Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 9

Guess who's back?

Remember "Mmbabies"? It appears he's back in action, just vandalising KCVH-LP. It may or may not be him, but the vandal has that style. Gridlock Joe caught him, though. Just hope it doesn't become a trend. -- azumanga (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dingbat and Mmbabies in one weekend....when it rains, it pours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 01:25

Well, at least they were caught before doing too much damage... --Mhking (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wish there was some way to perma block them from ever getting near Wikipedia again. There should be a way to perma block users to keep them from creating entire sock drawers and causing havoc. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 04:18

Can we stop with the personal attacks

Ok if someone is causing problems report them to a moderator. No need to talk about them here. Can we get back to business please?TomCat4680 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, there are several prolific serial vandals, and many of us help each other when those individuals rear their ugly heads. Not only that, there are several admins who are among us who are familiar with the situations. Please do not presume upon what there is a "need" to discuss here or not. Thank you. --Mhking (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. Its off topic and unneccessary. If they're vandalizing, revert it, report them and move on with your life. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not off topic as the vandals are vandalizing television stations articles. Powergate92Talk 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What personal attacks are you talking about Tom? I don't see any at all on this page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 03:47

Tom, I am not "telling" you what to do -- I am simply asking that you afford the rest of us the same courtesy. --Mhking (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Combatting vandalism is simple. First revert and report, then ask for a WP:RFP to the page that was vandalized. What works better, a sign on a bank that says "no robbing please" or an armed guard, bullet proof glass, and security cameras?TomCat4680 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your demand of not to tell you what to do works both ways. I ask again, please do not presume upon me. It is not your place to do so. I am asking politely. --Mhking (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't demanding anything. I just don't think this is the place to discuss combating vandalism. I believe there is an anti-vandalism task force or Wikiproject that focuses on it, those are the appropriate places to discuss the vandals.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask again...what personal attacks? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 04:05

Talking about people negatively in public is considered a personal attack. Assuming bad faith is considered a personal attack as well. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

About indef'd blocked, sock creating, ever vandalizing psycho vandals? Come on? That is like saying "Be Nice to Gwarp". - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 04:14

No but saying things like "I guess whatever girl he found dumped him" and "but it's obvious that his mom has given him access to the computer again." and "I'd love to kick that nut in the teeth." are abusive, immature, and unneccessary.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Point taken. --Mhking (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually they are pretty funny and are MUCH better than saying "I'd like to find him and ring his scrawny little neck"....we wouldn't say that, so we say things like "I guess whatever girl he found dumped him". Since they are indef blocked vandals, I don't think they get the same courtesy as other users. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 04:20

Well if they've been punished I don't see the purpose of the name calling, etc. Let it go.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, fine. Consider my hands duly slapped (since I'm the one who said those things), and noted. I won't say snarky things about the ongoing vandals that we deal with on a seemingly endless basis. Satisfied now? --Mhking (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was talking to Homer. "Apology" accepted though. The threats of violence are unneccessary too Homer.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What Mhking said. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 04:28

DTV Delay Act (U.S.A.) signed into law, updates to many articles needed

Hi everyone, the DTV Delay Act was signed into law by President Obama on February 11, 2009, so the new analog cutoff date is June 12, 2009. All U.S. OTA station articles needed to be updated to reflect this. The act allows stations to turn off the analog signals on the original February 17 date, however, or they can wait until June 12, or any time between if they wish. Here's a full list of which stations will go all digital now, and which will wait until later. FCC.gov - Appendix B: All Full Power Television Stations by DMA, Indicating Those Terminating Analog Service on or before February 17, 2009

I already did the Flint/Saginaw/Bay City, MI market.

Also when mentioning the U.S. transition, make sure to only link to the U.S. specific article at DTV transition in the United States. The other one is international and shouldn't be linked to.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated the ones in Detroit, WMYD and WPXD, maybe try doing it in a format like that. ViperSnake151 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good job, thats just what I was thinking. Everybody make sure to check the above document for info specific to each station. Also read the DTV Delay Act article for further details about the new date and its conditions for certain stations, especially the "nightlighting" and "enchanced nightlighting" clauses.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The FCC has released lists of stations which will be allowed to transition early, stations which have elected the "alternative showing" (which they are promising to evaluate by the 17th), and stations which have "changed their minds" about making an early transition. These need to be understood in the context of the February 11th list of "Certain stations" which were required to make a public-interest showing. In addition, any stations which were on the February 10th list of early transition stations which are not on the February 11th list will be allowed to transition early. All stations which are allowed to transition early must do so unless they notify the Commission by 6 pm EST on Sunday. 121a0012 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see some of the edits being made, I want to emphasize: no sources which date before February 11 can be relied upon for early transition claims. All such filings prior to February 6 were invalidated, and only the filings listed as accepted by the FCC should be listed as making an early transition. 121a0012 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused that's too many lists all at once. Someone please figure out which is most updated, relevant list and add it to the DTV Delay Act article. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a, single, "most updated, relevant list". Last week, the Commission released: (A) a list of stations that had applied for early termination, (B) a list of stations that were denied automatic approval for early shutdown, (C) a list of stations that were granted approval for early shutdown after being denied automatic approval, (D) a list of stations that made "alternative showings" as to why they should be allowed to shut down early, and (E) a list of stations that decided against early shutdown after having been denied automatic approval. We still don't have two more lists (which hopefully the FCC will publish on Monday, but we may have to wait until Tuesday), which are (F) the stations which have withdrawn their requests for early shutdown after having been granted automatic approval, and (G) the stations which have been approved to shut down early after staff review of their "alternative showings". The stations that will shut down on Tuesday are A - B + C + G - F. 121a0012 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'm still confused (but I guess that's the government's job, to drown us in paperwork). So should we put all of those lists on the DTV Delay Act article now, or wait til Wednesday after the soft analog shutoff occurs? TomCat4680 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the lists belong here. Tomorrow we should have a good idea of which stations are actually going to shut down, once the FCC publishes the final lists, and on Wednesday there should be reliable press coverage to cite in the individual station articles. 121a0012 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The FCC released the full list this morning. 121a0012 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I updated the link on the DTV Delay Act page.TomCat4680 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok for some reason that link isn't working 1210a0012. So I replaced it with this one. Its basically the same info. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Analog stations still on, but basically off

We have, I thing two local stations that are still broadcasting on analog, but only information on how to get a digital signal. What status do these stations fall into? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They are running either "nightlight" or "enhanced nightlight", depending on whether they mix newscasts in with the transition information. 121a0012 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

MOS for digital station ledes

I'm confused as to how to lay out the lede of an opening paragraph to an article. For instance on WAOW-TV, I had the opening like this to put preference on the PSIP virtual position over the actual channel;

WAOW-TV channel 9 (PSIP, digital channel 29) is an ABC affiliate which serves Wausau and Rhinelander, Wisconsin, along with other communities in north central Wisconsin. WAOW also has a satellite station in Eagle River, WYOW channel 34 (PSIP, digital channel 28), which extends the station's reach to extreme northern Wisconsin and the western portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

But I was reverted by someone who deleted the actual digital channel. However I reverted back because you can't just tune to channel 9 the first time and get WAOW without a lineup scan. How should we guide digital channels MOS-wise? I need some help and consenus on this, so feel free to share and give some ideas out. Nate • (chatter) 05:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Put the PSIP (a.k.a. virtual channel) info (same number as old analog channel) on the lead, and the actual physical digital channel in the infobox.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

KTKA (Topeka, KS)

I'm a web developer at the parent company which owns KTKA-TV and a few other things in the Lawrence/Topeka market, and while I don't normally edit anything related to those properties I have now, several times, reverted edits to the KTKA article, specifically, the "website" portion of its infobox. While 49abc.com exists and is affiliated with the station, it's basically just a couple pages we've slapped up to list the programming schedule; the actual site for KTKA is ktka.com (which links up programming info, TV news content and various other things which don't exist on 49abc.com). I've double- and triple-checked with various folks to make sure ktka.com is indeed the correct "official" site for the station that people should be referred to, and left notes to that effect on the talk page, but it keeps getting edited to list 49abc.com instead.

Other than endlessly watch the page and revert each time someone makes the change (since explanations on the article talk page don't seem to have any effect), is there anything I can do to try to keep that article pointing to the correct site? Ubernostrum (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can request page protection which blocks anonymous and newer editors from editing the page, who are usually the vandals.TomCat4680 (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What about listing both sites? We can have ktka.com on top as the authoritative site, and then list 49abc.com as the 'programming information' site within that space of the infobox. There can be room for both. Nate • (chatter) 07:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care whether both are listed, I'm just trying to make sure that the site they consider to be their "official" site is listed in the article. And FWIW I don't think the edits are really "vandalism" -- I suspect they're well-meaning people who just don't know that one site is just a couple mostly flat pages of listings, and the other is everything else. Ubernostrum (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FCC releases new rules about early DTV transitioning

The FCC released a new 45 page order yesterday regarding rules for stations who still want to transition to digital before June 12. The full text of it is here. I linked to the February 20 Multichannel News article about it on the DTV Delay Act article (my post is the last line of that section) but I'm not sure if I came to the right conclusion about it, its pretty confusing. Correct me if I didn't.TomCat4680 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks Who's Back....again

Looks like he hasn't taken the hundreds of hints and Dingbat is back with Fran58. All reverted, just waiting for it to be blocked. Someone really needs to take this kid's internet away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 22, 2009 @ 23:15

...and now that account is blocked. I would say love to say "he is blocked", but we all know that he will keep turning up just like BenH and Mmbabies. Has anyone ever done a checkuser to see if all three of these people aren't one in the same? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 22, 2009 @ 23:19

Ok he's blocked, move on with your life and get back to the purpose of the project. Join the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit if you're so concerned with vandalism. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I "move on" after the person is blocked. I actually go so far as to delete them from my watchlist, cause they ain't coming back :) If my memory serves me, I am a member of the CVU and have been for awhile. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 19:11

So just discuss these vandals on the CVU talkboard. I don't see the purpose of discussing them here. Doing so is like airing sports on the Food Network if you ask me. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason we do...and I say "we" because other editors do as well....is that it lets members of WP:TVS know who is socking this time around and puts people on alert for other socks, cause there is never just one. Between Mmbabies, BenH, and Dingbat2007 there are some 250 to 300 socks and growing...so it is good to have as many eyes looking....hence why we post the information here. Also, the posts of the users are always specifically TV Stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 00:09

How do we know you're not a sock? TomCat4680 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause there is a big ol' checkuser for a LOOOOOONG time ago (sometime last year) that confirms I am not a sock of any of them. Why would I report and revert their changes if I was them? Be careful who you are accusing of sockpuppetry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 00:42

I was just teasing.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a new one, Fran54 and their IP 65.49.161.93. Reverting everything now. Nate • (chatter) 08:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fran54 was blocked with talk page editing revoked. Nate • (chatter) 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See TomCat4680, this is why we post here. I wouldn't have known about "Fran54" if Nate hadn't posted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 18:59

Ok question answered. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that three different editors (one of them an IP) reverted articles created by Fran54 that were nommed for speedy deletion -- WLPN-LP, K28IL, K48IT, WCBZ-LP and WOIL-LP; the rationale for all of these was that usefulness trumps the fact that the user was a sock. I always thought the article's merits does not matter if they were created by a banned sock. -- azumanga (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Add "Fran46" to the multitude... --Mhking (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WDIV: "Controversy In Flint" situation...again...

I'm going to point to a section on the WDIV page once again (we did this dance once before, but it is coming up again)... I feel the section is not germane to the WDIV article; Tom Cat feels otherwise. When I attempted to remove the section, Tom Cat insisted that I was out of line, due to there being "factual" information regarding the situation. My point is that the existence of factual information means nothing if it is not germane to the article.

Additionally, the name-calling he has resorted to is unnecessary and out of line in and of itself.

This is copied from the WDIV talk page -- including the name-calling that is going on there. Everyone's suggestion on how to deal with the question at hand is welcome. --Mhking (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Whats the $%^& does germane mean?????????????????TomCat4680 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This section was removed once before; it appears to have been tied to an agenda from one user in Flint who is upset that the signal was removed from that cable system. It was decided previously that the section indeed was not germane to the subject at hand, i.e., the Detroit television station, and hence removed. It has returned, presumably at the hand of the same individual. A similar sort of section has been added to the NBC station in Flint in that same regard. Conversely, the same sort of "controversy" has not been added to any other stations or markets where this sort of change has taken place, only this one. And the tone of this section on this article suggests that there is a soapbox-type agenda at work -- which violates Wikipedia policy. As a result, I propose that the section be removed. --Mhking (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen Mike, FYI, I don't even have cable, I have DirecTV. So don't jump to conclusions and accuse me of having an "agenda". I'm just stating facts and I included a reliable source (the actual FCC Order allowing Comcast Flint to block WDIV signals during NBC network programming). My only "agenda" is creating a thorough, fact based encyclopedia. Yours is just being a deletionist. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't name names. The individual I am speaking of was an IP user months ago. That person clearly (at least from this vantage point) had an agenda. If that was you, then I stand by that assessment. I'm no fan of Comcast (I, too, have DirecTV thanks to a personal difference with Comcast), but the FCC order you speak of is not exclusive to the Detroit/Flint situation. As a result, I would say that firstly, the FCC order is probably encyclopedic in and of itself (and is likely deserving of its own article), and that since it is not exclusive, it is not directly germane to this article. I'm not throwing names or insults, I'm simply pointing out the appearance of an agenda, and am also working to produce a factual encyclopedic resource. --Mhking (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude you know it was me, you called me out on it and started a big debate on the TV stations project then you gave up to avoid an edit war. Anyways this arguing is getting nowhere so lets wait for more opinions from others. Once again I have no agenda except to state facts. If there isn't a Wiki policy against removing factual information with reliable sources, there should be, but I guess some would argue thats just another inclusionist vs deletionist argument.TomCat4680 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not calling names. You are. I'm not arguing. You are. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you or anyone else. You are working to goad me along. We disagree. Leave it at that, and deal with the issue at hand -- without name-calling. I stand behind what I said here. I will note as such at WP:TVS. If there is consensus, may I presume that you would agree to abide by that? I certainly will -- whichever what that falls. --Mhking (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I took out the section that you have such a problem with. Lets close this debate now.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention Admins: IP block request

Hi if there's any admins here, a frequent vandal with the IP address 72.92.4.244 has been vandalising List of DirecTV channels repeatedly. They have been warned multiple times. Please block them permanently.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, IPs are normally, if never, blocked permanently. There can be long blocks (sometimes months) but normally that comes after several other blocks of escalating time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 3, 2009 @ 23:08

He was blocked for 1 month and the article was semi-protected for 3. Apparently they can't ban him because its an IP of an educational institution. Dang vandals always finding loopholes. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is an school IP, those can be blocked for longer periods of time then normal. If the user has been given a full set of warnings, I would suggest taking it to AIV or ANI where more eyes will see it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 00:11

That's how I got it blocked. He's been warned like 3 times for vandalizing the same article and blocked for it once already, and he's been identified as a sock puppet several times.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then that is probably the best bet. AIV has lots more eyes then WP:TVS. If you want me to do the honors, that works for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 00:17

I already put it on AIV. He's been blocked for 1 month by my admin friend Bearian. Apparently he likes to vandalize Cartoon Network related articles as well so BOL. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he is blocked for a month, then everything should be good for that month. I would keep an eye on those pages (watchlist them perferably) to make sure he doesn't pop up on another IP address. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 01:38

Television station lists

Does anyone know if there has ever been a discussion about organizing lists like in Category:Lists of television channels by country? The articles seems to be split among networks versus channels and the channels ones have a problem of being randomly categorized, really by original research. Is there a likely central location? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your questions, but the "channels by state (U.S.)" ones (if that's what you mean) are organized by Designated Market Area, the official Nielsen Media Research classification for TV stations in the U.S.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

International ones are more of an issue. For example, List of television stations in India was fighting between this version and this version. My concern is the idea of categorization itself, since it's generally completely unsourced. For example who is to say that the Discovery Channel in India is really Infotainment? Even List of free-to-air channels in the UK has a category scheme based upon KingofSat.net, which I'm not sure if reliable enough. I guess it's similar to the WP:MUSIC debates about what charts are worthy of inclusion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the project page again, I guess this focuses only on North America. Strike this whole discussion then as I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian television makes more sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Analog info on transitioned stations

Do we want to retain the analog powers, HAATs and locational coordiantes on the articles for historical purposes, or delete them and let them live in the history of the articles? Nate • (chatter) 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The info is outdated / obsolete and therefore irrelevant. Make sure to refer to the full list when doing so. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Analogue channel number is worth keeping in {{infobox broadcast}} in two fields: subchannels (only in the context of it being in use as the base for the station's current virtual channels) and former_channels (where one of the station's physical channel numbers will appear as abandoned at the end of the 2009 transition). The rest of the defunct info - whether analogue or from a digital UHF transmitter abandoned when a channel returned to high-VHF - is useless. Also, be cautious, if a station had "one megawatt on UHF 69, returning to VHF 7 in 2009" odds are that does not mean they have a megawatt on VHF 7 now. FCC lookup is needed to find power if a digital station moves across bands. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Name changes to Analog named stations

There are a couple hundred TV stations with -TV in their names (ie WTAJ-TV, WAVY-TV, KABC-TV, etc). Should these be changed, as they flip from analog to full digital to WTAJ-DT, etc? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 18, 2009 @ 18:57

Check the FCC database to make sure -DT is their official callsign first.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not, and won't be. 121a0012 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For some low-power stations, such as WILM-LD, the digital transmitter is a separate license or callsign and the page was to be moved once the old WILM-LP went away. These are the exception, though - most full service stations will simply keep the -TV suffix. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DT is a special temporary designation used only during the period when a TV station has or had OTA simulcasts in both analog and digital simultaneously; once a station goes all-digital, the digital signal becomes -TV. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm... Not this again...

Yes, the historical logo fair use in galleries debate is back again. See [1] , [2], [3]. I don't want an edit war over this. I think that there should be a clear consensus on this so that this will not happen again the future.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert all my edits at once without even trying to speak to me about your concerns. That's a bit rude. I was not aware that there was an ongoing debate at all (if you have a link where I can read up, I'd appreciate it). All I did was remove anywhere from 3 to, in one case, 14 fair use images which were excessive. Even WikiProject guideline that you are pointing to yourself, which is not the actual fair use policy, WP:TVS says that "Non-free images should never be used merely as decoration." and historical logos should have "clear critical commentary on each logo." Nothing I removed seems controversial, as they were clearly simply decorative: logo galleries with no explanatory text. Dominic·t 07:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it's not really up to the project to dictate its own special consensus outside of the rules for fair use; any discussion has to concentrate on making sure that our use of historical logos is consistent with fair use policy. Just because some of us don't like the rules as they stand doesn't mean that anybody enforcing them is being unnecessarily tendentious; rules are rules. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will say this again....when someone can describe a television station logo in "clear critical commentary"...then we can remove these galleries. Until then, this is just pointless reverting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 23:34

Physical and virtual channel the same, does this have a special name?

I was just wondering, is there a term for a station whose digital physical channel and virtual channel are the same? (For example WFUM-TV and WILX-TV), like maybe I don't know "true channel" or something?! If not I just coined the term and I want royalities if you use it in an article (just kidding).TomCat4680 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the physical channel and virtual channel are the same, it, in effect, has no virtual channel, as it is catalogued according to its actual frequency. -- azumanga (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The FCC refers to the channel to which you tune as the "major channel". Each subchannel is known as a "minor channel". The terminology is the same whether the channel is actual or virtual. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, lets compare some leads, if they did not change their channel number

WFUM (Michigan Television), broadcasting on channel 28.1 (Virtual channel, signal on UHF channel 52)...

And for the situation now:

WFUM (Michigan Television), broadcasting on UHF channel 28.1...

Maybe like this... ViperSnake151 14:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "UHF channel 28.1". Physical UHF and VHF channels are integers. Virtual channels are not. A station can broadcast digitally on UHF channel 52 (virtual channel 28.1), but if it has in fact drifted to "UHF channel 28.1" it is rather badly (600 kHz) off-frequency and the station is likely to be hearing either from the Federal Communications Commission or from a rather-upset general manager at a competing UHF channel 29. :) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WFUM is on digital 28 only, no virtual channel, no such thing as "28.1" like he said, that just how its split up into digital subchannels.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DT channels in market navboxes

Why are we organizing these by "actual" DT channel # as opposed to virtual ones? No one besides engineers know/care what a station's "actual" digital allocation is.....why make everything more confusing than it has to be?

Take for example Cedar Rapids....is anyone really going to look for KGAN's article by looking for channel 51?

A station's "real" DT channel is merely a technicality and should be mentioned in a station's article, but nothing more. Not everyone who looks stuff up on Wikipedia is a broadcast engineer or cares that KGAN is actually on channel "51" when everyone watches it on channel "2"(.1/.2/et al.) and it is known as "CBS 2".

--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Mention physical channels in the infobox and the DTV section of station articles ONLY. Don't sort them by physical channel on the categories or market templates, since stations are required to identify themselves through PSIP and on-air as their old analog channel. I re-edited the lead of the KGAN article to differentiate between its physical and virtual channels. Also note I mentioned the network affiliation and station branding in the first sentence, since this seems to be the standard format. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just add a little indicator aside the usual channel number like "KGAN 2 _DTV (CBS)" for those markets that still have analog channels, then maybe add something saying that they are virtual numbers to templates for markets that are all-digital, and maybe inversely then mark out analog stations. ViperSnake151 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Listing the analogue station as "KGAN 2 (CBS)" vs. the digital station as "KGAN (2.1 CBS, ...)" or "KGAN-DT (2.1 CBS, ...)" might work for the market templates. Given that full-power analogue is already gone on 36% of the stations, going further (such as by separating 'digital-only stations' into its own row in the templates) is probably overkill at this point. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stretch-o-vision"?

I want to state that WJRT-TV is 16:9 24/7 but obviously not true HD, since not all syndicated shows and ABC programs on it are produced in HD, but I want to use an actual technical term instead of "stetch-o-vision". Does one exist? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be referring to the "H-stretch" setting on receivers with 16:9 screens. This stretches 4:3 content horizontally to fill the screen. Many viewers seem to prefer this setting, even though it distorts the geometry of the image, making people and circular objects appear wider than they really are. This is a display setting in the viewer's tuner/receiver.

As far as the station's transmitted signal, they will routinely upconvert standard definition 4:3 content, but will not usually stretch it to fit a 16:9 screen, although it is possible. --Thomprod (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Its true, everything on WJRT-HD is full 16:9 24/7, whether its in HD or SD. Ask anyone that lives in the Flint / Tri-Cities market. It has nothing to do with any settings on my TV, every other channel displays the picture its in correct aspect ratio (16:9 or 4:3), whether its local, regional or national. I KNOW the local news isn't in true HD, I'm friends with one of their anchors. And I'm pretty sure none of the local commercials were shot in HD. So anyway is there an article I can link to instead of saying "WJRT-HD is in stretch-o-vision."? TomCat4680 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur -- TV stations (and sometimes networks) can stretch 4:3 programming to fill 16:9 screens -- often to non-favorable results. Last year, after I bought a wide screen HDTV, I watch an episode of NBC's Deal or No Deal on my local affiliate's HDTV channel -- it was stretched out. The next week, I watched the original SD version on the regular channel, as the thinner graphics (and the "pint-size" money board) did not please me. -- azumanga (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But the WJRT-HD signal is NOT stretched. If the video is SD, possibly the top and bottom is masked off. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Stretched / masked same thing. Do you really think Hank Graff and Dan Dan the Mattress Man shoot their commercials in HD? I highly doubt it. If you live in the Flint DMA you know something is definitely wrong with the picture. Any good videophile like myself can always tell whether an image is in true HD, stretched SD, or upconverted.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anamorphic would be the most likely technical term for distortion of aspect ratio (not a masking or truncation). It is rare that a station would do this (anamorphosis), but not unheard of - some of the articles on Mexican stations mention these sorts of issues with DTV broadcasts. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the video is windowboxed, which that article seems to be about. I'm saying that even though most shows on it are shot in 4:3 SD (local and non-ABC syndicated shows, even local commercials), it fills my entire 16:9 HDTV screen. Isn't there a term like "tilt and scan" or something, is that what I'm looking for? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pan and scan would selectively cut off part of the image to fit some other aspect ratio, but would not stretch or distort the data which is retained. In that respect, pan and scan is not an anamorphic presentation format. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Video shot at 4:3 can fill a 16:9 display in a variety of ways, generally selected at the receiver:

• with no correction by adding black vertical bars on each side
• H-shift, stretching the image horizontally to fill the screen but distorting the shape of objects contained therin
• Zoom, which enlarges the image to fill the screen horizontally while cropping the top and bottom
• Partial Zoom, which is a combination of the above methods and varies by manufacturer.

Conversely, Pan and scan is a method of displaying widescreen format video on a standard 4:3 display by choosing the "most important" part of the image based on content. The 4:3 frame is sometimes panned from one side to the other, generally with less-than-desirable results.

However, what the OP is describing seems to be none of the above. The station seems to be transmitting their 4:3 SD programming at a 16:9 ratio. SD programming is generally upconverted to HDTV for digital transmission. The upconverter can be set to a number of different settings, In this case, it seems to be adding H-stretch to fill up the 16:9 frame. --Thomprod (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree ... that what the situation seems to be. Usually stations pillar-box SD content maintain the original aspect. I have not seen this before, but it wouldn't surprise me since 'most' people don't mind watching stretched SD content. It annoys me. Krocheck (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusing article

I was reading the article W42DI and I clicked the link to the FCC record for it and it said no such station. Then I decided to type in W46CR, channel 46 (which the article says was its former callsign and channel number, but then WBSF was granted a license for channel 46, in which case the channel was channel to 42 and callsign to W42DI) and what do you know, there was a record for it! So apparently W46CR is still its official callsign (I'm guessing W42DI is unofficial somehow??), and I changed the lede sentence to reflict this. Should the article's name just be changed to W46CR instead? I'm very confused. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving it. You're right, since I dealt with this when W16BS moved to W29DJ. But in some cases, the former channel number and call remains to avert confusion if a channel change, as it seems to have been in this case. Nate • (chatter) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading further, it seems like W42DI is still in CP phase according to Michiguide, so that may be why it hasn't moved. I did move the article as I said, but we could use some research into what this station's broadcast is actually on. Nate • (chatter) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd help if the station had an official site. Or if it was actually strong enough to receive from further than 10 miles from the transmitter.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3ABN channelfinder lists it as Channel 42, but doesn't show the calls. Nate • (chatter) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Merge Proposal - Solution Presentation

I have posted a potential solution for the merge proposal from August of last year at Infobox Broadcasting network. Please visit and provide feedback. Krocheck (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bringing this up again....DT channels in market navboxes.

