Derek show 'Secret Obsessions' today, but the title seems to have been changed to 'Fashion House.' Can anyone confirm? Chasektn 01:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Secret Obsessions" is the brand of the program, not necessarily the title itself. "Fashion House", is the current story arc of "Secret Obsessions", and will end after 65 episodes, after which a new arc of the "Secret Obsessions" brand will begin. You do have a point with the advertiesing, though. Perhaps they're trying to phase out the "Desire" and "Secrets" titles. PS: They are also running these ads here in DC (WDCA, NewsCorp owned)--70.104.224.115 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It definitely looks as though they are phasing out those broader names - see the [KCOP 13 web site]. Morgan Wick 01:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just checked out the MNTV web site. They list the two MNTV shows as Desire and Fashion House, which confuses me no end. Does this mean the former Secret Obsessions dramas will be known only by their individual titles, and not a larger banner? Does this mean SO is changing its name to FH after all? (Don't put any of this in the article, of course. Not a crystal ball and all that.) Morgan Wick 01:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Really targeted at females?

An anon added the following sentence: "My Network TV will target a primarily female audience." Is this valid information, PoV, or vandalism? I didn't want to remove it right away, or start an edit war. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The main shows will be telenuevos(spanish soap operas), which are geared towards women. I don't think they have officially said that though. TJ Spyke 01:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish-Language Programming?

So I'm unclear-- is the primary programming of this network going to be non-English? The article states,

"For the forseeable future, its schedule will consist entirely of telenovelas."

And it even links to the article on telenovelas, which clearly defines a telenovela as a latin-american television serial. Perhaps the term this article is looking for is Soap Opera? 134.253.26.12 18:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

These will be english-language Telenovelas, which are different than endless Soap Operas. Telenovelas have a beninning, a middle and an end - they are closer to mini-series than soap operas. Davodd 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the telenovela page, but that doesn't mean the term isn't still STRONGLY associated with latin american soap operas. The wording on MyNetworkTV is still unclear, at best. 134.253.26.9 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. Comic Books are English-language originated, but the Japanese have elevated them into a unique art form that transcends language and culture. The same is happening for telenovelas. It is a sign of the times that U.S. TV execs are finally acknowledging a foreign TV art form that doesn't have an origin in Europe. Davodd 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Telenovela is a mess

Since MNTV's programming will consist of telenovelas, the WP article on that topic is sure to get a lot of hits (we point to it in this article). It is confusing to many people who are using this article as a reference. If you have the time, please head over to Telenovela to help fix it - or at least vote to get it chosen on the Article Improvement Drive to be fixed by the community. The AID link: Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#Telenovela_.281_vote.2C_stays_until_August_28.29 - Davodd 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Recently someone has been reverting my changes to use the 2D version of the MNTV logo at the top of the page, in place of the 3D version used previously / presently.

By way of explanation of my preference for the 2D version, my approach to logos is as follows: The most generic and straightforward, but complete, version of the logo is the logo to be used. There should be no reason to change the logo every year to match the the network's current imaging campaign, provided that the logo itself is fundamentally the same. That is the approach used for the other U.S. networks, where we use simple, 2D logos; I see no reason to take a different approach here.

However, I am open to persuasion before I change it back again. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with stickguy, flat logo is best.Johnzw 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother for now; the consensus (not just here but other media) seems to prefer the 3-D logo.) — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Premiere special?

Check the schedule of your local My Network TV affiliate! Specifically, check their schedule on 9/4! MNTV may be premiering on 9/5 only in the same way the CW is premiering on 9/20! (At least, if WMYD is any indication!) Morgan Wick 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Beat me to it...WCGV's Labor Day schedule on Yahoo TV (hopefully that link works). Looks like they're doing an unofficial soft launch on Labor Day. Nate 03:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've since found several stations that are continuing their old affiliation on that day, not showing the "soft launch". Morgan Wick 06:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Could the shows also be airing throughout the week or the weekend before though depending on station, like being fed in the style of the NBC Fall Preview (where stations can take the show and use it to fill any timeslot they wish)? I'm also thinking the Desire and Fashion House shows are just a compilation of the web prequels being shown on the network website, could be wrong. Nate 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing one of my errors up

I had read on some sites that My Games TV would be part of the network. I read the official TV week site clearly, and I see it's just syndicated to MNTV stations. I apologize for the error (CoolKat, KoolCat, or whatever your name is, you could take some lessons in admitting your errors from me).John 05:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Launch Date?

The article says MyTV is scheduled to launch on September 5th. I noticed on Saturday (the 2nd) that our local WB affiliate, WTTA, is already marketing themselves as MyTV.User:BucsWeb 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) '

Does anyone else notice that the article is talking about future launch dates and events in the past tense? Doric Nash 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, all the dates I'm seeing in the article have already passed as of the timestamp of your signature. Lambertman 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was the 5th when I made that comment. Doric Nash 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Yesterday I added a logo gaallery on this page. First, the "very early" logo I had there is one I saw in a promo for "My TV". It mentioned the shows "Desire" and "Secrets". Second, why have the other two logos everywhere than in one place? So, I feel the logo gallery should come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.205.84 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 September 2006

I can't find any evidence that it's anything other than a local station logo. Did you see it on any station other than those owned by Gray Television? — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "early logo" was never an official logo of MNTV...it was used by a few affiliates who decided they liked their own look more.--Dleav 12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Telenovelas for children?

The article claims that the network's entire schedule consists of English language telenovelas. It doesn't mention anything about E/I programming, which is required of all U.S. broadcast television channels. Does MNTV provide any E/I programming to its affiliates? Or are local MNTV stations expected to get E/I programming elsewhere? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think because it only produces 2 hours of Primetime content (I think) it does not qualify as a proper Network. So these rules are excluded. Please correct me if I am wrong. - Mike Beckham 01:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this FCC article (linked to from the E/I page), airing E/I programming is a requirement of television stations, not television networks. Since the MyNetworkTV network only provides twelve hours of programming per week, none of which qualify for E/I, MNT affiliates have to obtain their E/I programming from other sources, such as syndicated repeats. --Psiphiorg 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the law does apply specifically to the local stations (thereby including even independent stations), and I think it must have been mentioned during a PSA on my local ABC affiliate. At any rate, if the network doesn't provide content, there's always someone like DiC Entertainment with which to contract for such programming.

As an aside, I have to note how humorous the concept of a children's telenovela is, in my opinion. How would that work? Like a Muppet soap opera? — ArkansasTraveler 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)