Skapare
WVTX edit
Since you and I are the only users discussing WVTX do you think we should clean up the WVTX Discussion page? I feel that the WVTX Independant and the CW Affiliation discussion sections ought to be removed as they are no longer needed. Also what are your feelings about a disambiguation page on WVTX. One link to WVTX-CA with information about the current station and another link to WVTX-TV with information about the station ran by Ted Rouse. Bryan27 01:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is some means to archive discussions, since I have seen links to "archived" on some discussion pages. I don't know how that plays out against the history of a discussion page. In some way, things should be saved somewhere.
I have never seen disambiguation with change of station ownership or operation. And in this case there is no formal change of ownership since neither Ted Rouse nor WVTX, Inc. were the actual licensee. So I'd just leave the page as is (not a disambiguation) and just describe it's history. That can get tough as stations sometimes change channels and/or callsigns and/or owners/licensee. In this case, it's not as tough as the channel is the same and the licensee is the same. That may change as the analog cutoff day approaches, depending on whether channel 28 is considered a full power or low power station, by then. The cutoff for low power stations has not been established, but the transition may force low power stations to change channel, reduce power, change pattern, or go off the air, to protect other stations (such as WUAB in Lorain).
Nevertheless, the main WVTX-CA page does need to be cleaned up. Some of it reads like it is a discussion page. The infobox is confusing now, too. But some of this may need to wait until the real owner takes the next step. Skapare 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know those Class-A and LPTV stations which did not apply for a new channel during the filing window in June will flash-cut their operation. IE: begin digital on their analog channel. All Class-A stations meet the spacing required regarding digital stations. Before the FCC would/will grant any station Class-A status it must meet the spacing requirements. Thus channel 28 could start digital operations since it is Class-A. LPTV stations which didn't meet spacing requirements are off the air, operating on a new channel that meets spacing, or is awaiting a construction permit.
I know what you mean by the page looking like a discussion. I keep trying to clean it up the best I can, but people keep putting usless trivia in it. I think the "Controversy" section isn't needed at all. What station hasn't had some kind of controversy at some time.
You should take a look at the WBGN-LP page before and afer I cleaned it up. Before it read like it was written by a 6th grader. I'll try to fix the WVTX infobox shortly. It was always confusing. BTW I'm one of the owners of WVJW so I tend to know what is going on at the local stations. I have worked with the actual owners in the past and speak to them every so often. BTW WVTX doesn't mean West Virginia Television Xcitement. Some one made that up. It means West Virginia Transmitter (TX is shorthand for transmitter). It signifies that it is their transmitter in West Virginia. Bryan27 05:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
WVTX Editing edit
I edited the Infobox to reflect the current situation and cleaned up the history and network affiliation section to the best of my ability. I didn't touch the Controversy section.Bryan27 06:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence 'Some StudlyCaps come in the form of a pun (such as "sHiFtHaPpEnS").' pm tje grounds that it seemed to be a nonsensical non sequitur, but I figure I might as well notify you in case I'm just missing the point of what you meant. --DocumentN (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Tentative channel designation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non notable and temporary term.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)