KansasCity (talk · contribs) insists there is/will a standard for the order/description of stations in the market navboxes. (i.e. WILM-LD would be listed as "WILM-LD 40 (10.1 CBS)")

I don't know of any standard...and if this is a standard, it needs to change. It is far too confusing for the average reader; who would look for WILM, naturally, at the channel 10 position as that's how the station would appear on their television.

"Actual" digital channels are only relevant to engineers. The general public does not know (or care) that WILM-LD's actual channel is "40" when it is on channel "10" on every single TV in the viewing area)

Stations' actual DT channels should receive a small mention in the respective station's article and that's it.

--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually a consumer knowing that channel 40 is their physical channel would be very helpful when selecting an antenna, since 40 is UHF and 10 is VHF and the 2 bands require totally different types of antennas for optimal reception (You shouldn't assume that everyone has cable or satellite). However they should be listed in the categories as their virtual channel (which is usually the same as their old analog number) since that's what they use as their on air identifier (as required under FCC law). TomCat4680 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be listed by the virtual channel as that's the way it is in Template:Phoenix TV. Powergate92Talk 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it is in most market templates. However the physical channel needs to remain in the article for the reasons I mentioned above, they're relevant to more than just station engineers. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the station articles we are talking about the market templates. Powergate92Talk 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So am I. I agree with what he said except his statement about knowing the physical channel is only relevant to station engineers. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys should take a look at the new infoboxes for broadcast tv/radio, tv channels, etc. I specifically made it so the physical channel would be displayed with the transmitter data, but the channel the public sees on their TV is the PSIP channel. User:Krocheck/sandbox1 Both pieces of information are relevant. Market boxes should display with PSIP channel, but the station's channel number is definitely worth noting somewhere in the article. Krocheck (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok three things - 1. subchannels aren't usually notable enough for a separate section. 2. most (if not all) broadcast stations are available terrestrially, that section seems redundant, and 3. its a consensus here that cable channel numbers are too numerous (for some it would be a whole page in itself), just put check local listings, or if available link to the station's official site that has a listing of systems that have it and their information. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - 1) I feel that so long as the channels provide content that a physical person plays a role in at some point of the day is notable. These 24/7 weather channels I think are notable because people care A LOT about weather (otherwise there wouldn't be need for it). Most have their weather personalities step in and do forecasts and what-not besides simply having a RADAR/GFX loop. The three broadcast tv stations I did sample boxes for reflect that mentality. If I had one more sample box to add I would add Milwaukee Public Television. You'll notice that WMVT has 8 subchannels. 1-4 are notable because they are active programming (one being a Spanish station in an area with a large Hispanic population), but the rest would be handled with a link in the channel note to "(see article)". I agree that not all are ... music and traffic cameras where there's no real 'programming' can be mentioned in the article.

2) This is where I worked in the whole PSIP Virtual channel thing. Physical channel # gets listed with the transmitter and you note what digital channels the people can see it on.

3) I feel the main or most popular cable providers could be covered. Large markets like Chicago would be a problem, but Cleveland only has a few in the main market area and then you could add a note after to check listings for other providers. Covering the "big boys" I think is beneficial to the reader.Krocheck (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic in 3. had a giant debate on this project about 6 months ago and the consensus was exclude cable channels. Check the archives, it was in the fall I think. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the last thing I want to do is start a heated discussion again ... so cable out, but I def will hunt for it in the archives at some point in the near future. The other option would be to add the Virtual channel input to the transmitter template and not use availability for broadcast TV.Krocheck (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Those changes have been made to my example boxes. Krocheck (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By city category criteria

Based on this CfR discussion, I think that the project should take a position on by city categories for the stations. Personally I think that this should be by city of license so that we avoid issues with copyrighted names for grouping of markets. Any opinions or suggestions? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think category by state, the way it is now, works fine. We don't want to over category some things. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 30, 2009 @ 00:06

I agree with Neutralhomer. Powergate92Talk 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I just used two state listings recently to find some things and I found them to be very helpful. City, region, etc. I just don't see a need. Once you get to the category you can go to the listing, which does a much better job of organizing the data by both license and area. Most of the city pages themselves list the television stations and I go to them if I need to find that stuff. It is simply excess to further break the stuff down.Krocheck (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now there are a bunch of categories below the state classifications. If the desire of the project is to eliminate them, then perhaps someone whats to suggest a trial upmerge nomination to see what kind of a reception it gets. Note that many places and objects and businesses are categorized by city or other grouping below the state level. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Graphics, set and music changes on television stations

I think that any article about a television station mentioning graphics, music and/or set changes to the station is not suitable for Wikipedia. So what? The station changed their graphics, set and/or music. Big deal. It is only plain statistics of unencyclopedic information. It is just a random event that does not demonstrate suitability for inclusion. The set changes are nothing an encyclopedia should even possibly mention, but we're currently mention that in the articles. The information may be useful, but not suitable for inclusion here. These mentions are dysfunctional, out of style, unprofessional, non-notable, unencyclopedic, you name it. So I am making a proposal that these mentions be discontinued and that we begin removing such statements. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mythdon the articles should not list graphics, music and set changes. Powergate92Talk 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Largely Agree - Graphics changes happen on a fairly regular basis so I definitely don't see the need there. Set changes as well, while not as often, are fairly common, and a historical breakdown of set changes is not needed. Music is another thing, while I don't need a breakdown on the station pages about their music package, keeping up with the various pages for the music packages, such as Impact, are useful. I literally used those the other day, tracking a couple stations back to the mid 90's. So, relevant, but not on the station pages.

There are two cases where graphics and sets I feel can be mentioned. 1) When a station switches to HD newscasts AND gets a new set and graphics package (usually that happens together) and 2) The most recent set change or a MAJOR graphics package changeover can be noted with a date, but must be removed if another change occurs. Keep a record of the latest change in those departments ... nothing else.Krocheck (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor dealing with Milwaukee TV stations has passed away...

Dick Golembiewski (User:Nitelinger), whose history of Milwaukee TV site (and later book) was of much help to the Milwaukee television articles, passed away yesterday of a heart attack at age 51. I can't really say I knew him beyond a few debates here and there about fair use and such, but he will of course be sorely missed. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpage and account should probably be semi-protected (I think that is the usual SOP). Our paths never crossed, but sorry to see a fellow Wikipedian pass on :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 31, 2009 @ 03:50

I have put in a request at the help desk. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Bibliomaniac15 has protected the userpage and added the standard notice. If you would like to create a section on the user's talk page for comments, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 31, 2009 @ 04:03

So young. May he R.I.P. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Biblio, he has a proper entry on WP:RIP. I filled in other details and I thank everyone for their help on this. This was my first time with this situation, and it was sad to me that it came so soon :(. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rating unassessed articles

Currently this WikiProject has 4,123 unassessed articles. So i think we should start rating the unassessed television station articles. I just rated all the Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma and Los Angeles TV stations articles. Powergate92Talk 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dingbat is back again

The IP 65.49.161.93 Dingbat used for vandalism just get unblocked and he is using it for vandalism again. Powergate92Talk 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Warn4im'd and all edits reverted. If you think this should go to AIV, please feel free to take it there. I didn't since the last edit was more than an hour ago. I think it is time to consider an IP range block on Dingbat's IP. The collateral damage, I think, is worth it to get rid of him once and for all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 01:37

Articles on subchannels

So, our consensus on individual subchannels of stations having articles, is that they usually only get their own article if they have a history separate from its "host" station, right? So, for instance, CW Plus affiliates that become OTA on a subchannel get their own article, but every other subchannel CW affiliate doesn't, right? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, and I think of the projects is, if it carries its own programming then it gets it's own article. The ones that don't are NBC Weather Plus channels, TBN subchannels (i.e Smile of a Child), PBS subchannels and ion subchannels because all they do is simulcast the main network feed. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 03:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WENY-DT3

Should the sub channel WENY-DT3 have an article or should this be merged back into WENY-TV? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it should remain seperate. This is standard around Wikipedia. See WTRF-DT2, WTRF-DT3, WBOY-DT2, WVIR-DT3....among many others. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 05:21

Well, so we are saying that we no longer need just a station article, but a station article and possibly one for every sub channel. What purpose is served by having an article, rather then a section in the stations article, for the subchannels? I suspect that if this went to AfD as a delete, the result would be to merge back to the station article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These DT pages have only a couple paragraphs ... half of which talks about how it is a subchannel of the main station. There's absolutely no need for this unless there's something extremely notable about the subchannel (i.e. an analog broadcast channel shuts down and moves itself to another station's DT offering). Reason being, if we go down this road the article for the callsign will have to be treated like a company then you'll have to have an article for each DT (including #.1) to describe programming and the other stuff. I completely disagree with this approach. Think simple people ... please! Krocheck (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree the subchannel articles should be merged into the stations articles. Powergate92Talk 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dingbat is back

He's up and online as User Talk:Rebafan19 this time; I've reported him, but I'm just posting here as a heads up to go with it... --mhking (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted some of his edits. Powergate92Talk 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that User Talk:Rebafan19 has been blocked, he's using User Talk:65.49.161.93. I have not reported him yet... --mhking (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted some of 65.49.161.93 edits. Powergate92Talk 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

station article handling of subchannels

At KATU we've had slight contention of how to handle subchannel stations/networks (see Talk:KATU#ThisTV logo removed). KATU carries This TV at channel 2.2. Should This's logo go on the station? Should there be a subchannel lineup box which clarifies the relationships? How is this to be handled? —EncMstr (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my contention on this issue- the ThisTV logo is only used to identify the syndicated subchannel, not the station. If the ABC/CBS/FOX logo isn't shown in the infobox, why would the ThisTV logo be shown? tedder (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the This TV affiliates articles should not have the This TV logo, they should only have the stations logo. Powergate92Talk 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think only if a 'This TV' branding element specific to the station is available then that element can be put on the page. Krocheck (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If a station adds like a channel branding on the logo or some other feature, then it can be allowed. Even if the logo was allowed, the person who adds the logo insists on using the lower quality JPEG instead of the high quality PNG.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is if the logo is custom for the station, it should be added, but if they don't, it's not needed. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RESKONIE just added the This TV and The CW logos to the WAOW-TV article. Powergate92Talk 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted that one and WCYB-TV. The CW image has been argued about here before and is to only be used in the network article only. I have reverted him many times on WAOW. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• If there isn't a article for the subchannel (like WVIR-DT3), then the logo should be listed on the main page (like in the case of KATU). If there is a subchannel article, then that article should be linked and the image moved there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 8, 2009 @ 19:44

I have just reverted the remaining This images and put the LQ JPG up for deletion. If he wants to use the channel logo, use the PNG and insert a FUR. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WBII-CA

Hi everyone, I recently created an article for WBII-CA. I'm not sure what market its in (its licensed to Holly Springs, Mississippi and I live in Michigan). But I added Memphis and Tupelo though, since it said it serves "Northern Mississippi" and "Western Tennessee" at List of Pursuit Channel affiliates. Please help expand it if you can. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Subchannels

We need a policy on subchannels.

My suggestions:

• Bar none, they all use the format [callsign]-DT[subchannel]. We have a CW-WHAM, for instance, that would be WHAM-DT2. (I had to save CW-WHAM when someone tried to merge it into WHAM-TV.)
  • Fake calls or station brands should be redirects. (WBEP in Erie, PA, is a fake sign, and it would be a redirect to WSEE-DT2.)
  • If the station is repeated on an LPTV station (WJJJ-DT2 on a WJJM-CA), the article is located at the latter's calls (in the example, WJJM-CA).
• Only major network affiliates are protected from AfD. Weather subchannels, news/info subchannels, TBN/ion subchannels, or other satellite-delivered services (as well as SD versions of HD subchannels) are not protected. (This ensures that CW, MNTV, etc. channels get articles.) I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13.2 WX because it was in the latter category.
• All subchannels get their lead sections in main channel articles.
• Subchannels where one station shares another's digital frequency (WHIH-DT1 and WHIH-DT2 are on the digital channel of WJJJ but mapped to their correct areas via PSIP), that usually indicates a technical issue...WGNO is not WNOL-DT2 in that case.

Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I simply do not support any individual pages for subchannels. Please provide me an example of a subchannel page that has more than a couple paragraphs of meaningful content that couldn't simply be put in the main article for the station. The pages for the CW, MNTV, etc. often are as meaningless as a page for any of the others. As I stated above, unless the DT channel has a history separate from the station (i.e. a past life as an independent analog station) then fine, but nothing else. One roof (callsign), one article. Krocheck (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure....WTRF-DT2, WTRF-DT3, WVIR-DT3, WBOY-DT2, WHSV-DT2, WHSV-DT4, TV3 Winchester (which is WHSV-DT3).....yeah, there is plenty of subchannel pages and all with histories of their own. All with that same notablity to them as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 04:53

The only station that meets my criteria is TV3 Winchester. The rest show a history and ownership directly tied to the parent station and digital expansion. TV3 is/was operationally separate from WHSV-TV (same owner) and is still primarily a cable channel that's carried by a broadcaster as a 'bonus' (for lack of a better word). The articles of those other channels tell me the parent station launched it on 'such-and-such' date and serves the market as 'such-and-such' affiliate, replacing the need for the distant station 'such-and-such' to serve the market. That information fills a paragraph ... the rest of it talks about it being a subchannel of the parent station and relation to the other subchannels the station offers. They're a waste and they spread information out that is better left in one singular article. TV3 and WHSV pass the 'One roof' test, since the both have separate facilities and GMs. The rest do not. Krocheck (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt....all pages meet the notablity test just by having a license. So, they all remain. It would be very tough for all these pages to be remerged into the main articles with the notablity test fulfilled. I really don't see this as a problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 06:16

I respectfully disagree. Please provide me a link to the FCC that shows they acknowledge and license each subchannel. I just went through the documents for 2 of the stations you mentioned above at the FCC and did not see any permits or licenses related the launch of subchannels. Granted, I did it fairly quick so I could have missed it. The license is to broadcast a digital transport stream ... which can carry a number of streams (channels). Your point about it being difficult to relocate that data back into the main article I also disagree with. Give me a half day or so and I could get all those back into the main articles. If people would actually give me feedback about my new infobox maybe we could actually organize the data better and make it easier for the reader to understand (User:Krocheck/sandbox1, User:Krocheck/sandbox2) ... but hey, I'm just the new guy :) Krocheck (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Krocheck. Powergate92Talk 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what you want is a mess of information to difficult to distinguish between on one seperate page? I have to say, that is kinda silly. They way it is now, we have one main page. The main page has a short sentence about the subchannel and then a link to the subchannel where all the information about that subchannel is. Short, sweet, easy to read, out of the way and easy for the newbies to digest. We are here to make things easy while be encyclopedic....and that is what these subchannel pages do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 17:34

I guess you hit the major bone of contention on the head. How easy would it be to find information? Well, rather easy in my opinion. All of the information about the station, which is the notable thing, is in one article. Redirects should be required for any article that has a heading for a subchannel. The redirect page should also include categories specific to that subchannel, like membership in a category for those carrying a specific network. If someone is confused by this simple solution, point me at a station article that need redirects. When there are cases that a subchannel merits an article for some well justified reason, then it can get one. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but exactly what criteria of notably does an article like WTRF-DT2 meet? There has always been some issues with station articles. The consensus seems to be if they hold a license, they can have an article. Failing that no article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The usual criteria for notablity is if the station has a license. WTRF-TV/DT has a license, WTRF-DT2 falls under WTRF-TV/DT, hence WTRF-DT2 is notable. That is the way it has always been with television and radio station articles. License = Notablity. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 02:06

Can you provide a link on the FCC site for this? All I can find is listings for WTRF-TV. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding....since WTRF-DT2 falls under WTRF-TV/DT (which has a license), it (WTRF-DT2) is notable because it is connected to WTRF-TV/DT. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 02:17

I believe you just affirmed our position. "WTRF-DT2 falls under WTRF-TV/DT". DT2 is broadcast from the same facility using the same transmitter as the main channel. There is one license for digital broadcasting and therefore one article. Do you intend to make separate articles for the analog and digital broadcasts of the main channel too? Just because you're connected to a notable entity doesn't make you notable. There's no subsets of notability to my knowledge. Krocheck (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the main station (WTRF-TV/DT) gets its own page and each subchannel gets its own page. There is no need to smash three pages of information into one and turn it into one big TL;DR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 02:30

Without proof that something other then WTRF-TV has a license, the case is made that those subchannels belong in the parent article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The station has a license not the subchannel so the subchannel should not have a article because the station has a license. Powergate92Talk 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. There is no need to combine articles that have stood alone (and notable) for over a year with another article into a mess no one will care to read. Show me one shread of need for the articles to be combined. License = Notablity. WXXX-DT has a license, that means WXXX-D2, 3, 4 and on are covered under that license. When WXXX-DT is considered notable because it had a license, that means the subchannels are notable as well. You can't have one be notable and not the other. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 02:42

What you seem to be misunderstanding is the license. As I stated before, the DT license is for a single ATSC broadcast stream. All subchannels (including the .1) are included and part of that stream. There's no good measure of notability for the individual components of that one stream. Krocheck (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't understand streams, I understand licenses....and a television station's license encompasses it's analog signal (WXXX-TV), it's digital/high def signal (WXXX-DT) and any subchannels (WXXX-DT2, etc.). They are all in that one license. License = Notability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 02:59

As i said before the station has a license not the subchannel. Saying a subchannel should have a article because the station has a license is like saying IZ Classics, IZ Videos and IZ Hope should have articles because they are subchannels of K38IZ-D. Powergate92Talk 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The subchannel is carried by the station that has the license. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:07

Again, you have affirmed my position and have only shown that you don't seem to have a strong technical or legal basis from which you are basing your opinion. I have made my case and I don't think there's much more I can say on the subject. Krocheck (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Krocheck, this is going to sound harsh and I don't mean for it to, but you are the self-proclaimed "new guy" and you don't know how things work around here. We go on notablity and not what looks pretty. The station has a license, that license encompasses the subchannels, therefore the subchannels are notable....which makes the subchannel pages notable, which means...they stay. I haven't "affirmed your position" as I am completely opposite your position. Please pay attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:20

Please, my prior comment was more harsh than yours. I certainly mean no disrespect and I am paying attention. 1) Technically speaking, TV and DT are separate licenses granted to the same business. While to you that may be a formality, it is important for this discussion. 2) Again (building on #1), the DT is for the the digital broadcast on the licensed channel. Digital broadcast means everything on the digital channel assigned by the FCC (meaning all subchannels). For the sake of this discussion, the .1 is a subchannel (and in fact technically speaking it is).

Having said that, your position would mean we need to have separate articles for the TV and DT broadcasts. The notability for the DT is to the business that runs the various channels on the DT broadcast. When you look at these operations as businesses (which they are) and not individual channels you will see that the main article is in fact for the business. The various channels it runs are part of it. Therefore do not have notability on their own. Otherwise we will need to start making articles for the .1's and simply treat the TV/DT main article as a purely business read. Krocheck (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My position has never been we need seperate articles for DT and analog stations...that would be silly. We need seperate articles for subchannels because they are seperate channels...plus, hey, it saves on room on the main article. Why have a 3000 word article when you can have two 1500 words articles about two seperate stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:45

I only said that to point out that the logic you're using to justify pages for the DT2+ could be used to justify even more (pointless, in my opinion) articles. Your other point about two 1500 articles instead of one 3000 word article I don't see as being valid. This is because the examples you have previously provided are more along the lines of one 2500 word article and one 500 word article. Krocheck (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making my head hurt. I don't see this getting consensus and it is becoming a testy issue. I say we close it and never speak of it again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:53

I disagree with simply closing this issue, as it is unresolved. Two other people have commented here that agree with my position, and with the exception of the OP (who has not commented since) no one else has made a comment agreeing with your position. I'm not saying that makes me right, but clearly there more discussion to be had ... hopefully by someone other than you who supports your opinion. Krocheck (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it stands, there is no clear cut consensus, so let's not be merging any articles as has already been done with WENY-DT3 (already reverted) until the discussion plays itself out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 04:03

I have not taken any such action and certainly will not until some level of understanding/agreement can be reached. Krocheck (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Krocheck this discussion should not be closed yet. Powergate92Talk 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re PowerGate92 and K38IZ-D: In that case, under a protection and creation policy of major network affiliate + anything repeated on an LPTV (like the SkyTrak Weather Network on WALV), the IZ _____ channels would not be given separate articles. Neither would the three weather subchannels in Phoenix (two of which are Local AccuWeather implementations), KPHE's subchannels, KAET's subchannels, the lone KAZT subchannel, or the ion and TBN subchannels.

If we go to Yuma-El Centro, we have ABC on a subchannel there. KECY-DT2 could be an article if we wanted it to be, but its lead section would go into KECY. Also there, LATV is on a subchannel, but that isn't covered. The CW affiliate would be.

Definite keeps include the following: WB100+ stations that were once cable-only (being at one point unrelated to the station that carries them) (CW-WHAM used to be TWC-operated WRWB), the majority of network affiliated subchannels (WHSV and company), and anything that an LPTV repeater carries (with the content info on the repeater article). Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Except in the cases of WGBC and WAGM, the .1 subchannel does not count and is not covered under this policy. Previous AfDs including KTFL establish the speedy keep law for TV stations. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I originally stated, I have no problem with channels that show a clear and distinct history separate from their current DT broadcasters. They should have their own article. The WBs you reference meet that criteria. WVIR-DT3, as an example, does not. Krocheck (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuel TV

FYI -- it appears someone from the corporate marketing or PR department of Fuel is trying to redo that article -- it reads more like an ad brochure right now; any help that can be had from someone more familiar with their ongoing content would be appreciated. I have tagged it with an ADVERT tag and a CLEANUP tag, but it appears that the person in question is still editing -- with no desire or inclination to discuss his/her edits with anyone. --mhking (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry about them anymore as the user was indef blocked due to their username.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this user at WP:ANI#Request to unban a VERY helpful editor. Feel free to join in. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Area templates and adding categories

Most if not all of the area templates should be updated to not add categories to the article pages. Placing the categories in these templates can cause articles that are not actually about the affiliates to be listed as such. In fact all of the TV related templates probably need to have categories removed from them. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WCMU-TV

The layout of this article is extremely sloppy. There's a short lead paragraph then 20 lines of blank space then a chart. This needs to be fixed. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an odd tag in the middle between the paragraph and grid that was causing the huge spacing. I'm fixing it up a little. Nate • (chatter) 09:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kool thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It could use a chart of digital subchannel multiplexes if it has them. Apparently its all digital now. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looked up the channel map and added a grid. Nate • (chatter) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are digital subchannels labeled .1 and .3 but no .2? Typo? TomCat4680 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The data I have shows no HD at all, only SD on 27-2 and 27-3. They have 27-1 reserved for HD. I've contacted my source and am attempting to confirm whether or not anything's changed since I last received data from him. I'll get back to you on this. TripEricson (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I went by Titan TV's map of the channel, which showed a .1 for the main signal and .3 for Create. I couldn't find anything to cooberate that. Nate • (chatter) 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That site is full of errors. It lists most of their channel as the physical channel instead of the PSIP like it should. TVGuide.com said its .1 and .2. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Titan TV, while great for listings, tends to be wrong about subchannels in my experience. After a year and a half, they still don't list any of my PBS station's subchannels at school, and they have the subchannels flipped on my PBS station at home. As far as WCMV is concerned, I have data direct from a viewer in the area but that data is a few months old. I've sent him a message asking if anything has changed versus this listing which came from him telling me what programming they had on the air along with this data he sent along. TripEricson (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually WCMU is the main channel, the rest are satellite stations. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My source sent me brand new data--nothing's changed. 27-2 is SD, 27-3 is Create. No HD til Summer. I've updated the WCMU listing accordingly. TripEricson (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please share this "source". If you can't that's considered original research. Why no mention of the future HD on CMU TV's website? TomCat4680 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the HD info. As for the current subchannels, that would be contained in the data pulled directly from the off-air signal this morning, as noted in this attachment which will be posted to my website later today. TripEricson (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Forums and emails are NOT reliable sources. However the channel's official website is. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That data came straight out of an analysis program which looks at the OTA signal and pulls the data. How much more factual can you get?

If you go by their website's program listings, it doesn't say anything about HD at all. I did not post anything about the proposed HD date on the article, only the corrected subchannel listing. TripEricson (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I added the claim of the future HD channel to explain why there's a .2 and .3 but not a .1. It needs a reliable source still though. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I don't have one more official than that, probably because they don't want to commit to a date they might miss. I just fixed a couple of typos in the WCMU article though; WMCL instead of WCML, things like that. TripEricson (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the typos, I haven't been sleeping much lately.TomCat4680 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket

Shouldn't this article be separated into 2 articles due to it being about 2 different, independent, separate, individual 24-hour regional sports networks? They even have individual, exclusive rights to different teams, etc. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article reads well and there appears to be some overlap in the teams they carry. Do you have their headquarter locations? Are you sure they are fully independent and separate? Someone could easily make the same case to split FSN Ohio considering there are two separate and independent feeds (channels) under that name. But I would also disagree with that as well. Krocheck (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Two seperate networks require two seperate pages. Tom, go ahead and split those. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 04:42

Well it'd probably be better for someone who lives in Southern California to do it. I'm going to leave it alone, I don't want to start an edit / merger / unmerger war.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will start any edit/merger war, if you take the information that is already available in the article presently. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:14

I'll wait for a couple more opinions first. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for a split since they are two separate networks and they can support their own articles with different programming and histories, even though they are closely tied together, they are separate when it comes to name and programming. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, a split definitely isn't needed. The channel started out as FSN2 and although it has been rebranded and given priority to cover some teams, it's still FSN2 in all but branding and programming airs freely between the two networks. Compare that to MSG Plus, which has a justified split since it has a long history all it's own before becoming just a Plus feed for the mothership which stretches all the way back to 1976. Prime Ticket in its current form only stretches back ten years and most of that time has been spent airing stuff FSN West couldn't because 48 hours do not exist in a day. Nate • (chatter) 06:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually MSG Network goes back to 1969. It was the nation's first regional sports network. MSG Plus only launched a couple of years ago, it was Fox Sports Net New York before that. MSG's overflow feed is MSG 2. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The FS Ohio case is different, they mirror each other 95% of the time. The only time content is different is during SOME live games (Blue Jackets / Cavs mostly). Its more so of an overflow feed basically, not a separate channel. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Prime Ticket is it's own channel though and could support it's own article, the subfeeds (although becoming rare) of Fox Sports (Fox Sports Oklahoma, etc.) that aren't full time feeds shouldn't have their own articles because they're basically just game-time networks, but the ones that started as subchannels and became their own networks should (Fox Sports Indiana, Fox Sports Houston). User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: FS Houston, Kansas City and Indiana. They're still NOT their own full-time networks to DirecTV (the supposed sports leader), who still treats them as game-time only subfeeds. I guess they on are on cable, but I don't live in their DMA's. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I live in Southern California, and view the sporting events on West and Prime Ticket quite regularly. While West airs all of the Fox Sports Net national programming, Prime Ticket airs almost exclusively originally-produced shows, although they will carry a FSN national broadcast if West is contracted to carry a local game that particular day/night. With that said, I think that the West-Prime Ticket page should as is. If this was a similar situation that Mrschimpf mentioned about MSG-Fox Sports New York, where FSNY had its own history prior to merging with MSG, I can understand separate pages for Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket. The current Prime Ticket, however, kind of traces its lineage to the old SportsChannel Los Angeles, where like Prime Ticket does now, it carried Dodgers, Angels, and Clippers games.

On a side topic, if anyone should talk about merging pages regarding sports networks, it should be Chicago's old Sportsvision network and the defunct Fox Sports Net Chicago, because they were the exact same network.--User:ShawnHill 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split Discovery Health Channel and OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network

I propose that OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network should have a separate article. From what it looks like it will only have new original shows and won't carry over any of Discovery Health's old shows. Discuss? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, they should be seperate. It seem to be the same situation as America's Talk and MSNBC that the channel formerly for the Discovery Health (DHC) is being transfer to OWN. the DHC & OWN articles would just mention to transfer of cable space from DHC to OWN. Spshu (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay but should we just wait til it launches? They delayed it until next year.TomCat4680 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess not. Split completed. Case closed. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Stretch-o-vision on WJRT-TV

I know was discussed before (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#.22Stretch-o-vision.22.3F for the original discussion), but it was never really resolved. I added a section about this at WJRT-TV#Technical difficulties with what I gathered from the old discussion. I hope it doesn't sound like original research or POV pushing (if so, make it more neutral and add a source) but I'm a serious videophile and their improper formatting of their standard definition programs really annoy me. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the content is OK. I wouldn't go into the whole false impressions bit as that is subjective and may not be the reason the content is broadcast in the anamorphic format. I also wouldn't call it 'Technical Difficulties' because the station may have consciously chosen to air their content that way. Kinda like reporting a bug for a piece of software and the developer comes back and says 'working as intended'. I'd be inclined to move the information as a note directly under the subchannel table. Krocheck (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New redirects

I have made the following redirects for this WikiProject:

• Wikipedia:TVSTATION
• Wikipedia talk:TVSTATION

Are they good? I made them to make it easier to get to the pages. —Mythdon t/c 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I always use WP:TVS and WT:TVS. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 01:06

Are the ones I made excessive or useful?. —Mythdon t/c 01:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pennsylvania TV Stations

Template:Pennsylvania TV Stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleged bias on MASN article

It has been claimed that the MASN article is written like an advertisement and I suggested it be re-written from a neutral point of view. Please help. It'd be best from someone who lives in the Mid Atlantic region and regularly watches the channel. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like an ad to me....seems fine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 01:07

At worst the lead heading needs some tweaking to take out some of the promospeak, but otherwise it's fine to me. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Verizon Fios in Infoboxes

Something I have noticed recently is channels, such as ESPN and Outdoor Channel, list the Verizon Fios channel in the "IPTV over ADSL". Technical specifications for FiOS show that it is actually traditional CATV service simply delivered over a different media. In short, Verizon Fios should be listed under cable. Please see [4] for an example.

No one needs to do anything proactively, but if you happen to see this please correct it. Thanks! Krocheck (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FiOS isn't traditional cable, it is more FTTP or "Fiber To The Premises"....but you got the right idea moving it back to the Cable listing then "IPTV over ADSL". - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 02:41

"delivered over a different media" ergo ... fiber. Just kept it simple. I'm shocked you and I are in agreement! LOL Krocheck (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not always disagreable :) On some things, yes...Somethings, no. No worries. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 03:08

Speaking of Outdoor Channel, the Outdoor Channel HD section needs the HD resolution (720p or 1080i). So if someone is lucky enough to have the HD version, please put it in that section and the infobox. I have DirecTV and they don't offer the HD feed. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help ya. I have Comcast and well, that explains itself. We have notta in HD channels. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 17, 2009 @ 06:45

I feel your pain. I had it for way too long. Apparently Comcast is launching OCHD in New Mexico. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Fuel TV

Fuel TV was recently sysop blocked due to a content dispute and other issues. Can a someone here (a neutral third party) please respond to my RfC? Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC not necessary, apparently part of some weird content dispute. Requesting editor has been blocked for 24 hours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 21:03

Updating Equity Media Holdings Corporation Tab

Since Equity Media has auctioned off sixty stations to different owners, do someone need to upgrade the tab with accurate information regarding the stations and the buyers, from my knowledge, the current part of the end of the list of the tab says:

Equity operates this station but it is owned by another company. 2Equity owns the station but management capabilities belong to Granite Broadcasting under a Local Marketing Agreement held by its ABC affiliate WKBW-TV. 3This full service analogue station has no digital TV facilities; it therefore must leave the air at the end of the 2009 digital TV transition. 4Acquisitions from Craig Fox's Renard Communications Corp. had been awaiting FCC approval at the time of Equity's chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in December 2008 but may not be completed. 5The sale of this station to Luken Communications, LLC had been awaiting FCC approval; Luken has since withdrawn offers to buy Equity-owned stations in six markets. 6Retro Jams was replaced in 2008 by Retro Television Network or other programming on most Equity stations. As Equity has lost its RTN affiliations in 2009, current affiliation is unknown. 7These affiliations were ended on January 4, 2009 due to a dispute with Luken Communications. 8Equity owns the af2 Arena Football franchise outright.

I dont know if its correct or not to change it yet, since Equity Media is still selling more stations in the process from their chapter 11 bankruptcy or not, I would like to see this tab and article updated with current and specfic information regarding Equity Media and it's station sales.

Thanks, John (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass removal of {{Future channel}}?

Well, I noticed that Yellowdesk has been mass-removing current event templates, but I noticed he removed the Future channel templates from almost all the articles it was used on with the following rationale of it being "Superfluous. Lede and contents adequately describe the contingent qualities of the topic"

What. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistency in Market Template Names

So, since Wikipedia has taken to using my ranking system, I've been working on finalizing it and on setting up ways to make it easy to integrate into Wikipedia. Observe here. Now it's not ready to be copied and pasted in yet because the ranks are still going to change as I continue to tweak it, but the problem I'm having is that some of the templates are named in such a way that I can't automatically generate the template links. Things like "LRTV" and "THTV" and "Hi-TV" which don't have space before the TV are next to impossible for me to automate. There's few enough of them that it's not a problem to go in by hand and fix them once copied and pasted, but it just seems to me that there should be some consistency with the naming of these things. I'm not commenting on this just for my benefit, I'm thinking about consistency in general. Any thoughts?

The other problem I'm having, and this is likely something for discussion on the Talk page for it, is that my new ranking system has no Lake Charles LA or Lafayette IN markets, even though those markets do have pages on Wikipedia... TripEricson (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive problem

The first section here is not being archived as one editor pointed out in an edit change to the retention here. I have posted a notice of the problem at the bot owners talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of a standard timestamp in the thread, which I have remedied. [5] Make sure to reply to NeutralHomer so he is not the only participant in a thread. (or just type ~~~~~ [5 tildes] after his sig) –xeno ^talk 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer has fixed his signature so this should not be a problem in the future. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

UHF cable systems

I know of three of these systems which use LPTV translators to rebroadcast broadcast and cable signals.

UHF-TV Inc., Selective TV, Inc. (see K50DB/[6]) Alexandria MN, Southern Greenlee Cty. TV Assoc. in Duncan, Arizona. I'm sure there are more out there, and indeed this list confirms it just in MN alone.

99% of these are just rebroadcasters, and we could create a table akin to what we do with public TV stations in statewide chains. The 1% is K34HO and K50DB. Both are rebroadcasters of The Weather Channel and have special associated information (what type of Weather Star they use, ID, location, etc.) (K34HO has been on the books for sometime. K50DB is a new article, and both have been found to have Weather Star 4000s, which is a treasured thing to most TWC fans.)

There are several proposals:

• Create each and every LPTV translator. This leads to a lot of redundancy.
• Create just the TWC translator and do the table format. The articles that stand alone stay.
• Nothing gets created except a default template at the articles. The call signs become redirects.

This will set a precedent for any AfDs of these. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:173.81.182.46 changes to DTV headings

I have reverted all of this IP's changes to the DTV headings, which removed specific information and PSIP numbers and removed referenced sections multiple times. IP has been warned, but please keep an eye on this user. Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 and his talk pages

In recent months, Dingbat2007 has been using his socks' accounts' user and talk pages to post his nonsense. Earlier this year, I've spent alot of time reverting this. Last time I did this, there were 138 socks to his name, according to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dingbat2007. Now, in that category, there are 105 socks. Is there anything we can do to seal these talk pages off to his socks for good? -- azumanga (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since they most of them are blocked, we should request indef page protection on all those talk pages. We would have to leave User talk:Dingbat2007 open for requests and what not, but if that was used like a toy like the other talk pages it could be blocked too. Just have to find an admin willing to block all those talk pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted 7 of Dingbat talk pages. Powergate92Talk 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted another. These need to be locked down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Dingbat2007 is a banned user, aren't any edits by such users suppose to be reverted immediately? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They are, but when there are 100+ talk pages to keep an eye on, locking them down is just easier. We can always leave Dingbat2007's talk page open on his original account for requests (like he would actually be unblocked) and whatnot, but the rest should be indef protected. They aren't his toy to play with add his nonsense to when he feels like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me some diffs? Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Category structure

I've noticed that this project's guidelines for categorizing articles by geography are the same as those of the radio project. In other words, if the category "Television stations in state" exists, then don't include the article in "Television stations in country". Similarly, if the category "Television stations in city, state" exists, then don't also include the article in "Television stations in state".

I've been noticing that a lot of the market and state network navboxes are set to automatically include articles in the applicable state category, even though that may conflict with existing city categories. For example, {{Other_California_Spanish_Network_Stations}} includes articles in Category:Television stations in California. On an article such as KBEH, which is already part of Category:Television stations in Los Angeles, California, this is a problem. This is just one example, but I've been bumping into this regularly over the past couple of days.

I'm just wondering whether this has come up for discussion before, and what thoughts people might have if it hasn't? My understanding was that category inclusion via template is generally a frowned-upon practice project-wide, other than for maintenance templates, disambiguation templates, etc. Mlaffs (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PSIP field proposal

With so many stations using PSIP to redirect to their virtual channels, I think we need to put a PSIP field in the infobox. Thoughts? Blueboy96 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with this; we should have it as a field between analog and digital (while retaining the analog field for LPTV's and other North American stations). Also, keep an eye out for stations using the technical quirks of LPTV to keep their signals on the air; WDJT-TV in Milwaukee is converting a sister station to carry their schedule after 6/12, and these might be announced throughout the week. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the U.S. station articles are cluttered with transition text about the PSIP virtual channels, an issue raised before and lost in the merger merry go round. I offer three options for solutions:

1. Adding a "virtual=" parameter
2. Revising "subchannels=" parameter in the info box to list single ".1" channels and eliminate "see text" references, then presuming the proximity will imply the virtualisation.
3. Specifying (Virtual),(PSIP), or (virtual PSIP) as a second line within within the "digital=" parameter, akin to VHF or UHF.

I have implemented #3 on WGN-TV as an example.

digital = 19 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])<br />[[virtual channel|Virtual]]: 9 ([[Program and System Information Protocol|PSIP]])|

Clearly do not delete "Analog=". Not only are there are analog stations outside the U.S. but, within the US, many low power (-LP or -CA) stations will not convert for a few more years.

We have a strange special case of the -LP lifeline in Chicago involving four stations, including the flagship of the company in the Milwaukee example. (see Chicago Tribune "Tower Ticker" blog )

JKPrivett (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me, I think it should be implemented for sure. It reads just like it should, and this should work out as other nationalities convert fully to digital (Australia, for instance). Nate • (chatter) 08:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Personalities - Where are they now Information

The "Where Are They Now" information in the personalities section of a few stations (see WBAL-TV and WUSA (TV) has been removed (I have reverted). User:Piano non troppo‎ and User:Vicenarian are claiming, among other things, "fancruft", "careers of station personalities after they left the station is off-topic for the station's article", "Wiki is not an opportunity for anyone associated with station to promote", etc.

I have asked both users to bring their cases to this page for consensus, as of this writting, both have not. I would like some input on whether these sections should remain in part or whole. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep "Where are they Now" sections. Aside from very technical info on when the station first took the air or its FCC frequency or network affiliations, the most interesting stuff in tv-station-related-articles is who worked at the station and where are they now. A television station is more than just a building with an antennae on top; it and its on air employees are part of the community. When a station cans someone, they don't put out a press release. This is information that you can certainly get no where else. Why not keep it? Are we running out of server space?--69.251.222.75 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The "running out of space" argument is specious. The primary cost is not in the disk space, but in the expert editorial time reviewing material. The response to this discussion today has taken me on the order of an hour. That's the major expense. Then factor in Wikipedia's diminished reputation by allowing vandalism to persist in articles for months -- which appeared to be the case in one situation that I checked. Uncited information being added lists of TV "personalities" is not neutral, but a large, significant loss to Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"This is information that you can certainly get no where else" - Uh, no original research. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It is completely on topic....a lot of people actually use this....see this example article: Wait, these people aren't on Milwaukee TV anymore? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the names of former personalities entirely; it's information on their current status that's the problem. A "Former personalities" section with a list of names is fine as long as it doesn't go into extraneous detail. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally people do a good job at updating the "Where are they Now?" sections....and all could be sourced, it would just take time. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the updating and the sourcing. My biggest problem here really is 2) below. "Where Are They Now?" biographical material is not on the topic of the article - the station. The topic of this information is the former employees and is material should be included in their own, separate articles, or excluded altogether if the former employee isn't notable beyond their work at the station. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep if sourced. I understand the WP:COATRACK concerns. The articles should stay on-topic. However, it is not inconceivable that readers will want to know what has happened to their favorite news reporters after leaving the station. It's material readers might reasonably expect to find. Thus the "former personalities" and "where are they now?" section isn't as off-topic as some might suggest. As long as the material is sourced, I think it should probably stay. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for Excluding "Where Are They Now?"

Unfortunately, "it's interesting" doesn't cut it when it comes to deciding what goes in Wikipedia. The generally accepted policies and guidelines of Wikipedia must be applied. The inclusion of this material, which we're calling "Where Are They Now?" for ease of reference, on station articles does not, in my opinion, conform with the policies and guidelines as currently accepted by the community as a whole, by letter or by spirit/principle. My primary reasoning is as follows:

1) Most of the people listed on these pages are not notable in of themselves; they are only notable insomuch as they were employees of the (notable) station. Since they aren't notable on their own, biographical information about them that isn't directly related to the station fails to meet the guidelines for inclusion based on notability.

2) Because the topic of the article is the station, discussion of the current jobs of former employees is off-topic. (This is by definition - if they are former employees, that presupposes their current jobs aren't at the station.) Even if a former employee is notable per WP:BIO, the station article is not the proper place to discuss his or her current career status. Notable employees should have their own articles, and such information should be included there - properly linked so interested readers can go to those articles and find the information.

3) Much of this information is also included unsourced. "You can get it nowhere else" sounds a lot like the territory of original research. Wikipedia is not a place for information you can't get anywhere else. Everything in a Wikipedia article must be sourced and, to quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (WP:V) This is a basic, unmovable principle, ESPECIALLY true for biographical information on living people.

A procedural note: I suggest this be opened up as an RFC so as to get attention, and consensus, from the wider community.

Respectfully, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - Pretty much what I would've said if I saw this first. Krocheck (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, with support for each point: 1) WP:NOTINHERITED; 2) WP:Wikilinks are sufficient if they even have an article here; 3) WP:OR is a no-no.  Frank  |  talk  00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree, only if these are kept under the title "alumni" and is done through the use of reliable sources. Yes, many notable personalities have been famous for their beginnings at the local level. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See my argument 2. Notable personalities with beginnings at the local level certainly can be mentioned in a local station article, but any biographical material extraneous to their role at the station belongs in a separate biographical article, not the station article. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)}

Pragmatically: 1) There's no logical stopping point for the information that could be added about somebody's history: any number of stations, jobs, external links. What's the limit, if the information is not related to the article topic? 2) Uncited lists are hard to check and keep up-to-date. Was somebody really at KXYZ? And KPDQ? Which first? In what capacity? Have they left? Were they fired? In many cases, incomplete information is worse than no information. Even cited lists have incorrect information. For example, I spotted this just in passing when I made my original edit: "Bill Kamal - meteorologist (1982–1993, formerly of WSVN-TV, incarcerated)", WUSA (TV). The implication is he's in jail. He isn't, he was released. (Just now, writing, it took me a few seconds to discover that Sam Donaldson's article does not say he was at WUSA. So was he or did somebody just slip this in to make WUSA look good?) Another example, and again this just took me a few seconds to find, Frank Herzog's entry in WUSA (TV) reads "sports anchor and reporter (1969–1983 and 1992–2004)". If true, that information should be in his Wiki article. Instead, it's misplaced here where it's liable to be difficult to find; 3) For editors who don't have regular experience reverting vandals, it should be emphasized that these errors and potential vandalism are very common. There were errors or issues with most of list entries I chose at random. I.e., even a superficial examination of the list uncovers serious problems. When notability is established, it's much more difficult for these errors to happen. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, for reasons cited by Vicenarian, Frank, Krocheck. What tipped the scales for me were the pragmatic problems of: a) other editors not being able to review the accuracy of the information, and b) there being no logical limit to what could be added. In regards to review, the very first external link I checked (on Rudy Miller in article WBAL-TV) did not even mention Miller. (The site has since been changed, but the point stands.) In regards to logical limits, there was a disconcerting presumption that "personalities" are important, but for example, the station management is not. That writers, camera operators, sound technicians are not. If any people are especially important to the character of a TV station, they should be called out, with a reference, and explaining what made their contribution especially notable. One would expect to see a cross-section of a very limited few people in professions across the board. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree as it simply isn't the place for this information. It belongs in the articles on the people themselves. Frank has it spot on above with #s 2 and 3. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree Notable station alumni are a part of a station's history and if important to the station's character, deserve to be included. There are many sections on Wikipedia where accuracy cannot be 100% verified; however that is not the issue at hand. I'd like to use an example: let's say I live in a small market, and remember an anchor by name. Maybe I am curious as to where that person's ended up. Perhaps that person has since slipped away from the spotlight, or changed their name as with Kym Kobasko, alum of WTOV-TV. Unless I know she's now "Kim Gable," a Google search wouldn't turn up results unless there's some way to connect the two-- Wikipedia. An alumni section on WTOV-TV's Wikipedia entry could serve that purpose, or step by step, I could Google WTOV, end up at Wikipedia-WTOV#alumni, locate "Kym Kobasko, n/k/a Kim Gable" and follow that to a probable article on her, her current station, or similar. If the personality in question is not notable enough to have an entry, I'd still have a way to research the information. The same goes for a "where are they now" section-- it is simply more user friendly. I am strongly against the removal of this material as it is a vital part of many research processes, should you be researching station personalities. There is an argument above that states " A "Former personalities" section with a list of names is fine as long as it doesn't go into extraneous detail." I wouldn't consider "Now at KXXX-TV" extraneous data. If you don't think a station's talent is notable enough to go into an article, consider the fact that newspaper TV and entertainment editors constantly answer viewer letters such as "Where is X? I haven't seen him or her on WXXX lately," or "Any idea where X has turned up?" (Google "rob owen vacation anchor" if you care to.) Certainly the station's viewers find it important and I think it's important that Wikipedia support a central location for this information when it is available. Most of this information can be cited with a simple reference to that personality's biography at whichever station happens to be their current home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.223.164 (talk)

Wikipedia is not a "Who's Who?" directory of all persons ever to appear on television. If you'd like, you can create your own Wiki on former TV people. But Wikipedia has certain standards agreed to by the consensus of the community as a whole. This is not in line with those standards, IMHO. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is in the WP:TVS rules which were created with the Wikipedia rules in mind. You, of all people, should be showing some WP:AGF to that fact, but you seem to be dismissing that people put alot of thought into the rules of WP:TVS, took the rules of Wikipedia into affect and laid down a set of rules that have stood unchallenged for many years now. You are essentially challenging those rules and AGF itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your comments directed at the topic at hand and not at me. Challenging content is not bad faith. Now, for one thing, we differ on the interpretation of what the guidance at WP:TVS says - I don't see anything in there about current career blurbs for former personalities. It just says "information on personalities, past and present." It's vague, and for a reason, because not every station has the same sort of information about its personalities available for inclusion. But I don't see how it could be construed to mean you must include current career information for former personalities. For another thing, the WP:TVS guide is just that - guidance. They're not rules. And even if they were asserted as rules, the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia supersede them, and I've already laid out my argument for why I believe this information is against those policies and guidelines. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Please see Talk:WBAL-TV#RfC: "Where Are They Now?", where I have opened a formal RfC on the inclusion of this information on that particular station page. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, it's acknowledged that you and a lot of other people have put considerable work into refining the information in WP:TVS and related articles. But because there is such a wide range of issues to struggle with, naturally some aspects are less well addressed. I just spent 20 minutes skimming last year's history of WP:TVS discussion. I found a couple articles about the notability of particular stations, and one inconclusive discussion specifically addressing the notability of anchors [7]. This present discussion about lists of employees is not a reflection on the outstanding body of other work that's been done. It seems these issues simply haven't been addressed. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't think we need two discussions on the same thing. Either let this be the RfC or move the RfC to here. Two discussions on two different pages would just space out a conversation that needs a central place. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The RfC is particular to that article. I've cross-linked the discussions so that those interested in both can participate in both. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree for reasons cited by Vicenarian. Powergate92Talk 19:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree. The "keep" arguments have been a lot better than the "it's interesting" strawman someone began this section with. I understand the WP:COATRACK concerns; including off-topic material only degrades the quality of the article. However, Wikipedia is written for its readers, and one might reasonably expect the readers of a TV station's article to be able to read what happened to their favorite reporter or anchor after leaving the station, meaning the "past personalities" section, including information on what they are doing now, isn't truly off-topic. As long as the entries are sourced (and remain short) they probably should stay. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Readers could be expected to go to pages of past employees dancing the cha-cha in their underwear too. That has nothing to do with Wiki's standards of notability. These links are being used by media personalities (and their promoters) to add information that has absolutely nothing to do with the article topic. These "actor later moved on to other such shows as blah-blah" are routinely deleted from movie articles as being off-topic. There's nothing different here. Excepting that most of these people aren't even notable in the first place. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cha-cha? Underwear? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Piano was using a colorful example in a moment of frustration. Funny, though. I intend to edit solely while dancing semi-nude from now on. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would use Google to find where my favorite reporter/anchor is before I'd use Wikipedia. It's a lot faster. Krocheck (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Personality articles

A few anchor articles have found their way to AFD, and I'd like to bring up one of my deletion arguments there, in the hopes that someone can show me where I'm wrong.

Delete. There is a difference between artists and people who merely have a public job. There are two possible notable article subjects for an artist (or actor or writer or musician etc.): the artist's life and the artist's work. The fact that a body of work is widely distributed, published by major publishers, and so on is a good sign that there will be sufficient commentary in reliable sources to write an article. A similar principle applies to professional athletes (although I think that current inclusion standards are far too wide there for reasons of completeness) and elected officials: you can reasonably write an article about their athletic accomplishments or politics. In all of these cases, their accomplishments are noteworthy acts, events, or artefacts, not merely the products of a job done in the public eye.
Here, we don't have a performer: instead, we have a person with a public job. All of the coverage is coverage of her (large, notable) employer, not the (interchangeable) employee. "WFOO holds charity event, Heidi Jones, Foo Barson, and Tex Ample to participate" is the typical news story, both for this article in particular and this class of article in general.
In short, there's no direct coverage of this person save for direct coverage of her employer employing her services. Other articles do exist, but they are dissimilar.

Can anyone refute this and argue that, yes, anchors and meteorologists and reporters and such are notable as a class? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with AMIB (can't believe that is happening) some anchors/reporters/meteorologists are notable, but "John Q. Reporter" at KXXX-TV isn't. Where Matt Lauer has reported...that is notable. This is where the "Where Are They Now" sections fall into play. For 95% of anchors/reporters/meteorologists, that is the only place they are notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I'm not making the argument that all reporters, etc. are non-notable, but that reporters, etc. are not automatically notable. I'm also talking a bit more about proper biographies of news personalities, although I suppose the arguments also apply to biographical elements of station articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't. I think major-market anchors and reporters definitely are....when you have hundreds of thousands of people knowing of the person there's an element of notability of it. This debate has been going on for a few years now and that seems to be the general consensus. I'm all for deleting articles on small-market reporters. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But where should that information on the small-market anchors/reporters/meteorologists go? "Where Are They Now" sections? Somewhere else? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think AMIB is talking about separate articles, not the "WATN" sections. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 05:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was tying the two together. My goof. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are "major-market" anchors and reporters notable? Why does working in a job that exposes you to hundreds of thousands of people make it easier to write an article, or make the concerns of biographies of living persons less pressing?

To turn that around, how are markets of > X,000,000 people different from markets of < X,000,000 people? What's the threshold, and what's the reason for that threshold?

The debate has been going on for a long time, but I don't think there's been a lot of reasoned discussion about it. It's mostly been gut calls, as far as I've seen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is like the image galleries. Lots of debating from both sides, none of it goes anywhere. It begs the question...should we really bring it up, rehash the whole thing over, and come to the same "nowhere" conclusion? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I look for notability beyond simply doing the job they are paid to do. Simply being exposed (known) to thousands (or millions) of people isn't really the criteria. For example, a tour guide on a ride a Disney World is seen by tens of thousands of people a year. Does that make them notable? Tens of thousands of people know that Prince Michael Jackson II is the son of Michael Jackson, but he isn't notable on his own. "coverage" like a reporter riding on a parade float or speaking at the local Kiwanis dinner are trivial. They might be local celebs, but that doesn't rise to the notability criteria. What made them different than simply doing their job? Someone like Marie Torre for example might not have been that notable, but she got national coverage due to a lawsuit brought by Judy Garland and she went to jail for refusing to name her sources. That is the sort of thing that makes someone notable. Simply showing up for work and being recognized in a local market (no matter how large) shouldn't be considered notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  This doesn't really clarify anything. Everyone agrees about theme park clerks and Marie Torre and that there's a line somewhere between them. Where's the line, and why is it set there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • There's a difference between being a Disney tour guide and a television personality. Do Disney tour guides have news articles written about them? No. You're using a strawman here. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 05:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• First, take a deep breath. Don't take it personal because I nominated your article for deletion. Now look at your articles. The first is essentially a press release in the LOCAL paper saying "she got a promotion at work". What is notable about that? The second is essentially an obituary. He died and the LOCAL paper noted his passing. Dying doesn't make you notable. When the mayor of an 1800 person town near me passed, 3 local papers had it on their front page. Is he now instantly notable? And the third talks about how cute the new weathergirl is. Cute makes you notable? And yes, I have seen articles about Disney tour guides. But they are human interest pieces, like these are, which are trivial, like these are, and don't make them notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Sometimes. What sort of articles and how many and how in-depth would they need to be for a theme park clerk to be notable? Is this different from the standard for television personalities? Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely support any removal of a television news anchor mention from an article, much more supporting the deletions of such biography articles. I think Niteshift36 makes a good point: People who are merely doing a job, merely being seen a lot and merely being physically related to someone who is notable does not make you notable. Why whould we have articles on news anchors, or even mention them anyway? I don't understand. Such mentions are merely non-sense trivial and non-notable information any way you look at it, unless you're talking about someone like Matt Lauer, which would be a major exception to the matter, although now working for NBC News doesn't make his old job at WNBC notable by any means. I just removed such news anchor mentions on KFVS-TV a few hours ago. When you come to think of it, those so called "Where Are They Now" sections as refered to in this debate would violate the points being made behind the neutral point of view policy to a certain extent. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As a separate question, what article got nominated for deletion anyway? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I nominated 3 news personality articles last night. CFIF is opposing all of them. The article he wrote is Hugh Smith (news anchor). I also nominated Heidi Jones and Tammie Souza for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I certainly support any deletion of such articles, but I shouldn't comment on those since I haven't yet looked for sources to justify the notability. But in general terms, such pages shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just nominated Patty Souza (the sister of the other nominee, whose had a less notable career than her sister. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Where does it stop though? Who is notable and who isn't? Who gets to say what is notable and what isn't? If Patty Souza, for example, isn't notable, does that make the big guys like Matt Lauer less notable or not at all? I think we should answer these questions before going on a nomination and deletion spree. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why we are focused on Lauer, but he would be notable. He's been covered extensively in relaible thrid party sources such as People and major newspapers. He's on a national broadcast (rather than a local one), has anchored major events, done large (as in national) audience stories like the Olympics, political conventions etc. Think of it this way: An actress in a local troupe in Kansas City has a co-starring role in a local production of Evita. Does she compare to Madonna having the same role in a large budget, internationally released film? While the local actress is probably a nice person and works hard, she is locally known and that's about it. You probably won't see reviews of her performance in the NY Times. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• True....but it could be said that people that are seen on major market (top 10) stations are just as popular. I don't think anyone on KXGN-TV (Market 210) is notable, but people seen on say WABC-TV, seen by 10+ Million people are. Where is the cut-off for notablity? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Again, you are hung up on number of viewers. That is not the notability criteria. The criteria under WP:CREATIVE is:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.: Lauer is widely regarded as important and talked about by peers. Souza is unknown outside of the city she is in.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Lauer has been covered in numerous articles ranging from the NYT to People magazine. Has Souza been mentioned anywhere but local papers of he places she is working at for local activities or as a trivial human interest story? And while there might be 10 million viewers in the WABC-TV area, that doesn't mean 10 million are watching their news, so start slashing that number. Get number of viewers out of your head. You won't find that on any notability criteria for reporters. BTW, a reporter for WABC was recently AfD'd and deleted as non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• ....and 10 million people watch the Today Show or Good Morning America? Remember, WABC or KABC is also seen around the country as a part of DirecTV and Dish Network, so they serve more than just the 10+ Million in New York Metro. But let me pose a question to you. Would a person who was seen on two major network newscasts (ABC World News Now and Good Morning America) and is now an anchor at a local television station be notable? Cause you can't say if they are a big name person they are notable and delete someone who was a big name person and moved to a local affiliate. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again....who cares how many people view? That is NOT a criteria and I will not address it any further. Yes, the person who was an anchor for the ABC World News would still be notable if they left ABC and went to work in a small market. Notability is not temporary. See WP:NTEMP. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep bringing it up because the way you are talking is that only people who are major network (which means major ratings, major viewership) are notable...like a Matt Lauer or Tamala Edwards (the person I was refering to above). But Patty Souza is notable in Sacramento and in whatever market she has worked in. We can't just say major market people are notable and if you haven't been seen on Today or Good Morning America or on CBS Evening News, to hell with ya. Notablity is small and big. Small notability for the person in Sacramento and big notability for the person in NYC at Today. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think I said only major network people ar enotable, then you haven't been reading what I wrote. I gave an example of Marie Torre. Most of her career was doing some news and a talk show in Pittsburgh. Not all that notable. But early in her career, she was sued by Judy Garland. The case got national attention and she went to jail for refusing to divulge her sources. Today that's not a huge deal, but in the 1960's, you didn't see that too often. THAT is the kind of thing that makes a local reporter/host notable without having to be on a national show. Can you see the difference? Simply going to work every day in Sacramento and doing 2-3 mins a night on the air isn't notable beyond a 50 mile radius. I bet the emergency room doctor in Sacramento hospitals have saved 20 lives this week. But they aren't notable under the guidelines. They're just doing their job. But if one of them invents a life-saving device or a new drug, they'd become notable because it sets them aparts from their peers. Patty Souza is just doing her job. What sets her apart from her peers? What is different from her resume than the resume of 500 other meteorologists who do their job every day? Or do you think that everyone who gets a job on TV should be notable? Should "tall guy in the elevator" in a Seinfeld episode be notable? I mean 10 million people saw him, right?Niteshift36 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I follow the Marie Torre...but we need to figure out who is notable like a Marie Torre or a Tamala Edwards and who isn't like (I guess) a Patty Souza. These are things that we need to figure out before going off and nominating everything in sight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? So not sources that simply say "Tex Ample was hired by/has quit/was fired from/appeared at an event sponsored by WFOO." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I resent your statement about nominating everything in sight. I reviewed over 20 articles last night of newscasters in the Tampa area last night and I nominated 3. The others has some sort of notability I could buy off on. For example I looked at Chris Clark (sports reporter). Aside from just showing up and doing his job, he's won several AP awards, an Emmy and an Edward R. Murrow award. Clearly, he's been set apart from his peers. Or maybe a less obvious one like Dick Fletcher who didn't win major awards, but got some smaller recognitions that I was willing to look at as being somewhat notable. And no, the AMS "Seal of Approval" or "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" are not awards. They are professional credentials like being a CPA, DDS or MSCE. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer is raising some valid points, and I want to say again that after just skimming the last year's discussion, a lot of the hard work that's been done simply revolves around other issues: nobody's trying to undo that good work.

WP:LOCALFAME discussion reads "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community". By that measure some people Niteshift36 nominated for deletion should stay. I've done a very little work as a video studio director. I was faced with the decision of "Who do I pull from their cube to be on camera?" My "talent" was basically people who were reading scripts and had a cheerful disposition. It could have been any of dozens of (untrained) people in our company. Other than that, they had no professional accomplishments. They were a rather elementary form of actor, elementary, because "real" actors need to memorize lines, staging, and ... be able to act! Putting someone who is essentially a puppet in front of a camera hardly makes them notable. It doesn't matter if millions of viewers see them: many are personalities who are famous for being famous. But still non-notable. Because of their exposure and opportunities, they may indeed have the opportunity to be come notable. Lucky them! They are in the right place to be recognized for outstanding investigative journalism, or making incisive interviews, or writing a book. Those things make them notable, not having their face shown endlessly on a screen. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, which one are we leaning towards? Are we leaning towards having the articles and/or mentions or leaning against it? This discussion looks like it'd end with "no consensus" as of the state it is in now. Why don't we just take down all of the local anchor articles and just not mention them, unless they're notable like Matt Lauer, who has been used as an example here. He was at WNBC, but until he became a national news anchor, he wasn't notable in news. Sure, David Johnson is a news anchor at WPXI. Big deal. Does that make him notable? No. Lets say I create a bunch of news anchor lists on various television station articles which don't have the lists yet. What kind of contribution is that? Are those people in that list notable? Merely being a news person does not make you notable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would a "no consensus" lead to the takedown of all personality lists? I don't think that's how this place works. The lists provide useful information related to the articles in question. This whole debate has been discussed ad nauseum and nothing has changed. It's not going to change just because the same group of people don't like the lists/articles have decided to bring it up again. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your claim is patently false. This isn't a case of "I don't like it". I've given examples of local reporters that I saw notability in. I nominated a few that I didn't. That is balanced my friend, not a "I don't like it" scenario. While pointing me to that essay, I've suggested you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, because that has been the basis of much of your response in the AfD's over the past couple of days. I've learned much from this. I've found that "the same group of people" seem to have a markedly lower threshold to what they consider to be "non-trivial" coverage and what they believe notability is. Based on what I've seen passing as notability, I'm going to see if I can get someone to do an article on me. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting. Those two statements I made, although near eachother, are not related to eachother. The "no consensus" thing was just a statement that I made about my understanding of where the discussion was leading to. As for the "takedown" thing, that was a statement of my personal view, and the two statements are not intended in relation to eachother. As far as consensus terms go, I do not suggest that the "takedown" should occur should the "no consensus" closure be made. I hope I've clarified my statement. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on removing news anchors from the TV station articles. Also would Brad Perry be notable? As Brad Perry used to worked at WGN-TV before moving to KTVK[8] and now that KTVK laid off Brad Perry, he plans to start a music career.[9] Powergate92Talk 02:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent again.) As a disinterested observer, I would suggest that (like J. Random Middle-Eastern Soccer Player, a windmill I've tilted against in the recent past) local TV personalities don't need a separate rule. The GNG would have us ask, "Do sufficient reliable, third-party sources exist for the important details of this person's biography?" Notability is not heritable: someone who holds a notable job (or a job at a notable organization) is not necessarily notable. If you can't source details of their lives beyond their connection to one or more broadcast stations, then it's unlikely that they are notable. (There are exceptions, but most cases will not be among them.) If an article contains no more than the barest details of a person's career, then it should not exist. 121a0012 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:121a0012, can I ask you to clarify that just a little. As I understand what you wrote, you essentially believe that if the coverage is mainly about their being simply on TV/station activity (like "this reporter got hired" or "here is some personal info about the guy you see on TV"), then it is not the non-trivial coverage we are looking for. Is that correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a big part of it. Someone like Chris Ortloff is notable because of his post-TV notoriety, not because he was an anchor on WPTZ—although that part of his career is certainly relevant to the article once that hurdle is passed. By the time someone rises to the level of notability I'm arguing for, there should be multiple sources for other details of his/her life, such as birth date, parents, educational background, charity work, and so on. 121a0012 (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that is a reasonable standard and a well put explaination. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm almost hesitant to weigh in, as I've been gone for so long, but there are very few television personalities, local or national, that merit their own Wikpedia biography, and most who do are notable for other reasons. The standard is clear: significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. "Signficant" meaning that the article is about the subject (not his/her employer) and provides in-depth coverage of the subject or of his/her actions. The person in question is not merely mentioned in the article. "Multiple" meaning more than two or three. If a person is notable, there will not be a problem finding material about him/her. "Independent" meaning press releases don't count; the coverage must be from an entity not related to the subject or to his/her employer. I must admit I'm a bit unsure about when a newspaper covers a TV or radio personality in-depth, and both the newspaper and the station are owned by the same company. Not widespread, but not unheard of, either - see KPNX and Gannett. "Reliable" meaning forget the blog pages and fan sites. Someone once addressed the "reliable" issue thusly: if a person's writings are subject to editorial review before being printed, they're reliable. Not a perfect standard, to be sure, but the best we have. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I said something in an AfD discussion that I think bears repeating here: It's not about how many viewers there are in the market or how many people get the Tampa Tribune, is is the coverage itself. An article saying "Weatherman X visited a local school today and talked about hurrican prep" is trivial coverage. An article about a parade that says "Reporter Y rode on the float from WWWW-TV" is trivial. These aren't professional accomplishments, they are professional obligations. Due to my professional obligations, I give talks to school age children 2-3 times a week. So what if I've been mentioned in newspapers or local TV stations. That doesn't make me notable, it just means I'm doing my job. Let me use another example: Take the public information officer of your local police dept. If you live in a community of any real size, they are quoted, by name, in your local papers almost every day. They probably appear on TV a couple of times a week. We could find a lot of mentions of their name in very reliable sources. But does that make the PIO really notable? I say no. He/she is simply doing their job and that entails being the dept. spokesperson. There is little coverage of any depth on these people (weathermen and anchormen) because most are nomads. They go from one market to another, being minor local celebrities who speak at local Rotary luncheons or appear at new car dealership openings. Some find a place they like and become comfortable and stay there, but they are still minor in terms of notability. They simply go to work and do their job. That job happens to be on camera. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"-TV" to "-DT" moves

Quite a lot of people are moving stations whose callsigns have "-TV" suffixes to pages that give them A "-DT" suffix (e.g. WFRV-TV was moved to "WFRV-DT"). This should not be done unless the station has officially changed their callsign with the FCC. Some stations may be branding as "WXXX-DT" for promotional purposes, but unless their callsign is registered as such with the FCC (like KGLA-DT or KKYK-DT), no changes should be made. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Commission published a policy statement about this last month. What they have (for now) decided is that "-TV" and "-DT" will henceforth be equivalent, but each station must decide which one it wants to use and request it through the normal call-change process. 121a0012 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to FCC statement

The issue is though that I think we have to wait until all the changes hit the database before we make it official. For instance I switched WVTV and WCGV-TV to WVTV-DT and WCGV-DT because those stations began to use those calls as on-air hourly identification as of Friday night (and had already placed it in their pillarbox graphics full-time on their HD feeds, since they were digital-exclusive since March). It was also new because Sinclair stations usually ID stations that don't use -TV in their calls under their own (TV) designation (i.e. WVTV (TV)/DT Milwaukee). However at this point since it hasn't hit the FCC database, I was reverted because they're still legally known by their pre-6/12 calls. That is fine, so we have to use slow caution and be vigilant about checking the database in case any stations change calls. Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

City navboxes

Just had someone change the grouping from a single group for the stations to groups for English, Spanish, Public Television and Other. I don't see this as helping and adding a level of confusion and undid the change. But I figured I'd ask here to see if there is support for something like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to have groups for English, Spanish, Public Television and Other. Powergate92Talk 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For large markets, where there would be several Spanish, PBS or religious stations, I would see a need for this. But in markets where there are only one Spanish or PBS outlet, then there's no need. All depends on the market size. -- azumanga (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see separating English/Spanish/Public into separate lines within a single navbox, but I can't see any logic for separate navboxes themselves. Mlaffs (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about a single navbox, unless someone has been changing them to individual navboxes for each group of stations in a single market -- that I don't approve of. -- azumanga (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And how far does this go, Japanese? Chinese? Philippine? This is a navbox for stations in an area. It is not a navbox to find stations in a specific language. How do you deal with a station that broadcasts in multiple languages? Why is public broadcasting more important than say shopping networks? What happens with a Spanish language shopping network, does it get listed in two places? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vegaswikian why do we need to separate English, Spanish and Public? Here in Phoenix K38IZ-D broadcasts 38.1 in Spanish and 38.2, 38.3 and 38.4 in English so how do you list K38IZ-D? Do you list it in two places? Powergate92Talk 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Here, KLAS-TV is English on 8.1 and Spanish on 8.2. KLVX is the PBS affiliate with 8.3 carrying a Spanish network. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for this. (repeat of some points above) 1) It is confusing, especially since I know of public broadcasting that is in Spanish. 2) This only adds confusion for the editors and yet, another round of re-doing the navboxes. 3) In a number of cases the Spanish stations are subchannels and cannot be properly notated in the Spanish section under the current standards. 4) In many cases the market sizes don't warrant this setup. 5) Except for independent stations, the affiliation note in parenthesis should suffice to indicating the language or type of station. Krocheck (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) need updating...

... to reflect the current consensus. See the discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Reactivating Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations). Please note that redirecting one of these two pages (the more obsolete one) to the other one is among the options I am putting on the table. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Category for analog channel

If a channel was on channel "X" before transition but is now on channel "Y" after transition. Do we remove Category:Channel X TV stations in the United States even though the station is now Virtual channel "X" and digital channel "Y"? RobDe68 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, because we have to think about the average user here. For example, an average individual wouldn't care that WCBD is "actually" channel 50....when it's still "2(.x)" on their television sets. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we get a consensus that "Category:Channel X TV stations" be used for virtual channel numbers and "Category:Channel Y digital TV stations in the United States" obviously be used for the digital channel? Either that or make new categories for virtual channel numbers. I'd like to drum up some discussion on this since it pretty much affects every station in the US. RobDe68 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good approach. Mlaffs (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Too confusing. If I'm watching channel 8.1 it's channel 8. I don't care that it is really being broadcast on channel 7. This is an encyclopedia for general use and not a TV expert encyclopedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, is this a "no" vote for a new category for virtual channels? I was actually just throwing it out as another option, I'm also starting to think it should just remain in the channel category for its virtual channel. But I don't agree that the station should not also be listed also in the digital channel category since those categories have been used for some time now. Just trying to get an agreement on a standard so every station article is treated roughly the same. You can't just exclude facts from an article just because it's difficult for some to understand. RobDe68 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

KMIZ-DT2 complications

While you might think that this is merely a digital Fox subchannel, it's its own LPTV-D operation, KQFX-LP ch 22 (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=56176). The analog channel they used (K38II - query at http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=55253) has a different facility ID, and ownership wants to move it to San Antonio, Texas channel 53.

The proposal:

KMIZ-DT2 is moved to KQFX-LP or KQFX-LD, depending on preference. A redirect is left behind. K38II is split off with a hatnote to KQFX-LD. KQFX becomes a disambig due to the presence of an FMer. That FM article moves to KQFX (FM).

Do you agree? Note that K38II's Facility ID 55253 is currently on the KMIZ-DT2 article. Once moved, it would be replaced with 56176 at KQFX-LP for channel 22. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. Implementation now has a disambig at KQFX, FM article at KQFX (FM), KMIZ-DT2 redirecting to KFQX-LP (the TV article), and K38II as its own article. K38II now has its own history, because the ownership wants to move it. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 02:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

De-emphasizing digital channels.....

In my opinion, TV station articles would be a lot more user-friendly if the "actual" DT channel were mentioned less. If one were to read WXII-TV for example, the average user would not know whether it's on "31" or "12"...to me, a station's "actual" DT channel (which in WXII's case is 31) should be mentioned sparingly, as a station's "real" DT channel is technical in nature and only really concerns broadcast engineers. An average reader with a DTV set still picks up the station on "12.x"....not "39", so why do the two channels get equal emphasis?

this is something that needs discussion..... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not in the infobox have a line for the legal digital channel and a line for the PSIP channel? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to only mention this in the infobox as long as we update the project guidance to say that articles should only use the PSIP in article text. Clear and simple to implement. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate that the perception of the average reader (who has no knowledge of virtual channels, radio frequencies, etc.) be our guide in writing our articles. The only time I can see the RF channel being an issue is in a situation such as the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton PA market, which has been an all-UHF station market since the beginnings of television, but now finds two of its major network affiliates on VHF. And the only reason that's an issue is that many homes there are equipped with UHF-only antennas, and would now need to have one that can receive VHF. Fresno CA is a similar situation. Still, nobody knows WBRE or WYOU as channels 11 and 13; they're 28 and 22. That's how the FCC mandates that they identify themselves, and that's how the public perceives them. A mention of the RFs in the articles is appropriate, but most of the attention, as well as the categorization itself, should be on the virtual channels, which were the traditional analog channels. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this line of thinking. This isn't TV Guide or a DTV transition tutorial, this is an encyclopedia. It is fact that some stations broadcast on and are licensed to a different channel than their virtual channel and that fact should be noted as much as any other fact about the station. With most call signs and station branding (almost always including the virtual channel) staying the same, there's plenty to identify the station to the casual reader. What should be discussed is a uniform way of handling the digital/virtual channel numbers in the introduction, infoboxes and categories. As a newcomer to the TV project and longtime radio project contributer, that is my opinion. YMMV RobDe68 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But it gets to a point where it becomes unnecessarily confusing. WCBS-TV should not be introduced as "WCBS, channel 33".....--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why this discussion is needed. There has to be some uniform way to include the fact that the station(s) broadcast on UHF channel 33 in the intro and infoboxes without it being too confusing. I'm just not of the opinion that you exclude major facts like what channel a station is licensed to broadcast on just because it's hard for some to understand. The actual channel number is as important as the city of license in an article describing a particular station. Maybe the first line of the introduction should start:
"WCBS-TV, channel 2, is the flagship station of the CBS television network, located in New York City and owned by CBS Corporation."
And then, towards the end of the intro we add:
"Although the station's virtual channel is 2, WCBS-TV actually broadcasts on digital channel 33 (UHF)."
Now the main identity still remains "Channel 2", as it should be, and the technical info is later in the intro with links to virtual channel and digital terrestrial television for those who need to know what that is all about. Do you think something like that would be less confusing? Let's come up with something here, some sort of standard.RobDe68 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're understanding my position on this. I believe that identifying both the virtual and RF channels in the infobox is appropriate. I believe that identifying both the virtual and RF channels in the opening paragraph of the articles is appropriate. In other parts of the article where changes to the RF channel is discussed, it is appropriate. But in casual references to the station, general public perception should determine which channel number is used. That is usually the old analog channel, now the DTV virtual channel. Sometimes, the station begins identifying on PSIP by its digital RF channel. KAIL in Fresno, California is one such station - A53/D7 - and identifies on PSIP and brands as 7.1. This is contrary to FCC regulations, but in this instance, we should use the RF channel. Many times, a station identifies on PSIP by its analog channel, actually broadcasts in digital on a different RF channel, but brands by a third channel. An example is KASW in Phoenix, Arizona, which appears as ch 61 on PSIP, broadcasts on RF ch 49, but brands as CW 6. In that case, article references should refer to the station as CW 6, but both virtual channel 61 and RF channel 49 should be mentioned in the infobox and opening paragraph. In the category "Channel XX TV stations in the United States", it should appear as channel 61, its virtual channel. If someone wants to create an "RF channel XX TV stations in the United States" and categorize the station as channel 49 there, that's fine by me. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

KTLA notability

I've tried explaining that Ron Olson doesn't really belong in the list of notable alumni, the IP has added it back, I'm done now. It's not a big enough deal for me to pull my hair out, but the only way the IP has communicated is through the edit summary, and I (apparently) can't get them to make the leap from "he exists" to "he is notable". tedder (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's common on Wikipedia. I'm in your camp on this, but it usually turns out to be a futile effort. I wish I could be more encouraging. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed that reference and another reference to a non-notable alumnus, but I'd be very surprised if it stands. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that other one was one that came after the Ron Olson one, and I didn't feel like tilting at windmills and looking like the crazy guy. I'm convinced we can make The Right Thing stick- maybe I'm still too naive.. tedder (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC programs

Status update: I've created new articles for Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan and Dr. Nancy, the new MSNBC daytime programs. You may want to improve them so they blend in better and contain more information. (An article at Morning Meeting, now a redirect, was marked to be deleted.) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

69.224.56.159 is removing virtual channels from infoboxes

69.224.56.159 is removing virtual channels from infoboxes. Powergate92Talk 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would revert all. PSIP listings are necessary and standard on all infoboxes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fox vs. FOX

There's a lot of variability between articles regarding Fox. Because Fox isn't an acronym (unlike ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, or even The CW), I'd prefer "Fox" over "FOX", although the branding for the network uses FOX. Can we get a consensus about which version WP should use? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just plain Fox is appropriate as a proper noun. Wikipedia really shouldn't get into branded spellings like Yahoo-exclamation point!! and E-star-trade, not to mention the thousands of MixedCase corporations out there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also important to remember the source of the name Fox, which is William Fox. Nicholasm79 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - this is covered by WP:MOSTM. Just use the standard title case, and make a mention of the stylization in the main article(s). –xeno^talk 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I actually object to this but... I have "concerns", I guess.

First, and most practically, is there going to be a bot in operation to enforce this? I can't imagine this change being anything more then transitory which, given some time, will actually be counter productive to the stated goal of standardizing the use of FOX/Fox.

I lso wanted to bring up the point that, over the long haul (probably even with a bot in operation), this change is essentially a WP:SNOW issue. As you yourselves mentioned above, every other network is known by their acronym. That FOX is not actually an acronym therefore becomes fairly meaningless, since people "naturally" use FOX as an informal standard.

The "slippery slope" argument (use of Yahoo! and E*Trade) offered above seems to be a straw man argument in this context. I don't see that as being particularly persuasive, but maybe that's just me. Regardless, that issue (the use of non-spoken characters) is specifically addressed as being forbidden within the WP:MOSTM guideline.

Finally... I'm really left wondering about the motivations driving this. I can understand the variability argument, but the choice to then go with Fox over FOX seems odd. I'm assuming good faith here, but can the four of you above honestly say that you don't have some other motivation here? If you don't, fine, but I doubt that I am or will be the only one to question that.

WP:MOSTM does specifically state that judgment should be used, with consistency being the primary goal. Based on the consistency goal, my recommendation would be the exact opposite, to use FOX in place of Fox, where appropriate.
— Ω (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, and the time you've taken away from more important editing to take a look here. First: there are no other motivations here other than to provide a consistent, reliable source of knowledge (what other motivation could there be?). Please take a look at Template:NFL on Fox. Is there any reason there should be a mixture of Fox and FOX on the same page? It doesn't look professional; you certainly wouldn't see such a mixture in a published book (and the books I have list the company as "Fox"). The name of the company is Fox Broadcasting Company; it was named for William Fox. Unlike most (but not all) other networks, its name is not an acronym, so allcaps are not appropriate: since PBS, ABC, etc, actually are acronyms, it would be inappropriate to type Pbs, Abc, etc. WP:SNOW discusses consensus; it concerns discussions, not acronyms.

The WP:MOSTM guideline is clear what is to be done here: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." Until that guideline is changed, there's no reason to alter Fox to FOX, and every reason to keep the references to "FOX" to a minimum. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The NFL on FOX template is an excellent example of how this change seems overly pedantic, really. The mixture in casing is simply an artifact of the networks own (yes, inconsistent) usage patterns. I guess that this whole thing smacks of pedantry is what really "bothers" me the most about the change...

Nothing that you're bringing up about the Fox name itself is controvertible, I'm simply left asking "so what?" in response. The main reason why is probably best expressed through an example:

In this list of television networks, which one stands out the most to you: ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, CW.

I had to really think about typing Fox there, instead of FOX. That alone should send a message of some sort. To be clear though, my primary concern is that using Fox in place of FOX provides undue weight. Using Fox in place of FOX is noticeably different then the spelling of all similar items (TV networks), which can easily generate a perception best described as giving undue weight.

Anyway, I had hoped that by couching my reference to WP:SNOW within the phrase "is essentially a" would provide the necessary context to show that I realize the stated guideline is not directly applicable. In my mind, it falls into the category of items which the guideline is attempting to address though, for the reasons which I stated earlier (enforcement, overcoming common use, etc...).
— Ω (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with several things you've said. However, if you feel it's pedantic to standardize articles so that a reader won't wonder what's up with inconsistent capitalization, I don't know what else can be said. Editors felt it was important enough to include in the Manual of Style, and it's still there. I recall when Fox first started network operations, they used the actual acronym FBC; but they no longer use an acronym. Above you state that all other U.S. networks are capitalized; this isn't true. A great number of U.S. television networks don't use acronyms: America One, MyNetworkTV, Univision, Telemundo, and the old defunct networks like DuMont. (You could say Fox is the only really large, U.S.-based, English language network still in existence which doesn't use an acronym... but then you're cutting out an awful lot of other networks to make your statement true). Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're exaggerating what I'm saying, slightly. Ensuring consistent usage within an article, one way or another, is not something that I see as pedantic at all (indeed, it's something which we should all should strive for). Attempting to enforce such a standard across Wikipedia, though time, is an entirely different matter though. The one thing that I keep coming back to, in my mind, is the question of maintainability. You've changed several hundred instances of FOX to Fox today, but I can pretty much guarantee that you didn't change them all (although, I'm sure that the ones that are left are relatively obscure). More importantly though, I have a hard time envisioning the situation being better a year from now (or 6 months, or even 1 month from now). I could easily imagine it actually being worse, with many editors (likely to be unaware of this altogether) changing Fox back to FOX and adding new instances of FOX throughout Wikipedia.

Anyway, I knew when I brought it up that you would bring up the minor and non-US networks. It's all a question of outlook I guess. We should battle against centrism, I don't dispute that, but the fact is that current television viewership worldwide is extremely US-centric. Of course there are networks and television throughout the world, but it's easily stated that the vast majority of people associate three letter (and two letter, weakly) capitalized designations with major networks (which, not coincidentally, is why they utilizes "FOX" in their marketing). I could also bring in BBC, CBC, RTV, CNN, etc... Of course there are plenty of networks that do not use the acronym, a few of which you brought up above, but in terms of viewership/exposure the major networks are (still) an order of magnitude larger then their minor competitors. All of this is why I brought up the WP:SNOW policy. You're factually correct in that FOX is not an acronym, but this seems to be a battle that just can't be won, especially since you're essentially picking a fight with a quadrillion dollar marketing organization. I consider myself to be a reasonable and educated person, and I don't dispute your factual reasons for wanting this change, but even still I don't agree with the decision to go with "Fox" over "FOX". I realize how weak this argument sounds, but standardizing on "Fox" just doesn't "feel right".

In that vein, if you must to have a guideline cited to overcome WP:MOSTM, then there's always WP:IGNORE (along with all of the supporting guidelines and essays which it references)...
— Ω (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually changed well over 1,000 articles between yesterday and today; these are the ones which showed up on Google searches and "what links here". It's easy to maintain by AWBing them every few months, just as I already do with incorrect apostrophe searches. I don't feel "people will continue to add the incorrect name" is a good excuse for not fixing the incorrect name, just as I feel fixing spelling errors should continue on WP, despite the fact that people will continue to misspell things on WP. Also: both Univision and Telemundo are U.S. networks; they're just Spanish-language U.S. networks. If lowercase "Fox" doesn't feel right to you, I'd say you've fallen victim to their multi-million dollar advertizing campaign. :) Branded spellings just aren't the same as the company name, a fact recognized when the name "Fox" is written in books. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

well... it's not as though I could (or would even want to) stop you, I just don't agree with your choice is all. I'm fairly certain that I won't be the only one either, but don't look for me to say "I told you so". The spelling issue is an interesting thing to bring up, since enforcing spelling through automated means is specifically verboten (not coincidentally, largely due to the fact that correct spelling is a regionalism issue). That's actually a model which I feel I could point to in order to bolster my own arguments. The argument about usage in books seems to be a cherry picked argument, as well. It's easily stated, but difficult to either prove or disprove (I could easily counter that most books actually use FOX, for example). The reader needs to be predisposed to the argument for Fox over FOX in order for it to be convincing.
— Ω (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I waited days for any objections to be raised; the folks who normally work on these articles agreed that it should be changed. Automated spelling corrections aren't verboten, just changing between AmE and BrE using automated tools. Unless you feel FOX->Fox is an American/British spelling change...? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't keep these pages (within the Wikipedia ns) on my watch page for more then a few days at a time. Maybe that's a mistake on my part, but I don't seem to be alone. Regardless, this isn't exactly the Village Pump or Centralized Discussion, which I feel would be a more appropriate venue since this is a change which has implications far beyond this WikiProject. (PS.: I happen to believe that if this were a more general conversation that it would look a lot more like Wikipedia:Standardize spellings/Archive, although it wouldn't bother me in the least to be proven wrong) In reference to spelling, see: Wikipedia:Bot policy#Restrictions on specific tasks
— Ω (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a centralized discussion area to determine what's already been determined by the Manual of Style, and this has always been an appropriate place to discuss television station articles. The bot policy you link to specifically allows attended spell-checking. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox First Run/Last Run Dates

I know this is a general formatting issue, but the user in question is specifically doing it on TV articles. I felt as if I should bring the matter here for discussion. Daniel Benfield has declared the following (taken from his user page): "Another case of redundancy regards the usage of "first_aired" and "last_aired" dates in the Infobox - if a show aired its entire run in a single given calendar year, the Infobox should reflect that by merely stating "(start date) - (end date), (year)" instead of "(start date), (year) - (end date), (year)"." I don't think this is right, as we should list a complete date always. Any thoughts? Nicholasm79 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Other date ranges. I'm not sure that it addresses this specific question. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Us to Dingbat: Wikipedia is not a toy

Can someone revert Dingbat2007's changes to his talk and user pages and lock them up? His category has shrunk to 106, as he continues to use his talk pages of his socks as his "toy". This has to stop. -- azumanga (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WRLM (TV)

This station has had an ownership change and has apparently changed over their calls locally. However, they're still listed in the FCC's database as WOAC, a full two weeks after the ownership change, and there's no record that I can find of an application for a call sign change. Shouldn't this article sit at WOAC until there's something official? Mlaffs (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they actually using their new calls on TV, and no longer mentioning WOAC in the legal ID? If so, maybe it takes awhile before the changes are reflected in the database. -- azumanga (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Non free historical logos and logo galleries

Collectonian is removing non free historical logos and logo galleries saying they "violate WP:NONFREE" and there is now a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#How, when, and why for historical logo. Powergate92Talk 05:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Meridian, MS TV Stations

I didn't know where to post this, so if I should post it somewhere else, please redirect me there, but I have a question. I've been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article and I'm about to put it up for GA (then hopefully FA), but before I do that, I would like the Media section updated. This area is not really my forté, so I was wondering if there were any experts here that could help me out. I know that Analog TV is no longer in use in the US, but I have no idea what the difference between UHF and VHF Digital transmission is. I was wondering if anyone here knew how to look up what stations play in the city and whether they are UHF or VHF frequencies (or both if that's possible). You can reply here if you want or drop a note at my talk page. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You did a pretty great job with the grid already, but with only one analog signal in the area, that column was unnneeded. I tweaked around the grids that existed and minimized some things for clarity of information. Also since all of the stations now transmit on UHF, that noting wasn't needed so I went with their original channels and also listed the actual channel. I hope the tweaks helped :). Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply! I like what you've done with the list, but the main thing I was trying to get done was including all the stations broadcasting in the city on the list. I don't really know how to look up the stations call letters or anything, but I know at least WMDN (Ch 24) has 24.1 and 24.2 (I live near the city), and WGBC has 30.1 and 30.2. I can only pick up 11.x, 24.x, and 30.x from my house, so I'm not even sure the other channels exist. I was pretty much asking if anyone knew of like a database or some source that could tell me the channels available in the city because I'm pretty sure the list currently on the page may include channels that don't exist or may not include channels that do exist.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The template for {{Meridian TV}} shows that the stations based in Meridian do match those within the grid except for 24.2; I decided not to include 24.2 since it's just a weather station, not a major network. If you are looking for stations which are available outside of Meridian, AntennaWeb is the best source for that kind of info down to an address. Nate • (chatter) 08:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! (I didn't even know that template existed haha) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Call sign changes involving addition or removal of suffix

There is a minor edit war underway at WKYC and WAGA-TV, the cause of which I feel would be a worthwhile discussion for this project.
In a nutshell, the situation is that WKYC has recently changed their callsign from WKYC-TV; conversely, WAGA-TV has recently changed their callsign from WAGA. User:RobDe68 added these changes to the appropriate field of the infobox, and that addition has been reverted by an anonymous editor. On WKYC at least, that addition and removal has now happened four times.
The full discussion thus far regarding this situation can be found at User_talk:RobDe68#WKYC_and_other_TV_call_signs. In summary, the anonymous editor's position is that simply adding or removing a suffix in a call sign is a "modification" of the call sign rather than a change — as the base portion of the call sign is unchanged — and it's therefore not appropriate to include that action in the callsign history field. My position is that the FCC, which is our reliable source for this information, doesn't make any distinction along the lines of modification versus change — any time a callsign is replaced by another one, even if the only difference is the addition or removal of a suffix, it's a change and we should be reflecting it as such.
I've reverted the removal of the notation once and do not intend to do so again, so as not to feed the edit war. In the meantime, I'd like to see if there's a consensus among the members of this project as to the appropriate standard. Although this situation specifically concerns two television station articles, I'm also going to post a notice of this discussion at WT:WPRS, in order to seek the feedback of members of the radio station project too — a similar situation can easily arise there, and consistency is a good thing^TM. Mlaffs (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, over on the radio side of things the universal consensus is that a call sign change is a call sign change, per the FCC database. It matters not if (for example) KLAM becomes KLAM-FM or KARP (or even KARP-FM), the FCC legally registers that as a new call sign and the call sign history in the FCC database reflects it as such. - Dravecky (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After jumping the gun with June 12 call changes (which turned out to be totally incorrect), I go with the FCC database confirmation for all call changes now. Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What the FCC says is what I put down....nothing else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's a war as much as it's a misunderstanding of an earlier consensus. I remember reading a discussion about stations dropping the "-TV" suffix as being a minor change not warranting an edit. But what the IP editor is mixing up is that the discussion was about station ID not official FCC call signs. Call signs are call signs. RobDe68 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The FCC assigns U.S. callsigns, and if they say a callsign is 6 letters, it is 6 letters, and if they say it is changing from 6 letters to 4 letters or vice versa, then it has. It is already established Wikipedia consensus that the FCC's idea of the callsign is the authoritative one. Also, a callsign loses or adds a suffix only because the licensee already considers it important; they wouldn't go to the trouble of filing for the change if it wasn't significant. It's worth nothing the usual reasons for such a change: (1) A station often changes from a non-suffix to a suffix callsign to clear the way for another station (often an AM station that cannot have a suffix) to adopt the shorter callsign shortly afterwards — which will mean that the shorter callsign will mean the other station. (2) A station often changes from a suffix to a non-suffix explicitly because the FCC does not consider the shorter callsign to exist, and will allow any license to grab a non-suffix callsign without the suffix holder's approval. That is, when a well-established AM station changes its callsign, the related TV station often changes its callsign to remove the TV prefix so some new, less established station doesn't get their foot in and reuse the callsign. --Closeapple (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn is removing non-free gallery

J Milburn is removing non-free gallery from TV station articles saying "Remove non-free gallery. The images are adding nothing, and non-free images should never be used in a gallery format." Powergate92Talk 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See also this TfD discussion, where he's nominated template {{Branding_timeline}} used to show the logo history for various Australian TV stations, airlines and football club jersey patterns, based on the same ideological position that historical logos simply have no significance. Jheald (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It's based on the position that historical logos should not be displayed in that way- if a historical logo is significant, then, naturally, I support its inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If the sequence of historical logos is significant -- and for as public an entity as a national TV station, or a national flag carrier, it may well be -- then the template is actually not a bad way to show it. Jheald (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This debate should be conducted at the TfD page. I posted here merely to clarify my motives. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to speak with J Milburn, but it turned into one big question of "Why?" every 5 seconds. Milburn is superceding consensus and the words of Godwin, he knows this and there isn't really anything that can stop him, even though there should. Be careful what you say to him, he likes to throw his weight around, snap back with little rude quips and threaten to block you. I recommend when the images come up for deletion, we vote for them so they are kept. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know there is a discussion about this at User talk:J Milburn/archive24#Gallery Images. Powergate92Talk 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (unindent) Hammersoft has begun removing logo galleries from Canadian television stations.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is now a discussion about this at WP:Media copyright questions#TV station galleries. Powergate92Talk 02:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I have been removing the logo galleries as I find them, and have done so numerous times on the project before today. User:Emarsee, in a blatant abuse of his rollback privileges, undid all of the edits to the station logo galleries and images that I made. I will raise the issue of his blatant abuse of rollback privileges elsewhere tomorrow. As to the issue of the galleries themselves, Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change#Exceptions (which is policy) says a "WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right". That a consensus exists here to override policy and guideline is irrelevant, per policy on consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So, what you are saying is even if a consensus exsists, you find it perfectly OK to walk all over that consensus as you see fit? I call that disruption. This WikiProject oversees all the pages in question, so yes we can see our own consensus. Maybe you are just P.O.'d consensus was found that overrules your view of these images and J Milburn's "there has to be an explanation for everything view cause I said so" view. I don't know, but there is consensus and the words of Godwin, that can not be disputed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Consensus on a local project, even if it exists, can not and will not override project wide consensus on the same abstract issue. You can't declare this project free of the encumbrance of the policies and guidelines of the project as a whole. If you want to do that, fork and create a project on Wikia devoted to TV stations. It's not hard to do. You may think you oversee articles within your scope of interest through this project, but that does NOT mean you control those articles. And, as J Milburn has pointed out many, many, many times what Godwin says has to do with the legal aspects of fair use image use. It has nothing to do with the multiple other hoops fair use images must go through to be acceptable here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue of non-free logos on AN/I

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wider_issue
User:Black Kite is proposing sanctions on users who restore logo galleries.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't put words into my mouth please - I am not "proposing" anything, as sanctions are appropriate at the moment, but under-used. I was pointing out that admins need to be far harsher on users who consistently insert or restore large amounts of non-free content without explaining why such content passes all 10 criteria of WP:NFCC (and for that matter, the guidelines at WP:NFC). Black Kite 18:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of television stations?

By the way, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Now back to the question...

The Transhumanist 01:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Updating Equity Media Holdings

Since that Equity Media has gone out of Television business, can we go ahead and remove Equity as previous owners and add the new owners in the articles???? because most of those stations have been removed from the template and I wonder if it was okay to take the tab off the previously owned stations. John (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We should update the formerly owned stations, but move the Equity Media ownership to the history section in prose. I don't think it should be completely removed. The template should probably be put up for deletion if it is empty. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Updating Equity Media Holdings

Since Equity Media has left the Television Industry, is there any way we can start to remove stations that they used to own and updating the tab at the bottom of the article and removing them as previous owners to separate owners???John (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Two Canadian television stations, CIII-TV and CKMI-TV, recently had their licenses reassigned to different cities than they were previously licensed to, such that their former rebroadcasters in the new COLs are now the stations' primary transmitters — however, at present both of the new primary transmitters still have numerical rebroadcaster-suffixes after the base call sign. This has caused some discussion over the page title at Talk:CIII-TV, while CKMI-TV was actually moved arbitrarily, by a user who wasn't part of the CIII discussion, to CKMI-TV-1. And both stations, for the record, were already operating out of the new COLs, with the old COLs being pure technicalities, so this didn't result in any substantive change to either station's operations.

So my question is: is the call sign rule meant to be so strict that the stations' articles now need to be moved to "CIII-TV-41" and "CKMI-TV-1" since those transmitters are now considered the stations' primary signals, or are the base call signs "CIII-TV" and "CKMI-TV" still sufficient because the call sign rule was only ever meant to preclude calling them "Global Ontario" and "Global Quebec"? In other words, does the title have to precisely match the exact call sign of the primary transmitter, or does it just have to match the base call sign?

This is, for the record, a uniquely Canadian issue — since American repeater transmitters aren't numbered the same way Canadian ones are, a similar situation in the United States would always entail a different base call sign. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Being somewhat of a uniquely Canadian issue myself, I'll throw in a couple of cents. My knee jerk reaction is that the call sign rule is a good one in order to maintain consistency, avoid arguments over usage, etc. However, since it's you asking the question, Bearcat, I'm suppressing my knee and trying to actually think through the issue. Funnily enough, when I use the phrase "base call sign", I'm always thinking of just the "CIII" or "CKMI" portion. Anyway, the way I see it, there are two types of people who are going to come looking for these stations. One type is the average user, who knows CIII as "Global Ontario" — or more likely as simply "Global" — and that's what they're going to put into the search box. As long as we have a redirect or disambiguation page that gets them to the correct article, it doesn't really matter what the article is called. The other type of user is the "datageeks" (love that comment from the talk page), the hard-core user who knows that the correct station name is "CIII-TV-41" and that's what they're going to come looking for. To satisfy them, it's simplest to have the article named that, and it also has the benefit of being in line with our standard practice.

All that being said, if we have a reasonable expectation they'll be applying in the next month or two to flip the calls, it won't kill us to leave the articles where they are, as long as there's a redirect from the correct call sign to the article (which there isn't currently for "CIII-TV-41"). However, if our crystal ball is murky on that or if it's a longer-term prospect, then I'd !vote to move to the legal name per normal, if only to avoid fighting with someone down the road over why it's okay to not be following the rules on these two stations but it's not okay on the "unique" case they're found, which likely won't be unique at all. Mlaffs (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings of Network Affiliates

Alright, I want to run this by here before I do anything. I'm looking at some of the affiliate listing pages, like List of This TV affiliates, Universal Sports, and Mexicanal and all three use DMAs for sorting. MHz Worldview isn't using any rankings and just looks messy. I want to go through and replace these (and others like them) with my READS ranks and clean up the lists in the process. Any opinions on this? TripEricson (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comments at all? TripEricson (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were leaning away from using DMA information after the whole Nielsen mess. Could we use RabbitEars info? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm willing to do the work, I just don't want to do it without approval from whoever has to give that approval. TripEricson (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If I don't hear any comments on it, is it safe to assume that nobody cares and I can go ahead and do this? TripEricson (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, not using DMA is the wise move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I create a page about READS Ranks detailing just what it is? I'd prefer not to confuse people with it... TripEricson (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now done MHz Worldview. Any opinions, before I continue to others? Please note that the commercial subchannel affiliate lists would have owners listed in addition to the information posted, but since MHz is a non-commercial subchannel, I saw no need to list ownership. TripEricson (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I would take out any mention to Media market, as it mentions DMAs in the top sentence. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now done My Family TV. Should I make a page for the READS Ranks to link instead of "Media market" or should I just put no link at all? TripEricson (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You could link to a page explaining the use of your ranks of Nielsens in your userspace and link to that if you like or just leave it blank....each works :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so here's where I stand right now. I've created this lovely page here: User:TripEricson/READS_Ranks If anyone thinks it needs to be changed, either change it, or let me know, whatever is preferred. I have linked it to the word "Rank" on all pages I've updated. I have now updated these pages: MHz Worldview, Mexicanal, Estrella TV, My Family TV, Untamed Sports TV. I've got a number of others I plan to attack at a later date, but I think I've done enough for one evening. Opinions? TripEricson (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good :) Nice work. Let me know if I can be of assistance in your updating. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to look at some of these, I'm planning to look at some or all of these pages: .2 Network, CV Network, LATV, Live Well HD Network, MTV Tr3́s, Minnesota Channel, Multimedios Television, The Local AccuWeather Channel, ThinkBright, Universal Sports, List of This TV affiliates, List of Retro Television Network affiliates, plus any others I've forgotten. If you get the urge to go on an updating binge, there's my list. I've been making the lists sortable, replacing the DMAs with READS Ranks, replacing the "DMA" column header with "Rank" linking to my page, and otherwise trying to make it look neat and clean. TripEricson (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I just did the .2 Network, Bohemia Visual Music and Live Well HD Network‎ articles. Powergate92Talk 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are we not using the FCC's TMA instead of the DMA or READS Ranks? This READS Ranks is trademarked also and newly adopted, thus running into the same problem as using the DMAs.Spshu (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the "READS Ranks" are owned by a Wikipedia member, TripEricson, who has said he will get an OTRS ticket if needed to place them into mainspace. So, in this case, trademarks are not a worry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The trademark is only there so that someone can't steal the name and stick it on their own rankings. And it's not a registered trademark. I've given Wikipedia (and anyone else who wants it) full permission to use the READS Ranks, and should anything come up, as NeutralHomer said I'm prepared to take the necessary actions to clear it up and ensure Wikipedia can make use of the ranks. TripEricson (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannot seem to find TMA information anyways. What about READ Ranks being newly adopted as this is effectively original research? OTRS ticket? Spshu (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed in Talk:List of television stations in North America by media market. TripEricson (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my rankings on Estrella TV were pulled today. Thoughts? TripEricson (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put it back since we pretty clearly discussed it and came to a conclusion here, but I don't want to touch anything else until I get some thoughts from others here. TripEricson (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I still have gotten no answer on this. Am I to assume no one cares about the cleanup of the network lists? TripEricson (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is using an arbitary, user-created ranking system not a good idea? To me it borders on original research.....anyone can make up their own ranking system. --24.240.78.104 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read before you comment as I already brought that up and it was discussed else where: Talk:List of television stations in North America by media market. Spshu (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree its original research. Lets just use geographical area. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We either use this, which can be put into a OTRS ticket, or we use nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think numbers aren't needed at all. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, but people like to know the "DMA", since we can't use that information, this RANKS information is the next best thing and the author of it has offered to release it via OTRS ticket, so there will be no legal problems. I think that is a good deal. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to use his numbers, they're obviously self published original research. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have already been approved and used, so...technically this whole thing is moot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

wxvt HISTORY error

WXVT was purchased by Saga Communications in 1999. They took over 7/1/1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.135.82 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use taken to MCQ

I just found a debate over the historic galleries taken to Media: Copyright questions. It started out as a debate trying to keep a project's local consensus from overriding a global consensus. Though of course there is no global consensus on the specifics of this, just a group of editors establishing their own code of practice to ge their work done.

Then the discussion drifted back to the historic galleries. There was nothing even resembling a consensus to remove them, but it was followed by an invitation to "move ahead" with deleting images listed on the aforementioned audit page. I posted a rebuttal and am bringing it back here. See WP:MCQ#Time_to_move_ahead.3F. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

TV schedules discussion on WP:NOT

There's a discussion brewing on whether TV schedules are encyclopedic at WP:NOT. While I can imagine schedules being abused by fans who edit them weekly with changes for specials, etc, the season block schedule for an entire network is clearly encyclopedic. See WT:NOT#Per_station_television_schedules. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Audit of fair-use images used on U.S. TV station articles

The project may find useful this audit of fair-use images used on U.S. TV station articles that Hammersoft (talk · contribs) is compiling.

Hammersoft sets out some of his intentions for the list here. Jheald (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Having multiple logos in an infobox is necessary if the station has multiple subchannels that don't have separate articles. While I agree the fair-use screenshots of personalities goes over the line, having someone who hasn't even worked on these articles just go through and put articles on a list (which we now know will be used for mass removal) is unwise. A lot of it reeks of copyright paranoia. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with copyright paranoia. I'm not interested in looking over my shoulder wondering if someone is going to sue Wikipedia. I am interested in looking forward, towards our m:Mission. So long as we stay focused on our mission, we don't have to worry about someone suing Wikipedia. Whether or not I have worked on the articles is meaningless. As an editor, I am a stakeholder in Wikipedia. I do not have to be a member of a sub-project, or a contributor to a group or articles in order to be allowed to edit them or enforce policy. If helping Wikipedia comply with its policies counts as unwise, then please consider me the stupidest, most ignorant editor on Wikipedia if it helps you rationalize my position. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the remotest danger of being sued for these images. They are station logos used in articles about the station. While there may be an element of fanboyism in the production of the logo galleries, the end result is useful to a much wider audience for historical value. They fall clearly under fair use in US copyright law, and do not deprive the copyright holders of their intellectual property. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Whether or not Wikipedia is in danger of being sued is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether to retain content or not. As I said above, this has nothing to do with copyright paranoia. Additionally, that something is legal under fair use law is but _one_ requirement for inclusion of non-free content. There's considerably more criteria and guidelines that must be met for inclusion. Please see WP:NFCC for the policy and WP:NFC for the guideline. These logo galleries do not meet these guidelines or policy. If a particular historical logo has special significance to a station or network, (such as the first peacock logo for NBC), I'm sure there would be discussion of it at an appropriate place example. In these cases, there's precious little discussion of the logos in any historical context, and their primary use is for identification purposes. That is insufficient reason to override our guideline proscribing the use of fair use images in galleries. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You said you didn't want to have to worry about WP being sued, and I'd say we most definitely need to satisfy copyright law before we satisfy our internal policies. However, the policy, NFCC, doesn't mention galleries at all, and the guideline, NFC, says that galleries must be considered on a case by case basis.

Here is where the debates about local versus global consensus come in. One of the points made against galleries is that a local consensus on a project such as this should not trump global consensus. Local consensus cannot trump WP policy, but local consensus can form around an interpretation of policy. Furthermore, local consensus is also okay at the guideline level. For example, many wikiprojects have their own notability guidelines competing with WP:N. Some even have their own sourcing guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS.

The way I see it is that a gallery that is only there for the sake of having a gallery conflicts with NFC. For example, a photo gallery of your favorite supermodel isn't really there for descriptive, historic, or identification purposes; it's there as a collection of pretty pictures. On the other hand, a gallery template used to show a historic timeline or a collection of parts, say a half-dozen cartoon characters in an article about their cartoon show, is an appropriate use of a gallery.

What we have to decide is whether a gallery of station logos exists in an article for pretty pictures or for informative purposes. And that is something we need to reach a consensus on, not unilateralism by a few. Since it's at neither at the legal or policy levels nor even explicit at the guideline level, it's appropriate to reach a local consensus on how to interpret the guideline. That goes for this project, as well as some others where "galleries" have been under debate such as discographies, filmographies, lists of books by author, etc. But since policy has been satisfied, it's pretty much a stylistic issue at this point. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I never said I didn't want to have to worry about WP being sued. I said I'm not interested in it. It is of no relevance to me. There interpretation of policy that has been applied across the project is galleries are a huge no-no. They are usually removed on site, with virtually no dissension. As for unilateralism by a few, I have to laugh. It is a common tactic by people arguing to retain non-free content to refer to the people upholding people in various disparaging terms. I'm not a unilateralist. Rather the contrary. I am acting with the preponderance of consensus and action across the entire project. I'm far from being solo or one of a very few here. And, it isn't a stylistic issue. Minimizing it to that ignores the overarching m:Mission of Wikimedia. Free content. Understand it. Know it. Love it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether WP gets sued or not should be of immense relevance to all of us who edit it. That said, there is nothing written into the rules here that galleries are a "huge no-no". There is only wording at the guideline level that says they are "usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Basically the question over fair-use images in galleries is a recurring content debate, similar to those over "In Popular Culture" articles, "Lists of X", and so forth.

The mission statement of Wikimedia is to encourage users to create free content. That's all well and good, but WP has always allowed fair use material, and that doesn't conflict with the mission when an image cannot be replaced by a free equivalent.

"Copyright paranoia" may not be the right term; "Free content evangelism" would be more appropriate. But "religious" absolutism just doesn't work here, we work by consensus and compromise. Usually whenever something in an article gets fought over, even if its by IP editors, there's usually some underlying weakness in the material. Almost all non-vandal edits have a point that should be taken into account, and that includes the edits both to keep and remove the station logos.

For example, an editor who removes fair-use images would be less likely to be reverted if he improves the articles in the process. And those who wish to keep logos would do well to write them into the history of the station and not as a gallery at the bottom. I would compromise in that not every logo ever used by a station needs to be in its article, a minor stylistic change used for only a year or two during the consolidation years of the 1990s may not be encyclopedic. But a logo used for many years, especially if its the first logo of the station or one used throughout the 1970s and 1980s while the station operated independently of a network, is likely relevant to the history of the station.

Ideally, I'd like to see several ( not necessarily all ) logos each accompanying a block of text in the history section of the station articles. And I do see a wholesale removal of images, without trying to add context or improve the article, as disruptive to that goal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• If removing violations of our non-free content policy counts as being disruptive, then by all means consider me to be the most disruptive editor on Wikipedia. If you want to change the policy, you can begin the process at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not violations of anything written in policy. They are simply style issues that you don't agree with. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

READS Ranks Again

Here we go, some opinions would be appreciated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Articles_linking_to_userspace TripEricson (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I believe my time at Wikipedia is now over. Be well and I wish you the best. TripEricson (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel better about the whole thing now. Through calm discussion and reasoning, I see why they've taken the action they've taken. TripEricson (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Game Show Network All Over

Oy. Someone has seemingly decided that Game Show Network is available OTA on NBC affiliates. Special:Contributions/65.49.161.245 Does someone have a source for this information, or is this person just making things up? TripEricson (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I smell the pungent stench of bullshit. I've reverted all of the IP's edits regarding GSN as a subchannel.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like the edits of User:Dingbat2007, an indef blocked, IP jumping vandal. I recommend all edits be reverted to previous. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely revert all; Dingbat's biggest 'contributions' are usually to Texas station articles, which every edit meets here. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, him again? I thought he'd finally gotten the hint he wasn't welcome. Blueboy96 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Dingbat loses interest after getting hammered repeatedly for awhile and goes away, but apparently after getting bored, he comes back to raise more havoc. --mhking (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Television channels Wiki

Because of the problems we been having with old logos do to WP:NFCC, I have decided to start Television channels Wiki on Wikia. On Television channels Wiki you only need to have {{Fairuse}} on a logo to add it to an article. Powergate92Talk 02:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on lists of television station personalities

A discussion that may be of interest to participants of this project has been started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Television personalities. Your input / insight would be appreciated in the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TVS-cleanup

Template:TVS-cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Slogans

An anonymous editor with IP address 156.110.24.142 has been busily contributing to station articles, adding information to the "station presentation" categories. A lot of it I believe is inaccurate. I've been trying to revert or correct what I can... for example, on WCNC-TV he added "Charlotte's First News" to the slogan list [10], and I reverted it because I know they were using "Making a Difference" for the slogan at the time [11] and "Charlotte's First News" for the 5:30 newscast only. For anyone caught up in TV news geekery, you are familiar with SouthernMedia's NMSA, and I really think this editor is just lifting slogans from the open audio sample on that website, with no knowledge of the station at all.

I also notice that he is adding countless listings of stations using localized versions of network campaigns, with no reference to a YouTube video or screengrab of the station using it. I think it is excessive. For example, Proud as a Peacock has 36 listings of local stations that used it, all of which seem to use the same format ("Channel ##, Proud as a Peacock!"). Plus, I've never seen an example of WECT using it, and the same can be said for most of the other 35.

One could certainly argue that listings of slogans are unencylopedic, and I somewhat agree. I'll admit that I'm a local TV history buff and regularly contribute to these sections, but I think they're a little much. Now, if an image campaign or slogan is significant to the history of the station, like WFAA's "Spirit of Texas" or KCRA's "Where the News Comes First" those are definitely notable, but not "Coverage You Can Count On" that was used for two years in the late 90s. I wish there were a separate NMSA-like website for slogans and brandings. I would rather have these inaccurate slogans left off of TV station articles. Ntropolis (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The examples you gave seem to be, as you say, applied by rote. As far as generally adding slogans to Wiki TV articles, a question might be -- on a station by station basis -- whether the slogans reflect a demonstrable station policy, or are simply WP:PEACOCK. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Scheduling information, alumni careers, notability

Some issues:

Scheduling information is being introduced in articles — appending broadcast times to “notable lists”. For example “Jane Doe, anchor – weeknights at 7 and 11pm”. The purpose of these times is to direct readers when to tune in. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an online scheduling guide, nor it is for promotion.

Once a person leaves a TV station, their career is irrelevant to the station and to the Wiki article. There are rare cases, as an example, where a referenced notable person develops a delivery at a TV station that is subsequently used elsewhere. When the connection between jobs can be made with a reliable, independent third party reference, and when the notable person has no Wikipedia article yet, it may be appropriate to mention their accomplishment in the TV station article. However generally, in most cases, career information that does not relate to the article topic is contrary to WP:COATRACK, WP:INHERITED, WP:V, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:BIO.

Arguments that “some people might be interested”, and “the information isn’t available any place else” are not cogent. Someone is interested in anything published on the Internet – that isn’t a sufficient reason to be included in Wikipedia. It isn’t Wiki’s charter to be a storehouse of information that doesn’t have a convenient place elsewhere.

More broadly, other editors and I question whether lists of unreferenced, non-notable people belong in Wikipedia TV station articles. The “what does it hurt?” argument is simply answered: Uncited people are an invitation to vandalism and to self-promotion. Checked the few “notables” who did have a reference, in a sample, all were problem references; especially that external links were not used to establish notability, but to promote people’s follow-on careers -- sometimes in completely different fields. There’s no question that the unreferenced people in lists will have similar or worse problems.

TV schedule times and careers following involvement with a station are clearly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and no plausible support that is justified by Wiki guidelines has been given in discussion, or in an RfA.[12] I propose to delete this information in TV articles.

The question of allowing non-notable people to be listed however isn’t simple. Here, however, Wiki TV articles show a clear bias to treat newscasters as important, while those who are simply producers or writers, or other station personnel are not listed. There needs to be some justification why one non-notable is listed, while others are not. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

TV Channel Infobox Proposal

I have made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox TV channel#Remove of Channel params to remove all of the individual channel number/carrier params of the infobox. Further input would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Was there a discussion of networks sharing the same channel?

Was there a discussion of networks sharing the same channel, such as Nick at Night on Nick and Adult Swim on Cartoon Network? I have been debating this on the Blood+ talk page but am wondering if a broader consensus was reached and if it would be worth revisiting. With that in mind, is there a way to search the archives for this talk page? Thanks!!! Argel1200 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Nick at Night and Adult Swim qualify as separate networks, but as programming blocks on the main network, so I don't think you'll find anyhing relevant to your situation. oknazevad (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WDRL

WDRL management erased a fair bit of history from the WDRL article. Thoughts? TripEricson (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edits due to a clear COI. That page should be watched closely for the company's perfered version of history and not the correct one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in infobox tv channel

{{Infobox TV channel}} currently has a logoalt parameter, which adds a caption (rather than adding alt text). Would anyone object if I change logoalt to logocaption, and then start using logoalt for alt text? --h2g2bob (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems on this request. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

dumonthistory.tv

The Clarke Ingram site on the DuMont Television Network's history appears to be down for about a week now, whois indicates:

Status:RENEWAL HOLD

Note: This Domain Name has expired. In this status the domain name is inactive. This domain name will be activated once it is renewed. The Owner of this domain name can renew this domain name from their control panel. If this domain name is not renewed by 17-Jan-2010, it will be permanently deleted.

There are 59 outbound links to that site from en.wikipedia, most from individual TV station (or defunct station) articles, individual TV programmes or articles about the network itself. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on setting the links to an archived copy of the site this weekend. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged a friend of mine who's a good friend of Clarke's to see what's up. It may just be an oversight. (AIUI, a bunch of Clarke's friends got together to set up the new site for him.) 121a0012 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be back, thanks. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

TV station asides

Hi all,

Yesterday I removed a section of the lede at KSTW. The section read, "The station holds the distinction of being the only CBS-owned CW station on the VHF dial; the same was true for UPN. It is also one of the only CW stations to use the "CW11" branding since WPIX-TV in New York City most recently used its calls again, dropping the "CW" name from its ID (although still a CW station) since December 2008. This happened to WPIX's sister station KPLR-TV in St. Louis, who also goes by its call letters. Both stations are owned by the Tribune Company."

I don't know what the author was trying to say here, and this sort of text makes WP look bad. These asides on top of asides get way out of hand. Why does WPIX's past branding deserve a mention in the lead of this article? What is an aside about WPIX's sister station WPLR-TV doing in the lead of an article about KSTW? Why does the paragraph discuss the Tribune Company, which doesn't own the station that the article is ostensibly about? Readers who go to this article to learn something about KSTW are instead getting caught up in trivia, but not even in trivia about the station itself.

I am seeing a lot of these asides within asides in TV station articles. Sentences like: "Station KWWW-TV (now KXXX) is a former sister station of KYYY (now KZZZ-TV, formerly owned by XXX Media Holdings, which filed for bankruptcy in 2007), but uses the same station branding as KAAA-TV (which transmitted on UHF from 1953-2009 and is owned by YYY Corporation); KAAA-TV was formerly owned by ZZZ Corporation." do not help the reader.

Please remove these as you see them. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WGBH Media Access Group

Hi,

I'm a WGBH employee, and would like to help clean up the WGBH-TV article, since I have access to most/all of the details in question in the article.

For starters, I can provide info verifying WGBH's media access history. What's the best way to verify/update facts without problems around COI? I'm happy to contribute facts for some sort of approval ahead of time, to avoid having them deleted later.

Here's the current language:

WGBH is also considered a leader in accessible media services for people who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, or visually impaired. WGBH invented[citation needed] television closed captioning[citation needed], audio description[citation needed] (Descriptive Video Service), and created the Rear Window Captioning System for films[citation needed]; they provide these access services to commercial and public TV producers, and to home video, Web sites, and movie theaters nationwide.

How should I go about contributing the citations needed above?

Thanks in advance. Daisykin (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How about: WGBH also specialises in accessible media services for people who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, or visually impaired. WGBH developed[citation needed] television closed captioning[citation needed], audio description[citation needed] (Descriptive Video Service), and created the Rear Window Captioning System for films[citation needed]; they provide these access services to commercial and public TV producers, and to home video, Web sites, and movie theaters nationwide. Practically all that was needed is removal of "peacock terms". Comment? -- azumanga (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Significantly viewed

An article on significantly viewed out of market TV stations in the United States has recently appeared. The topic is interesting - it is totally unknown in the UK. Will someone please: a) cleanup the basic definition which I find almost incomprehensible and b) express an opinion on the talk page as to whether the article should include a long (and currently ill-formatted) list of stations as in this state of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading name of this project

The intro of this WikiProject states that it deals only with stations in North America, but neither name of this project nor its banner state that. Shouldn't this project be renamed to something like “WikiProject American Television Stations” so it's not misleading? Svick (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

News Music Listing Inconsistency

I've noticed recently that some station articles have had a list of known news music packages included in the presentation sections, while others don't. Has there been anything specific stated as to whether including that would be appropriate or not? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was decided awhile back (when I am not sure) on here on WT:TVS that news music packages were out. I remove them per that talk as I was told a couple years ago. Now, if that has changed, I am not sure as I see them popping up more and more. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, listing news music packages aren't likely to help the reader out at all and doesn't add any information except to those who know the package. Maybe if the station's usage of a certain package is notable (eg WPVI and Move Closer to Your World) then it should be allowed, but a list should be a no.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this should be re-opened for debate. When people turn on the TV newscast, one of the things that identifies the station is the music. It is as, if not more important and recognizable as the Newscast Titles or Station Slogans, both of which are listed. Perhaps, if they were listed on each television station, the scope of this conversation would be different. Joefridayquaker (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Déclic-Images --Gwern (contribs) 16:41 7 March 2010 (GMT)

Paramount Television Network

Paramount Television Network has been nominated as a Featured Article. The discussion is here. Please take a moment to weigh in at the FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has expressed the need for a copyedit on the article by an editor unfamiliar with the subject. The article is here and the FAC is here. If someone could give the article a thorough going-over, it would be greatly appreciated, and I would reciprocate with an article of your choice. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WDRL-TV

Can anyone verify the {{fact}} section of WDRL-TV#History? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmbabies is Back

Oh joy. Looks like school is out in Texas and Mmbabies is back with his fun brand of nonsensical edits, again to Television Station pages and some actors this time. See here for the lastest incarnation of the Mmbabies. Also, for the TVS newbies, see User:Mmbabies for all you need to know on Mmbabies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Astro channels AFD

Someone has put List of Astro channels up for deletion. This is the channel lineup of a Malaysian DBS service. I've argued in before that it is proper to have articles on channel lineups for national-level services, as they are both part of the infrastructure and are illustrative of what sort of programming is available in the country. This is consistent with WP:NME and our existing lists for Dish, DirecTV, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk)

In relation to this article, an editor with a user name User:Active Banana proposed that Channel Listings should be included in WP:NOTDIR with the argument that Channel Listings are not encyclopedic. User:Active Banana is quite persistent about the deletion of the Channel Listings but he/she does it only to Philippine Pay-TV Companies. Please check the discussion here and please give any input about it. A lot of editors including myself were already complaining, irritated and very peeved because the user, User: Active Banana was really agressive and kept on deleting the Channel Line-Ups in Philippine Pay-TV Wiki articles ONLY. When I pointed him the List of Verizon FiOS channels and told him why he/she can't delete that article when it is purely a Channel Listing, he/she gave an answer that I cannot decide what he wants to edit or not. He seems to pick only on Philippine Pay-TV Wiki articles. Can anyone give their inputs, suggestions or feedback with the discussion. Thanks in advance. - G8crash3r|talk 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alert: Someone trying to get "channel lineups" included in NOTDIR

Someone's trying to get WP:NOTDIR to explicitly ban channel listings as unencyclopedic. This is not appropriate for several reasons, one that NOTDIR should not enumerate every possible case, and finally that channel listings are often encyclopedic at least when there's a small number of nationwide providers, and are just basic information about a nation's media. There seems to be some confusion among the commenters between channel listings and tv schedules, and there seems to be an incorrect assumption that channel lineups are shuffled far more often than they actually are. And they might even have their sites set of terrestrial broadcasting. Discussion is at [[13]]. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Boston TV infobox trouble

For some reason, at least two users, 24.190.152.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.172.92.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been removing some of the past affiliations from Boston TV station articles (particularly the one at WHDH-TV, but also some of the other stations, especially WLVI-TV). Both IPs (mainly the latter) have also edited infoboxes inaccurately in the past. I really don't want to be the only one dealing with this; this is why I've brought this issue up… --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

KGET-TV

For some reason, I've been having a problem with a user Deconstructhis removing what I've had on there, which to me, seems o.k. and changing it up. Need to know what's exceptable. What was on there before is in my sandbox for you to read. If you look at notable former staff and what was on there in my sandbox, please give me your input on what's correct. If it doesn't matter, let me know. Thanks. (JoeCool950 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm here because I was looking at KERO-TV when it had the big long list of former staff, and observed (with the help of my wife) that there were omissions (including my wife.) However, I don't think the long lists of otherwise non-notable names (including my wife) are appropriate; they certainly can't be even vaguely comprehensive (are we limiting this to on-air personalities? Do we get to include producers and station managers and such? How far back do we go? How long does someone have to have been there to get mentioned?). I'd suggest keeping them trimmed to staff that otherwise are sufficiently notable to get the their own Wikipedia entries; and, given the nature of the industry, categories might be the best way to deal with this -- so, for example, Lloyd Lindsay Young would be in Category:KERO-TV current and former staff, and likewise KGO-TV, KWAK, WWOR, etc. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a bit of a mission for this user. Visit his talk page for more on his rationale. Not sure I buy it either. Noticed at WABI-TV page he/she has done the same thing, with the same rationale. Apprarently, by consensus, this particular section (only- from what I can tell) is subject to this rather capricious (IMHO) policy, requiring the existence of a separate Wikipedia article for the personality before they can be listed in the section. The user is dilligently enforcing this policy, which I understand, to a point (though I'm a bit surprised at the zealous policing of the issue). The consensus here is a bit unreasonable (again, IMHO). Longtime (over two decades) WABI-TV News anchor Sharon Pelletier was okay to be listed under current staff with no pre-existing Wikipedia article. Her last day was Friday, July 9, 2010. A user moved her to the "Notable" former staff page, upon her departure and Deconstructhis was quick to remove her. Okay - maybe this policy is by current consensus - but, folks, it just doesn't make sense. At the very least, some guidance in making these facts listable - beyond the insistence that another Wiki article exist (Are Wiki articles valid citations?). This policy needs a hard look. WABI-TV's Notable ex-employees now listed total two meteorologists - one from the early 80's who spent about three years in the market and one who only worked at the station on a short-term fill-in basis for a few months in the early 1990's. Meanwhile 20 to 30 year veterans - some in the Maine Association of Broadcasters Hall of fame, cannot be listed (without an edit war). It's inconsistent, at best, that Ms. Pelletier, et al, could be listed in the article in the active employee section without a pre-existing Wiki article, but upon leaving, no longer exist. I feel this subject worthy of more discussion and consideration for change in consensus. Sir H Izme (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed today at WABI TV article that another user added two former staffers to notable section and they were not removed by Deconstructhis. The new user included links to a history section at the station's website that included labeled photos of the two new entries, so I guess the real policy is that you neeed any cited source (not just a wiki article) in order to add to the list. That makes some sense to me. However, it's still seems a bit arbitrary to apply this rule to this particular section only. Not wanting to "open a can of worms." Just making an observation. I hate to see historical facts so easily eliminated (especially in such a "wholesale" manner). On the other hand, if external citation is acceptable - why not use it? 66.231.195.50 (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WCPX-LP moved to WCSN-LD

About 6-8 weeks ago (+/-), I noticed that WCPX 48 (analog) Columbus OH stopped transmitting. I've found it now on WCSN digital 32.1 (virtual) 33.1 (actual). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCSN-LP as there is a reference to Azteca America now using this station, but the WCPX-LP page needs to be updated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCPX-LP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.136.92 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing of TV station's locations and service areas.

Quite a few of the U.S. TV station articles phrase the station's location and service area this way: "WLOS, channel 13, is the ABC-affiliated television station for western North and South Carolina, licensed to Asheville, North Carolina." May I suggest that it would be both better-written and factually accurate to say, "WLOS, channel 13, is an ABC-affiliated television station in Asheville, North Carolina. It serves western North and South Carolina." Giving the region first and then the city of license is backwards according to the way the FCC's always kept the records. I'm not going to take the initiative to track down and change every occurrence of this, but I'd like to put it out for discussion. JTRH (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alumni (and current staff) Lists

I checked through the Wikiproject archives on this, and see a few discussions of the issue, but no absolutely solid consensus; I thought I'd ask here before going crazy deletionist on a number of articles (which is what I want to do). A number of television stations have absolutely massive lists of alumni (two I've noticed are WHDH (TV) and WDTN), including everyone from on air personalities with decades of experiences to administrative assistants. This seems like a direct violation of several Wikipedia policies/guidelines to me. Now, WP:N doesn't apply to information on pages (it only applies to whole articles), but WP:INDISCRIMINATE does clearly state that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can't think of any other type of companies that have lists of either current or ex-staff (with the exception of top-level execs or people otherwise notable by themselves). As such, I think a lot of this info should be deleted from both current and alumni staff. For one, the information isn't readily verifiable, and, for two, it's simply too indiscriminate. Before I go rampant, though, I'd like some consensus on what to include. What I propose that the following people are acceptable in lists of this nature:

1) Any person (current or alumni) notable enough to have their own Wikipedia stays 2) Any current on-air talent stays, along with any producer or high level employee (programming director, etc.) for which there is verifiable info the person works there 3) Any alumni who fit criteria 2, or who now fits criteria 2 in another television related position

And....that's it. That's all I can think of. So, my question is, are there any other people who belong in these lists, or are any other changes needed to the above criteria? In addition to WP:NOT, actually, these lists are technically WP:BLP violations, because they're unsourced information about living persons. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the current consensus at the moment (from what I have seen) is that the current staff can be sourced or link to their bio pages, but the "former staff" are out except for people who already have articles (see WJLA-TV for an example) are kept and the header changed to "Notable Former Staff". Now this is just what I have seen, I don't know what others have seen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading Neutralhomer's response, and feeling like I wouldn't be getting too many more as this Project doesn't seem to get too much traffic, I decided that if I wanted to pursue this, I need to just be bold. So, I started to make some edits. I started at the page that drew me to this in the first place, WDTN (that's the one that had admin assistants on the list), and made the change with full explanation. Then, needing an arbitrary way to start working through stations I started running through the List of NBC television affiliates (table). I made an edit to WNBC, then WCAU, which is where I ran into someone who disagreed with the plan I put forward above, reverting my edits. I told the person then that they (per WP:BURDEN) needed to find reliable sources to verify that these people worked there and that there was some reason why they were important enough to be included, and that I would come back later to delete those people who had not been sourced. My full plan for proceeding from now, should a disagreement persist, can be seen at Talk:WCAU. As the relevant Project, I invite anyone from here to come and comment on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian, please see the WCAU talk page for my comments regarding this issue. I applaud your current efforts. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Special from México: XHY and XHGJ

XHY-TV.

While I understand that sourcing is a problem for stations in México, it still is unacceptable - is this XHY (which I remember reading about as a Merida station) or the XHGJ of the article? Since I can't address the concern (this was a Random Article Patrol find), I'll leave it up to the people here. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help weeding out Dingbat2007 poop

While nominating the NBC New Mexico template for deletion as redundant to KOB, I discovered that it was created back in 2007 by Rebafan39 (talk · contribs), a Dingbat2007 sock. This template has been here for a Wiki-eon ... who knows how much more of Dingbat's poop is still here? Gonna need a hand finding it all so it can be nuked per G5. Blueboy96 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would leave the NBC New Mexico template, there are network by state templates for each state and each network, so it is pretty much here to stay. Other things, I would consider for deletion on a case-by-case basis. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...KTSM for sure serves Las Cruces, NM and I believe maybe one or two northeastern NM counties are in the Amarillo market (KFDA-CBS has at times used the term "Four State News Authority"). Now...Utah? That's not needed. Utah is entirely in the SLC market, and in fact that market stretches well into Nevada. The New Raymie (t • c) 02:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

FCC records of the 1995 Miami affiliation switch

The FCC record of 1995's technically complex Miami channel switch is rather odd. As you might expect, the FCC considers WTVJ to be on WCIX's old license and WFOR to be on WTVJ's old license (so WFOR can technically claim to be Florida's oldest television station!).

But for all these changes, the FCC uses a date of 12 September 1995, not the 10th as we know to be true. (In addition, there are DWTVJ and DWCIX call records related to Defunct calls.) Is this a clerical error? The New Raymie (t • c) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just the FCC's way of doing things. It's the federal government, I never ask what they are doing, cause it never makes sense anyway. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD-F9 for public domain images?

I was under the impression that the a free logo can come from anywhere on the internet as long as it meets the public domain criteria. I've never had any problems with uploading the public domain logos of TV station until today when User:Eeekster placed a few CSD-F9 templates on a few of the public domain logos. (eg File:Thenewwi.svg). A bit of help would be much appreciated.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Television Stations articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Television Stations articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible BenH sighting

BenH might be rearing his head again. Take a look at 173.72.96.197--the edits are strangely BenH-like. Blueboy96 02:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Digital Subchannels

This is mainly a question of concern, but should digital subchannels have separate articles? I see there was a small discussion but no concensus. To me, they shouldn't since they're basically the same station. One exception would be for those where the digital subchannel has a different callsign (rare but it happens). Mateinsixtynine (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While they may identify how they want to, "sub channels" are considered programs within the primary stream, and thus the FCC considers the sub channel to legally have the same call sign as the primary channel. There are no exceptions to this rule. In other words stations may call their subchannels whatever they want to, (i.e. WXXX 12.1 calls its sub channel WXYZ 12.2) but legally both are still WXXX. Your point about the subchannel having its own page is something I am sure can be discussed at length. My view is, if the subchannel is significant and different enough to have a subpage, then it should, otherwise, it should remain on the primary page. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Digital Programming Box Inaccuracy

I have seen a couple of examples of the digital programming box, which looks like this:

Virtual channel	Physical channel	Video	Aspect	Programming
23.1	7.1	720p	16:9	main WXXA programming / Fox HD
23.2	7.2	480i	4:3	WXXA-DT2 Untamed Sports TV

However this box is technically incorrect. "23.1" is a virtual channel, consisting of a primary (major) channel and a sub (minor) channel. (23 - Major, 1 - Minor). However there are no sub programs for the physical RF channel. 23.1 and 23.2 are both within the entire 6mhz spectrum of VHF 7, as they are muxed into one signal. There is no split or program reference within the RF signal. That only occurs within the decoded signal which is where you find the program numbers and the channel tables to associate those with the mapped channel numbers. If you wanted to say "Physical Channel - Unmapped Program", which would make a little more sense, I guess, you would then put "7.3" for 23.1 and "7.4" for 23.2, but that information is irrelevant. Some older DTV sets used to display the channel number in that incorrect fashion (and some stations used to identify that way too. also incorrectly). The correct way to display the above box (which I have fixed on the page) is this.

Virtual channel	Physical channel	Video	Aspect	Programming
23.1	7	720p	16:9	main WXXA programming / Fox HD
23.2	7	480i	4:3	WXXA-DT2 Untamed Sports TV

When I have run across this on other TV pages, I have corrected this error as well. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

License Inaccuracy

License inaccuracy? Where it states "WXNY originally began on channel 63 as W36AS" if a low power station operates on channel 63, wouldn't 63 be in the station's call sign? I assume 36 is a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.192.46 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct and the FCC database shows that the call sign was infact W63AS. The entry on WXNY-LD's page was a typo and has been corrected. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 03:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

All FCC Links are Down

Until Monday, December 20, all FCC links will be down per the following message on the FCC.gov website:

The normal FCC website and related electronic filing systems and documents (except for NORS) will be unavailable beginning 6:00 p.m. (EST) Friday, December 17 through 6:00 a.m. (EST) Monday, December 20 for scheduled maintenance.

This means all Radio links (FMQ and AMQ) and TV links (TVQ) will give you the following message:

Not Found The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page.

I recommend using http://cdbs.recnet.net:8080/fmq.php? for all queries, AM, FM and TV. Just cause it says "FMQ" doesn't mean it is just FM. Just put in the call sign and go. Has a nice little Google plot map too.

As for any links to applications or other FCC material, those are down for the duration.

Sorry for the inconvenience. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the TV side of things, there's always RabbitEars.Info as well. :) TripEricson (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All links are back up and working. Thanks for the understanding. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image overuse problem in TV articles

For example, File:AztecaAmerica.png is used in numerous articles where it is not the logo for that particular TV station - the image is only identifying that the station is an affiliate of that company. The rationale does not cover this usage. List of overused non-free items is at this page. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed -- Category:Channel XX virtual TV stations in the United States

Recently, a Category I had added to WPTD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Channel_14_TV_stations_in_the_United_States, was reverted by another user. Also, in the same article, the existing Category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Channel_16_TV_stations_in_the_United_States, was changed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Channel_16_digital_TV_stations_in_the_United_States.

When I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_TV_stations_by_channel_number, I found that virtually all the subcategories are defined as digital or low-power, referencing stations broadcasting on such-and-such a frequency range, i.e. the RF or "actual" channel.

While these Categories are quite useful, wouldn't it also be helpful to the Wikipedia-using general public if TV Station articles could also be categorized by the virtual/analog/historic channel number? I would propose "Category:Channel XX virtual TV stations in the United States", for virtual channels 2-69.

There is currently one subcategory referencing a virtual channel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Virtual_Channel_69_TV_stations_in_the_United_States. My proposed naming convention would be more consistent with the other subcategories.

Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think there should be categories such as Channel 69 virtual TV stations in the United States. Tlonca (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That took off suddenly! I like what Tlonca and others have done. Having said that, now I'm questioning the naming convention I had proposed and defended. Doesn't "Channel 69 virtual TV stations" make you wonder what a "virtual TV station" is? Maybe STARTING the name with "Virtual" does make more sense. Sorry about that. :( Chaswmsday (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Or even "TV Stations in the United States on virtual channel 69"? Chaswmsday (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw a bunch of these additions pop up on my watchlist today, and I must admit that, even now, I have no idea what a virtual TV station is. My suggestion is that the descriptions on the top of the Category pages should more clearly explain what it is this category represents. Otherwise, you may have people like me who are tempted to revert the addition since it sounds like something completely made up. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely NOT made up. In the United States in 2009, all full power broadcast TV stations converted from analog to digital, but generally map to their former analog channel numbers. The Wikipedia categories which previously grouped by channel number no longer adequately do so. Perhaps a rename would ease your concerns. Or were you being facetious about the revert? In this forum, it's hard to tell... Chaswmsday (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't actually convert. I was trying (inadequately) to express how odd the term seemed, given the "usual" uses of the term "virtual." Seeing that it wasn't a new editor suddenly adding categories, I trusted that it meant something, but couldn't tell what. Is "virtual" the industry term? As long as it is, we shouldn't change it; but I think a description of what you just said at the top of each category pages would help explain to anyone who clicked on them to try to find out what virtual means. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure virtual is the industry term. When the digital transition occured one of our local tv stations even called 6.1 their 'virtual channel'. This is an article that many TV station articles on wikipedia link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_channel Tlonca (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Channel number category?

Can you tell me... if a TV station broadcasts on channel 40, but its virtual channel is 4, what category should it be in? Should it be in Channel 4 TV stations in the United States, Channel 40 digital TV stations in the United States or both? It seems to me that there should be categories such as Virtual Channel 4 TV stations in the United States. Tlonca (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

MyNetworkTV

Apparently we now need to source the fact that MyNetworkTV is still a functioning network with functioning affiliates despite the technical reclassification as a 'programming service'. Davodd has taken it upon themselves to remove any mentions of MyNetworkTV being a network here and here, claiming on my talk page after an attempted reversion that describing it as such violates WP:V and WP:OR, which hardly seems the case. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted as a violation of WP:POINT, take it to ANI if it continues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

scope of project

I am a little confused - in the light of a non us-centric wp, how do you have WikiProject Television Stations catering for NAmerica and with descendents for British,Indian etc! Would it not be better to expand your scope to cover all television stations, moving whatever is nAmerica specific to another descendent,. Well it would be the most logical structure to me anyway - and you'd get to help a whole heap of other articles ? ( I was scratching around for infoboxes etc to start an article about Libyan sate TV) best regards Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD Alert

I have nominated KZTC-LP for deletion, a page which falls under this Wikiproject's provenance. Interested user may wish to comment on the deletion discussion page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is WKOB-LP?

Where is station WKOB-LP [[14]], a new york station transmitting on RF Channel #2 and Virtual Channel 42?

It's FCC license is available at: Reboot.FCC.gov

I do not see it on the Wiki list of York TV Stations

I was checking to see who is on RF Channel #2 and couldn't find it here.

Steve Wilkus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkus (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New York City. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Wilkus was asking where the Wikipedia article for WKOP-LP is. It's here: WKOB-LD. It's also in the New York City TV station template. I don't see it in List of television stations in New York, but that list appears to be only full-power stations and low-power affiliates of major networks. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I took the literal. :) Autistic force-of-habit. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability section added

I added a short section on TV Station notability to the article, mainly because I had nominated a local TV station for deletion because it had no references, without knowing that there was a general presumption of notability for FCC-licensed non-repeaters. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You did a good job adding that, though I will add a caveat regarding translator stations which solely air programming from a satellite network that redirection is preferred in those cases. Nate • (chatter) 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. These are useful additions. I think we also need a notability guideline for dead UHF stations of the 1950s and '60s, since I don't think the FCC database includes them: something along the line of "such articles must be sourced". Entire chapters in books have been written about UHFs like KCTY and WCAN-TV, despite their short lifespans, but literally almost nothing has ever been written about, for example, WGLV-TV in Allentown. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

IP User Keeps Vandalizing Los Angeles TV Pages

Hello, all: The IP user User_talk:98.149.130.105 keeps vandalizing the pages of stations such as KJLA, KSMV-LD, etc. As I often try to stay pretty hands-off around here, I don't know the procedure for dealing with this individual. Can someone lend a hand and help out? Much appreciated. TripEricson (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, also had to revert a bunch of incorrect changes to the radio home of the Dodgers in addition. If they continue I'll ratchet the warnings up. Nate • (chatter) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User did it a whole bunch more last night. KNET-CA, KBNT-CA, KWHY, among others. I think I reverted all of it. TripEricson (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please do something? I'm sick of reverting the exact same vandalizing edits over and over. I'm about to start just leaving it alone. TripEricson (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the user seems to have blanked all of the warnings of his/her talk page. TripEricson (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP for 48 hours. Please let me know if the disturbance continues. This user was warned repeatedly during this month and last; I can understand why your patience would wear thin. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Our friendly neighborhood vandal is back at it again. TripEricson (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again, this time for 72 hours. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Guess who's at it yet again? I didn't have to do any of the reverting this time, at least; GridlockJoe got it. TripEricson (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll be back again, Trip. Would you like me to save some reverts for you? :) --Gridlock Joe (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you're welcome to it! TripEricson (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again, this time for a month. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. =) TripEricson (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) We can deal with him again next month, if he persists. Usually they lose interest after a while. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to split up ESPN?

ESPN is becoming increasingly unwieldy to read as one article. Would it be useful to begin splitting it into components? Raymie (t • c) 06:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

New category of channel: Branded

For a while, I've thought there should be another channel category, Branded, to go along with Digital, Low-Power and Virtual.

This would handle broadcast TV stations which brand themselves by a channel number other than their broadcast (RF) channel or virtual channel. This is usually, although not always, their local cable channel (or "slot").

I thought I'd try doing it myself, so...here's an example: Category:Channel 2 branded TV stations in the United States.

I could have used the terms "publically identified", "marketed", "advertised" or "imaged", but "brand/branded/branding" seemed more prevalent in Wikipedia articles and, IMHO, is less ambiguous than the other terms.

For more info, see Template:TV channel categories, Template talk:TV channel categories and Template:Branded TV channel categories. As I mention in the template talk, I'd appreciate if anyone could improve on my (poor) markup skills.

Please let me know what you think.

--Chaswmsday (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Retro Television Network % of U.S. households reached

I've been trying to find an updated number, but RTN has lost many affiliates in the last year to competitors like Antenna TV and MeTV, so 67% is probably no longer correct. (Esw01407 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC))

• Note: I've transcluded this topic from Talk:List of United States over-the-air television networks in lieu of Esw01407 so we can get someone familiar with the math and figures for the articles to figure out what the new distrib percentage is for RTV. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Images in WDTN removed by user "Delta". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%94

I'm having a dispute with user "Delta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%94 over my alleged "overuse" of non-free fair use logo images in WDTN. Could a senior editor in the project please help? Thanks. Discussion is at Talk:WDTN. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I have to agree with the removal in this case. None of the images added much more than decorative details to the article and natter like how the graphics display in the weather section is completely inane to me. We just need the current logo and although I've had problems with the historical logos policy, that is just when it comes to just solely logos displayed without anything else. Station advertisements are a whole other case and distract from reading the article. We need to focus more on the issue of mass national slogans being added to articles without any sourcing than images that are there just to be "there". Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the un-civil use of the words "natter" and "inane". Assuming that logos ARE valid, it was merely a means to depict the station's animated radar logo without actually using an animation, which Wikipedia doesn't seem great at supporting. Back to the point, how are logos, current or historic, any less valid and more "decorative" than any textual information, current or past? How can logos be considered "advertisements" if using station slogans like "Weather Watch 47 with Doppler 47000 Radar" as text are not considered advertisements? Wikipedia is on the Internet - a multimedia information source; it's not on a "typewritten" piece of paper. If anything, a more ideal Wikipedia should be even more visual, not less...IMHO. --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to cast stones in your direction :) what about WBAY-TV, which you edited -- and being from Wisconsin, in which you probably have a bit more personal stake than other TV articles. The picture and verbiage about the studio are all very interesting, but talk about other uses of the building aren't all that relevant to the station, and the building itself apparently isn't notable enough for its own article - yet info is back-doored into this article. The pictures and text related to "Stormcenter 2" are nothing but advertising. How is coverage of a specific murder trial on 2-2 relevant to anyone - just say that the subchannel sometimes carries long-form news. And I got completely lost in all of the wording about Jack Hanna - does it just mean the subchannel fulfills some E/I requirements? I realize that you likely didn't author most of this. Yet you did edit it, and are geographically close to the subject. How are logos any worse than a great deal of questionable material that can be found in many articles? TV station logos are the most identifiable public face the station presents, possibly aside from most local news anchors, and therefore, I believe, quite relevant and necessary. --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a major difference between the images uploaded to WDTN and WBAY; the studio image on WBAY was taken by a volunteer editor especially for the article and is under proper CC licensing to illustrate the station's facility, and the image of the subchannel is meant to compliment the text and only describes the channel (as for the murder trial, it was for a notorious public figure in the area with an article here and a unique use of the channel to broadcast it was noteworthy early in the history of subchannels in general, so the mention is justified).

In WDTN, I see no coherency to any of the images besides "this logo existed" or "they aired this program in this year". If my descriptions were a bit short I do apologize, but in the last couple of years I've begun to respect that prose is better than imagery. Those ads from TV Guides and newspaper microfilms are still the property of WDTN and we cannot just use them anywhere without either proper permission from the station (also, CBS Corporation still holds rights over the Hour Magazine promotional imagery) or their copyright expiring (which isn't coming for years). I also really try to avoid describing any weather technologies or buzzwords stations use for their weather departments in all articles as they change too often and describing the way a graphic works is needless to someone who just wants to know how the station's news department runs. As someone who was around when historical logos were deleted, I did not like it myself but found it better to strengthen my writing than depending on pictures of numbers to tell the station's history, and I feel the deletions do remain appropriate. You asked for a senior editor's opinion and I have tried to explain it as much as I can, so please respect that. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I apologize if I communicated in any way that wasn't civil. I do tend to hold my opinions strongly. I did take legitimate offense at your choice of words. But putting all that aside... I still feel (maybe as you do) that "this logo existed" is every bit as relevant as the fact that they "aired the Packers", or were "sold to Young Broadcasting". The Television Project even seems to endorse this view. As far as prose being better than imagery, I would point you to the horrific prose I cited in Talk:WDTN, that of the logo verbiage in WHIO-TV. That was most certainly done as a direct result of historical logo deletion. Although I try to write clear & concise prose (within articles; certainly not in talk pages!), a picture often is worth a thousand words. Or, as someone who was around long enough to remember "Every picture tells a story, don't it?", I'm sure you'll come to wish I had somehow put this into picture, rather than story, form. I take your point on "they aired this program in this year", as far as anything like "Uncle Miltie aired in 1950", which predates any of my editing. I see that WBAY-TV doesn't contain much of that. You and your fellow editors used a different style, which I personally prefer to too much of the "Uncle Milties"; but I wouldn't want to tromp on previous editors' toes to remove those references from the articles I've edited. As far as my use of older TV Guide images that contain logos, if that's what you were referring to, I'm just not experienced in detailed image editing. I was waiting for other editors to help me replace those images with just the logo portions. I don't think with the nimbleness of Wikipedia that using the station's buzzword du jour is any problem. Editors swoop down on "my" articles the instant there's the slightest hint of a change, often with speculative text like "Bob Smith, assistant sports director, leaving for Peoria in September 2012". As I explained about "how a graphic works", that was strictly a means to an end. I'm unsure if gifs or other animations are well supported, or I would have used them. (I would have had to capture a website video with extraneous weather info, though.) ANYWAY, "fair use" guidelines are a bear in the "real world", as well. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as "your" WBAY goes, I would suggest explictly stating in the article that this was one of the first subchannels in the US to carry a trial or long-form news. I'm not certain that's true, but at least it would add context as to why it was mentioned, and your point could be debated. I personally wouldn't have included the studio photo and I personally feel that your weather subchannel isn't distinct enough from every other weather subchannel out there to justify 2 photos and a detailed content description. But you and yours chose to include those things, so I personally wouldn't touch them. I just wish that the Wikipedia community would grant me the same respect to make my own editing choices, where it doesn't take a strained reading of policy to support those choices. Thanks for the rant-space! --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect information in articles, possibly vandalism

There may be incorrect information in television articles for the Arkansas area - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=435663480#Problems_with_several_articles - I've reverted some dubious changes to KASN but there may be other errors. Peter E. James (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been monitoring all the Little Rock/Arkansas TV articles as of late because of vandalism like is described below where false logos, slogans and cities of license are added. Trust me, I know there's a problem and am very frustrated because all of it comes from IP vandals who just unplug their modem before they hit a block and hit all over again after it's all cleaned up. I'll keep a closer eye on these pages. Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

KRCR-TV: Tim Mapes

I am trying to find out what happen to KRCR-TV anchor, Tim Mapes. How can I find out. rmcgraw, redding, ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.167.31 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Took a little digging, but according to this Facebook post by his co-anchor, he's out of broadcasting and doing PR for Shasta County HHS. Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

NewsCenter

Does anyone have better information on NewsCenter? It redirects to Channel 4 News (United States), and seemingly implies that "NewsCenter" was a branding used solely by NBC affiliates, and which was replaced by "Channel X News". The article states that "Channel X News" is only primarily used by NBC affiliates, but provides no information about any non-NBC affiliates using the newer branding.

I personally know of affiliates still using the "NewsCenter" branding, at least one of which, WHIO-TV, is a lifetime CBS affiliate. Was this use licensed from NBC?

I cringe every time I see an article with NewsCenter in it, knowing it will redirect to Channel 4 News (United States). --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another example: WCVB-TV in Boston was (or has been) "NewsCenter 5" for years. They've been affiliated with both CBS and ABC, but never with NBC. It's completely untrue that either "NewsCenter" or "Channel 4 News" was predominantly used by NBC stations, or that one preceded the other by anything more than coincidence on a certain number of stations. I'm inclined to remove those statements from the "NewsCenter" article and delete the completely unsourced "Channel 4 News" article altogether. JTRH (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 121a0012 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC proposing removal of all unsourced station slogans

I propose that all unsourced station or newscast slogans be removed from all TV station pages. Now, it is true, that not everything on Wikipedia must be verified; rather, it must all be verifiable, and only those things which may be challenged must be verified. Well, after dealing with TV station pages, including a serial disruptive editor (see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox) who is adding highly dubious station slogans for quite a while now, it is my opinion that all of these slogans are “challengeable”. Some of our slogan lists go back 30 or more years. How anyone could assert with certainty what a slogan was even 10 years ago without verification is beyond me. Thus, I believe it is time that we remove all slogans that are not verified (this will probably be 99% of them, based on my experience), and, if no sourced slogans are left, we remove the section entirely. However, in the interest of fairness, I want to propose a little bit of leeway in how “verification” would work. In most cases , Youtube videos cannot be used as reliable sources, because they are almost never posted by the copyright holders and thus cannot be linked. However, I would be willing to leave in slogans for which an editor can produce a youtube video that unambiguously belongs to that station and includes that slogan on the article Talk page, even though we can’t add the ref to the article itself.

I invite comments from both from regular TV Station Wikiproject members as well as uninvolved editors; given that the membership here isn’t so active, and since this is a pretty big change I’m proposing, I decided to immediately make this an RfC to hopefully get more responses. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Johnny come lately here, butting in--Qwyrxian, you'll be nominated for the Nobel prize for this. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has helped revert the dubious slogans over the past few months, I can attest that this probably won't stop unless something is done. Multiple IPs have been blocked but it doesn't help because the editor hops onto another (often in the same range) and starts again, all without saying anything or challenging a single revert. Either the editor is not aware that his/her actions are disruptive (which is highly unlikely), or there is some kind of hijacking of Wikipedia going on, I don't know. This has to stop though, as I am growing tired of having to revert everything this editor does. I for one do not see the need for such sections without sources. Wikipedia is not a repository of all information ever created, nor is it a directory or guide. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that is what I've learned from editing here since 2006. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify, because you raise a good point. This certainly won't stop that person, but it will make our policing of those additions far easier. Right now, when someone adds a new slogan to a station article, we have to make some sort of judgment call: "Did xe call it a localized slogan? If not, was this the same slogan that someone introduced before that was previously localized? Is this a trustworthy editor, perhaps someone from the local area trying to drop in their own personal knowledge, or is it someone from outside reading some obscure unreliable internet list?" If we simply switch to a default "Source it, or don't include it" position, we 1) improve the articles (in my opinion, because we don't have unsourced/impossible to source claims) and 2) we can simply instantly revert every addition of a slogan that isn't verified. One of the things that you, Anna Frodesiak, and I have been doing is to make our treatment of the slogan disruptor as simple and robotic as possible. If there were consensus for this plan, it would make it even easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with this problem head-on, I would also remove the newscast brandings (generally found in the same area as the slogans). They are updated by the same person. I do, though, believe we are dealing with a sock of one of our prolific vandals in the TVS wikiproject. If this gets consensus, I will be more than happy to help out on the deletion of these annoying bits of unsourced information. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, slogans are inherently useless to an encyclopedia, as they are all advertising, in their simplest form. While my area of expertise is radio stations, I would suggest the removal of slogans from any TV station article, regardless of whether or not they can be sourced under RS for that reason. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 07:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully expect to be shot down for expressing a minority opinion, but here goes: It's my belief that the general public likes certain unsourced or non-notable categories of information, such as station slogans or on-air staff: "where are they now?" lists. It's only Wikipedia junkies who get up in arms about including such things.

As far as station slogans, I've seen quite a few appear in articles in which I have an interest or have edited, that have been added with no hint of a source, and no edit summary explaining their addition. I speculate that some of those editors just took the network slogan for that era, assumed it was used by the affiliate and added a localized version. I'm not personally happy about how these edits were accomplished; on the other hand, it most cases they are probably correct. Particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, affiliates almost slavishly localized their networks' slogans, although stations with very strong local identities would sometimes override the network branding.

Remember also that the world did not begin with the creation of the Internet. Many, many older pieces of information on innumerable topics were not preserved at all, or if preserved, may be scattered and un-digitized. Some of the editors adding slogans may have giant stacks of old TV Guides, newspapers or other dead-tree media at their fingertips, each loudly proclaiming station slogans. Now I await the "screaming at". --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make a motion to just delete the "localized version of xxx" slogans in TV station articles, and call it good. If it says that, it goes. I'm also of the same opinion as Strikerforce. I see no need to list every single slogan a television station has ever had. Most radio station articles do it in prose (or at least they should), but not in a list form. This issue is becoming time consuming and I'd like to be able to move onto other things without having to watch for the IPs listed in Anna's sandbox. If it were me, I would range block and call it good, but that's just one person's opinion. I'm sure the editor who keeps doing this is aware of his/her actions, and is likely doing this to cause some kind of attention... and they've done it. That or the editor is completely clueless and edits blindly without noticing the multiple warnings and blocks. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Progressive removal - Yes, the WP verifiability policy requires that all material be rooted in a reliable source. For TV slogans that you suspect may be erroneous (perhaps put there in good faith, but mistaken due to faulty memory) I suggest that you go thru a few steps: (1) add a Template:citation needed tag to the slogan; (2) issue a WP:CHALLENGE on the Talk page; finally (3) if no sources are forthcoming, remove the slogan. I think you'd have to do that individually for all slogans: I doubt you'd be able to establish a policy here in the project: even if you did, it would not magically fix all the uncited slogans in existing articles. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I have the time, I'm going to take a combination of Noleander and Milonica's approach. As always, "localized" slogans will continue to be removed, because the person adding them is not acting in good faith. I will also start tagging the sections that are unsourced (i.e., all of them). One tag for a section will suffice, because it's pretty much never the case that some are sourced and some aren't, though, of course, I'll be specific when there are some sources. Simultaneously, I'll issue a talk page challenge, and, later (a few weeks? A month?) I'll remove them. Then, maybe in a few decades, all of the unverified claims can be removed. My whole goal is to decrease effort, not increase it, so its not likely I'll be making any sort of concerted effort. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:V is part of the "Holy trinity" that defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia not a fan-wiki or a random collection of articles (along with WP:N and WP:RS). It is my fervent belief that all outsourced information should be removed with extreme prejudice to avoid Wikipedia spreading disinformation and subverting our purpose as a compilation of knowledge. That said, slogans aren't included for any other company regularly. Why should they be included here? it seems like trivial trivia. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina TV templates

I had some ideas for the North Carolina TV templates, but I wanted to discuss them here first. One idea was adding WYCW-DT2 to the CBS North Carolina template since it is broadcasting WSPA-TV. Similarly, WLOS-DT2 could be added to the MyNetworkTV North Carolina template since it is broadcasting WMYA. Both WYCW and WLOS are licensed to Asheville, but WSPA and WMYA are licensed in South Carolina.

mcy919 (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of syndicated programming from TV station's pages

User ACMEWikiNet went through a number of TV pages and wiped out the sections about the syndication on the stations. See here. Was this something discussed that would be done, or did this user take upon himself to decide a change in policy regarding TV station's pages? I don't see why it is neccessary to remove the information, but maybe I am late on a RFC for that or something, that I might have missed. If this was never discussed, and the information is considered relevant, this could be sited as "unintentional vandalisim" NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well there was talk about that we don't list syndication shows in discussion about PTEN's status such that a syndication service like Universal's Action Pack should not be listed (and suggest that PTEN should not be listed too). With most stations having syndication programming in its off hours I can see that that information is not important. If it was listed then each station's article would balloon with list of shows. I do think that first run syndication might be important to list particularly those that are in a programming package ie. Action Pack or historical like Star Trek: The Next Generation (for beating or preempting network programming). The one edit I did check of his, the information removed is not sourced which we do need for information that should be in an article.Spshu (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

PTEN

Once again I find that editors are deleting PTEN from station information (KCOP-TV and KPTV so far. This time by HangingCurve. So what I have set up is a section on PTEN's talk page so I or any one else con easily direct editors to the discussion about PTEN's status instead of searching it down every time. I wonder if I shouldn't link to it from every PTEN related article. Spshu (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

my name is phil sisti. I live in Springfield, I.. When will we be able to view Perry Mason and Hawaii Five-O Theyare two of my favorite shows. I.d like to them replace Mod Squad and Mission Impossible. just as they are advertised. W ill this be a possible change in the very near future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.199.122 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible rewrite

U.S. television network affiliate switches of 1994 is becoming an excessively burdened article at 67 KB. It's awkward to read and might go into too much detail. I've taken a stab at a partial rewrite (15% slimmer!) at User:Raymie/Big Switch. Feel free to edit. Most all of the sourcing and referencing I added to the article remains. Large sections have not been touched for lack of time. Raymie (t • c) 02:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability

I'm not clear whether there are special tv guidelines that would make KBCH-TV notable, so thought I would stop by here and ask.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make any discernible claim to notability, and it's not a licensed broadcast station, so I don't think it meets the WPTS/WPRS standard for presumption of notability. 121a0012 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that page doesn't enjoy the notability that other stations (be them FM, AM, TV, LP, CA, SW, etc.) enjoy, since it is not licensed by the FCC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful input. I've started an AfD on the station. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger of this project into WikiProject Television as a task force

It has been suggested that WikiProject Television Stations to be merged into WikiProject Television as a task force since the project might be inactive or semi-active. After reviewing this project that it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. If you have questions or comments, please let us know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TV is more about TV shows and actual TVs, while we are just about TV stations. I don't see how things could be beneficial for someone who knows about TV shows, editing a page about TV stations and vice versa. We edit pages (at great frequency) and only come the WP:TVS talk page when it is something super important, otherwise we just stick to other user's talk pages as well as our own. There are daily updates to many TV stations articles, along with vandalism fighting on those same articles daily. This project is nowhere near inactive or even semi-active. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I urge we not merge with WPT at this time; as Homer stated above only the most contentious issues these days need to be aired out here and we pretty much do a good job on self-regulation on article styles and standards without having to run here every time something happens. That should be the mark of a good group, that it needs few talk threads to work things out, and most issues are worked out on usertalks. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen DMAs in infoboxes

A new user, Bumsted (talk · contribs), is attempting to add Nielsen rankings to the infoboxes television station articles (albeit only the big-four network O&Os in the top-five markets thus far, it seems), and saying that this "industry standard" has been overlooked on Wikipedia all this time. But I'm not so sure this is a good idea… there's a good reason why we have been "overlooking" the rankings, and it's that Nielsen gave us no choice in that regard. That was back in 2008; I can't imagine that these non-free rankings are any more allowable now. (Of course, the user's addition to {{Infobox broadcast}} has been limited to the documentation, but that doesn't actually change the template. Of course, the infobox template is protected, which would require the user to go through {{editprotected}} on the talk page… but the aforementioned Nielsen situation would result in the edit request being declined if in fact there was one (there isn't). Given that this is adding a non-existent and unlikely-to-exist field to the infobox I probably could have just reverted on-sight, but I felt I'd put this out there nonetheless. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen has an OTRS ticket that states we aren't allowed to use their DMA data. I advise editors not even to mention DMAs to not risk any problems with Nielsen or that OTRS ticket. I would revert all edits by that user posting any Nielsen DMA information as in violation of that OTRS ticket. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur All Nielsen references should be deleted per the OTRS ticket; I'm not willing to deal with that hornet's nest all over again. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I have now reverted Bumsted's edits and informed the user about the Nielsen prohibition. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the source of that Nielsen info? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The first Google result for "neilsen dma rankings" is probably what they're using (not linking because of the OTRS), it's a PDF on ACN's site with each market by ranking. Nate • (chatter) 06:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, hold on here. How does the owner of a publicly-visible website have any authority to tell another website they can't link to it??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know the actual content of the ticket, but I'm not linking because if I remember right when the rankings came out in August 2008 for updating here I linked to that year's PDF of DMA's and had to redact it when the OTRS was filed because it was 'copyrighted information'. But to tell the truth; I'm glad we don't have DMA rankings anymore. It was a pain in the rear to update near 180 templates a year because some organization's arbitrary number changed, and usually in only a few select cases (NOLA after Katrina, some Montana market with a population boom, Detroit's slide out of the top ten), they barely ever varied by more than five numbers year to year. Nate • (chatter) 06:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are secret and only very certain details about a ticket can be released, if any. OTRS is kinda like the CIA of Wikipedia. The DMCA Takedown Notice from Nielsen Media Research is OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. You can contact WP:OTRS and they might be able to give you some details (but expect them to be few and far between, if any) on the ticket. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting re-adding the details to the infoboxes. I'm just saying that we have every right to provide a link, somewhere, to that publicly-visible website. Consider the implications otherwise: If all the "reliable sources" suddenly decided to file a similar complaint, we wouldn't be able to cite them, and wikipedia would go bust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I think what Nielsen did with the DMCA Takedown/OTRS Ticket was just plain stupid, but we can't risk another one of those. Last time the DMCA Takedown/OTRS Ticket wiped out a slew of templates, this time it could wipe out entire pages for television stations. It's a risky move and it isn't a risk I think we should take. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

They have no legal right nor any authority to stop wikipedia from providing a link to that site somewhere on wikipedia, even if it's only on this particular page. It's a public site. If they don't want anyone linking to it, they should take it out of public view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they don't have a legal right, but WMF Legal didn't fight that DMCA Takedown/OTRS Ticket before, they probably won't a second time either. It's a risk I just don't think we should take. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it's considered encyclopedic information (which is another question altogether), there's no reason that item couldn't be linked from the Nielsen article itself, in the external links. So, forgetting the bogus legal strongarming, is that information encyclopedic? Or at least "encyclopedic enough" to provide an external link from the Nielsen article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Adjacent locals in market templates

I'm curious how it is determined whether market templates should include "adjacent locals", "outlying areas" or "distant stations" and with which stations each should be populated. I can't find a clear standard anywhere. The Nielsen DMA's just seem to show the locals, and the FCC's search for "significantly viewed" stations seems significantly out of date. There was a market template "workshop" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations/markets, but the last comment there is from 2007. Can anyone please point me to a good resource? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The FCC's list of "significantly viewed" stations is really only meaningful for cable coverage, and it most cases it reflects grandfathered out-of-market network affiliates from the early days of cable TV. In-market competitors can petition to have the out-of-market stations removed from the list, and sometimes the FCC does that; I have never heard of new stations being added to it. 121a0012 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "Distant stations" or "Adjacent locals" could be considered interchangable. As far as the inclusion of specific stations in such a section, it has to deal not just with cable coverage in areas adjoining the market but also where the over-the-air signal gets Grade B coverage or a rimshot signal in a nearby market. For example, in Oklahoma City: KTUL-TV and KOKI-TV (and sometimes KOTV-DT, KMYT-TV, KWHB, KQCW-DT and KOED-TV) during the analog era would under certain atmospheric conditions reach parts of the area during the nighttime and morning hours (though which stations reached the area depended on the conditions, and often didn't come in at all). The FCC's website or even RabbitEars.info could be used as background to determine if a signal's reach by using the contour maps (which mark the reach of the city grade and Grade B signals), those can be then applied to the distant signals list. Also, smaller areas located between two markets could be factored in as well, as station signals in certain areas between (at least) two TV markets will usually reach less-populated/rural areas farther away from the main MSAs comprising a media market, over-the-air regardless of atmospheric conditions. TVtonightOKC (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: We do NOT, under any circumstances, use information from Nielsen or the words "Nielsen" and "DMA" in a sentence. There is an open and active OTRS ticket that bars us from using any Nielsen information, the abbrevation "DMA" (when talking about television markets), or any of their market information. The last time we did (and sourced it), they had the aforementioned OTRS ticket issued and all of our market templates were deleted outright. Let's NOT let that happen again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, was just asking a question. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On-air staff

I've brought up specific concerns for years, mostly on article talk pages, about the direction taken with the lists of on-air staff of television stations. Having seen no satisfactory answers, and having seen recent edits which inflame these concerns more than anything else, I thought I would bring them up here.

• The lists of on-air staff for most stations are limited to listing the current news staff. Never mind that WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMO and WP:RECENT all come to mind when I look at some of these lists. OTOH, I'm certain that there are stations who feature independently notable persons on the air on local broadcasts, both within and outside of newscasts, who are not a part of the news team. I never see these names listed in the articles, however. I suppose that given a choice between copying a bunch of names off of a web page and actually having to write and source something, most of us would want to take the path of least resistance.
• The second item is what actually motivated me to write this. I see "notability" (a concept I'm not 100 percent certain the Wikipedia community has a grasp of) used to trim the lists of former on-air staff. While I agree these lists can become unwieldly, the opposite of this is that with numerous stations, the only names listed are persons who contributed little or nothing to the station, yet later became famous elsewhere. Yes, I am calling bullshit on that. It's called coatracking, and contributes nothing to my understanding of the station or its history. Also, in the case of certain individuals, it amounts to nothing more than promotion in and of itself.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, in previous years, there was an understanding that non-air staff (station managers, news directors, photogs, et.al.) were not being included in the listings. I just wanted to reconfirm that understanding. --mhking (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Syndicated Shows

Many TV Station articles have list of syndicated shows on every single news article. We do not need a list of syndicated shows for every TV station article. This is irrevelant information. Here's proof of this: [[15]] Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, if they want to find what syndicated shows are on this station, their best place to be is to go on the stations website. They do not need to go on wikipedia and find out what syndicated shows are on that station. They can just go to the syndicated show's website and find the station that show is on. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about you start over and give us a good reason why every article doesn't need (sourceable) information about syndicated programming rather than just yelling at us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Better and clearer, but don't remove posts by other people. Now, while we are not a news site (I am confused by what you call "news article"s), listing syndicated programming is not in violation of WP:NOT#DIR, as the shows are not in "schedule form" (which is a violation), but in "text form" (which is not a violation). There isn't any violation here, just standard information on each and every single article. Sorry if you don't like that it is there, but there isn't anything wrong with it (ie: no violation of the rules). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Like for example WPXI carys Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy!, if we just not include every syndicated show that is on the network. For example for KDKA: "Syndicated program includes The Insider and Dr. Phil". We can limit the syndicated show list limit to two shows. They can usually contain highly rated talk shows, game shows, etc. Just only one-two syndicated shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that two syndicated programs is enough. I personally like the ability to lookup a TV station on Wikipedia and see this type of information at a glance. Tlonca (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tlonca, what I mean is that Syndicated Programming includes, we do not need a list of every single syndicated program on the TV station. We can simply put (NAME OF SHOW), (NAME OF SHOW), among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that every syndicated program does not need to be listed. However, two programs is by far too few to be listed. Several, but not all, programs should be mentioned in a station's article. Tlonca (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example: WJAC has about eight syndicated programs that air during the weekdays. At least three or four syndicated shows should be mentioned in the article. Tlonca (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta agree with Tlonca here. The main syndicated programs, the daily programs, are listed and that has worked just fine for us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The only shows that shouldn't be listed are the Byron Allen/Whacked Out Sports garbage shows designed to fill time and host lawyer ads you only see on the weekends, or the many regional outdoor sports and home shows which usually don't have articles here (I did put one from my local power utility in a station article, but that was to show how few shows that station has). And sources can be found, via station schedules and show websites, which usually list every station which carries a program. Is this really a huge problem that needs addressing? The fair use image issue was, which I went along with kicking and screaming, but it did make our articles more focused on text. And we've pretty much killed every godawful example of a WP:NOTATVGUIDE grid from the overzealous editors. I fail to see how this is any kind of issue. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By far, syndicated programming is something most everyone is interested in on a television station article. Being able to claim you've aired Judge Judy, Oprah, or the Sony gameshows for their entire runs back to the mid 80's or 90's, or for KTTV, carrying I Love Lucy in some form back to the Golden Age, should be something that should be highlighted. That you have the "Enforcer" news package or were "Proud as a Peacock" in 1981 is of interest to only a few people that are not reflective of who we edit for; the general public. We have to include them, otherwise somebody is going to wonder what they air outside of network hours. Syndicated programming is about the most sourcable thing you can currently find in television station articles. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not notable. WP:NOT only allows for historically significant programming and syndicated programming is not notable nor is it historically significant. After all part of the argument against listing PETN was that it was a syndication block only. Spshu (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I usually find that the syndicated programming to be unsourced on every tv station article, Nate. Spshu (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources for these can be found very easily. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, sources can be found easily on a given station's website. Tlonca (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing from the station's website are not allowed, Tlonca. If such sources are so easily found then why are most of them referenced in some way? Spshu (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen several TV station articles that cite the station's website. Anyway, the information can be obtained from other sources. Tlonca (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you find it some where other than a station, syndicated show or TV guide type website? Seems like these can change frequently (atleast seasonally). Spshu (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the TV Lineup question is any different than this question? While no hourly information is shown, it is still forming a directory like function for people to see what sydnicated program is on what local station and as point out below the information may change from week to week. There are plenty of website that do that and we don't need to duplicate them. Spshu (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

AWN's February 21st edits

AWN has somehow taken the lack of action as an OK to remove syndicated programming again from Pittsburgh station articles (with the summary "per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations"), when this discussion has not reached any consensus at all in the least (or at least not to their satisfaction). I have reverted the edits and warned and advised them appropriately because of this. Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TV Lineup

On the WJAR page, someone added the following to it (along with a lot of other non-sensical/non sourced material, which that stuff has since been removed): --

Current afternoon lineup (As of June 2011)

• 2pm- Rachel Ray
• 3pm- The Dr Oz Show
• 4pm- Ellen
• 5-6:30pm WJAR NBC10 News
• 6:30pm- NBC Nightly News
• 7pm- WJAR NBC10 News @ 7

-- Are we putting programming lineups now on TV pages? I think this should be removed, but I'd rather get a concensus before doing so. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 06:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not see a lineup on Wikipedia pages as programming changes are often made weekly. I also fail to see why a lineup like this would be in an encyclopedic article. Wouldn't this violate: WP:NOTDIR --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 06:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely a WP:NOT#DIR violation. Delete it will. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kill it; prose in passive form is fine, but in grid or schedule form, definitely not. Agree with all. Nate • (chatter) 08:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask, and ye shall receive. It has been removed. Thank you all for your input. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WNEM-DT2

WNEM-DT2 -- It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into WNEM-TV. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2012. (Didn't see a merger discussion notice talk page here like some projects do.) Spshu (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically it is in the right place. WNEM-TV is a CBS affiliate, while WNEM-DT2 (it's actual callsign) is a MyNetworkTV affiliate. They are two seperate stations, but operating on the same station via digital subchannels. So, they should not be merged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, "WNEM-DT2" is not "it's actual callsign". They are two different program streams operated by the same station. Some stations operate as many as ten different program streams. 121a0012 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WFSB

I'd appreciate some help/feedback re: edits and WFSB. This user [16] has a history of adding unsourced content, some of which I've found are copyright violations. User Markvs88 recently reverted a large chunk of such content from this article [17]; after the IP restored it, I removed it again with an explanation [18]. User Neutralhomer reverted my edit, characterizing it as vandalism [19], and issued a warning, to which I've responded [20]. My questions, then, refer to the inclusion of large passages of unsourced content, whether the removal of such is unwarranted, and the general editing pattern of the 24 IP [21]. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, the reason I gave you a warning was because the information should have never been removed in the first place. The reporter/anchor names are standard on all TV station articles. BOTH you and 24. need to take it to talk as you are both well beyond 3RR. Do not revert again, or I will have the page locked down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only am I not "well beyond 3RR", having reverted 24's edits once, but you've undone the appropriate reference tags I added to the article. I'm going to restore them. Should you remove them again without explanation I'll take the issue to the article talk page, and seek administrative oversight as well--the threat to lock the article down seems a bit draconian at this point. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you won't. You will add ONE template at the top. Standard rule is if there are multiple places that need references, you add it at the top. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and read WP:MOS and the rules of WP:TVS while you are at it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Another point, if you are User:Markvs88 (another user who is actively trying to keep the same information from the WFSB page) then yes, you are over 3RR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not User:Markvs88; the presumption that I might be fails WP:AGF, as does your admonition "No, you won't" above. Guidelines do have something to say about unsourced content. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the use of 'unreferenced' templates, I find one or even several section tags preferable to marking up multiple sentences that make unsourced claims. That's a viable alternative. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your cocky attitude fails WP:DBAD. Guidelines say alot of things, but that's why they are guidelines and not policy. MOS is policy and WP:TVS's rules are fashioned by MOS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cocky? The conversation is here for anyone to read. But I've just been gently accused of sockpuppetry and violating 3RR, because I've attempted to deal with a raft of unsourced content. Perhaps you'd like to explain which provisions of the tv project's guidelines differ from the rest of Wikipedia's regarding unsourced content. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to read WP:TVS and WP:MOS for yourself. I am not here to explain things, read the rules and use your brain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I did come here with a legitimate series of questions, which have not really been answered, so much as met with accusations and defensiveness. Perhaps we can return to my initial concerns, with another party or parties contributing to the discussion. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see any questions in your original post, just alot of statements. What are your questions? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay--the content in question is a lot more than just listings of anchors and reporters. That much factual text requires multiple citations. Parenthetically--and this need not be addressed in this thread--per the standard practice here, it's reasonable to question why tv reporters are not held to the same notability requirements as anyone else on Wikipedia--it seems that listing their names is parallel to running a directory; I don't think we do the same thing with newspaper reporters. Back to the point: my reversion was bold, but I have explained rationale, especially given the IP user's history, as well as the reversion that another editor made a week or so ago. Those were the factors I looked at before deleting the content. So: is the content reliable, and if so, can it be sourced? Because as anywhere else on Wikipedia, it must be. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you could have waited before going to ANI. Real life takes precedence over Wikipedia any day. Now, to your question, the anchor/reporter information is reliable and can be sourced. We typically source it with either the bio page for each anchor/reporter or in the case that that particular station doesn't have bios, we just source the entire "Meet The Team" (or whatever they call it) page. See WBOC-TV for an example of the latter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, see WHSV-TV for an example of the link by bio page option. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is much more than a listing of reporters involved; this chronicles a history, complete with some interesting assessments, none of which are sourced [22]; I'm not sure why that's opaque, but I'm opting to leave the link again, rather than pasting the paragraphs here. As for ANI, I did mull it over for twenty minutes or so, and without much glee decided that your reactions here were closer to ownership of this project than that of collaboration, and included some nasty and unfounded accusations. You're still avoiding the point: that I'd removed a lot of unsourced content, and you've restored it. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the question? There are alot of statements, what am I supposed to respond to? I answered your question above. Beyond that, the burden lies with you; if you want references, go lookin' for 'em. Be BOLD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, and that strikes me as an inversion of the way Wikipedia works. The burden lies with the editor who adds content to supply sources. I'm at a loss that this is being twisted otherwise. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The side issue: As for the reporter information, with links to their biographies at the station websites: is there any other branch of Wikipedia that allows for external links of personalities in lieu of establishing their notability? If not--and believe me, the workings of this project are entirely new to me--is this project encouraging an exception to the general notability guidelines? 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't, it's actually part of WP:V, if I am not mistaken. As for the second part, if you had read either WP:TVS or WP:MOS, which I known you haven't since you are asking this, you would know that WP:TVS and WP:WPRS are one of a few that allow it. As for GNG, TV stations and radio stations enjoy notability per consensus and policy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So, my takeaway is this: I can add unsourced content, which may not be deleted. However, if someone else places a reference tag on it, it's then their responsibility to find sources. As for the listing of individual station employees, regardless of whether notability has been established: if that's indeed accepted policy, it merits revisiting. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

: OK, I am going to try one final time and explain this to you. You can add unsourced content, but the burden is on you to add the references. If you think the page needs references, the burden is on you to find them. I think that comes from sooo many people doing drive-by templating on pages. The notability has been established on the employees cause the are mentioned on the station's website. It is accepted policy, go look at WP:BROADCAST. Beyond that, unless you have a question and not an entire paragraph, there really isn't more I can help you with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and do speak ever so slowly. Please tell me if I've missed something at WP:BROADCAST; as far as I see, the notability guidelines cover the stations, much as they do schools and other large public institutions. I don't see anything pertaining to automatic conferring of notability to individuals--perhaps you can show me the passage. As for the referencing bit, I don't see the need to repeat the same, yet: the responsibility for sourcing content rests first with the editor who adds it. Without sources it's open for deletion. That's basic Wiki practice. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But remember, I told you where to find those sources for those reporter/anchors. Did we forget? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You refer to WP:PRIMARY sources, I take it. And evasive as you've been in this discussion, this is not covered at WP:BROADCAST. I'm wondering if this is a game that's being made up as you go along. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am making this up as I go along. I have a big ol' wheel with things to say, a Ouija board to get ideas from dead people to throw you off and a Magic 8 ball just for fun. /sarcasm Seriously? You think I have been sitting here over 4 hours making stuff up to screw with you? If that is what you think, Dude, you have problems.

I am going to help you, because at this point I don't think you are going to find it on your own. This is the page with the bios for the reporter/anchors (and meteorologists and sports reporters) at WFSB. Each name as a link, you can either add each link (like on the WHSV-TV page) or just link that entire page to the "News Team" section (like on the WBOC-TV page). You have been given the sources, you have been given how to add those sources, now...you can't say the section is "without sources" and deleting it would just be foolish. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and doesn't itself establish notability. At WP:TVS, under 'article structure', is the inclusion of station personalities past and present. Maybe there's more there, but if that's it, it leaves things pretty open; my assumption is that employees would need to meet the same notability guidelines as anyone else. If I've missed a relevant passage please share it. And again, the content we're discussing included far more than the listings of personalities. Shall I cut and paste each paragraph here? 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You just ain't happy are ya? Give it to you on a nice silver platter, all you have to do is do a little cut and paste and you can't even do that. Short of doing it myself, which isn't happening cause I have a Melatonin floating in my system, you can figure it out from here. You have the sources, you have the MOS, you have pretty much everything. If you can't get it from here, then there isn't any hope for ya, now "Ya bother me son, ya bother me". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What can I say? You're a peach--I've never unjustly accused another user of vandalism, sockpuppeting, and edit warring, then not only failed to acknowledge my mistake to the other party, but continued to condescend to them in ensuing discussion. My recollection is that Foghorn was rather impressed with himself. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I only linked to Foghorn cause some people (anyone under the age of say 16) probably has no idea who he is or had never seen that cartoon. You were doing a good bit of condescending yourself, so aren't an angel in all this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheez. Never claimed to be, but I didn't make the accusations. Rather, I've been trying to discuss policy, but that hasn't been easy. Is it, incidentally, accepted policy for an involved party to stamp a topic as resolved? The implication being that all parties have reached resolution:

This template is to show an item on a talk page has been resolved and there is no dispute in anyone's mind about the outcome. That is, the initial comment or request has been filled, a reply to that effect has been added, and there are no disputed items or issues left to be resolved, and (if required) the article (or other page type) has been updated.

That's not the case, and the discussion is still open at [23]. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why I've removed the "Resolved" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add my two unwanted cents to the debate, I've seen a lot of demonization of primary sources within WP debates. WP:PRIMARY, part of the WP:NOR policy, states, and I quote: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." With a footnote referring to the "use with care" clause, which reads: "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." The policy goes on to state: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." A "current news team" list makes unexceptional, straightforward, non-controversial, descriptive statements. Were it to include "most trusted", "most awarded", "best", "beloved" and the like, it would be a different story. My mind boggles at all of the folks within all areas of Wikimedia who are so fixated on the enforcement of rigid rules throughout. How is it then that the fifth of the fundamental five pillars is "ignore all rules/use common sense" rather than "strictly enforce a host of rules/throw common sense out the door"? Where, oh where did it all go so terribly wrong? --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chaswmsday, I'm not demonizing primary sources, nor attempting to adhere to rigid enforcement. The point I'm making above re: the listing of personalities, which is just one part of this discussion, is concerned with the guideline at WP:NLIST. Neutralhomer's contention, I think, is that if the tv station is notable--and nobody is arguing that--then all of its on-air personalities are as well. I'm asking why the individuals' significance is a given; we don't list the board members of IBM or the upper level employees of Apple, unless their associations with the corporations have received significant coverage. The station's website establishes an anchor's or traffic reporter's existence, but it doesn't confirm notability. Nothing I've found at WP:BROADCAST, WP:TVS or WP:WPRS (in fact, at [24] policy for radio stations states You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added) so far contravenes this general Wikipedia policy. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@"99", to the smaller point, I'm not sure what your definition of "contravenes" is. "Disagrees"? If so, WP:TVS#Article structure disagrees: "A television station article should include: ... information on its personalities, past and present". If "contravenes" refers to policy vs. practice, I would counter that a fundamental Pillar (IAR) would trump any policy. Besides, WP:WPRS is not a policy, as you state (perhaps you misspoke). WPRS is a Project, thus its contents are merely guidelines, possibly not looked at for years, possibly unchallenged by those not wishing to rock the boat, possibly beloved by all participants - but irrelevant to the rest of WP. To the larger point, perhaps the personalities are not notable enough to merit individual articles, but they could well serve as pieces of information relevant to the larger topic of the TV station. They should, IMO, be treated no differently than any other pieces of prose illuminating the article - and best left to editors' discretion.

I've been mulling an argument that goes further - allowing articles about "semi-notable" people working in media. These anchors, reporters and the like are "famous", "known", "notable" "semi-celebrities" in the markets in which they appear - in a way the IBM board and top Apple employees are not. The general public, outside the individuals' friends, families and workmates - have heard of them. In the real world, outside the arcane universe of WikiMedia editing, people are interested in their local celebrities - even asking "Where are they now?" questions about past personalities, a sub-category of personalities which would appear to be almost universally reviled for inclusion in media articles. I'm not sure of a cutoff point: TV stations, radio stations, print media, online media, but in most cases, I wouldn't personally include folks "behind the scenes or camera". I wouldn't make a hard-and-fast rule about who to include or exclude; maybe a deliberately flexible guideline would work.

I think we WP editors should write more for the general public, less for ourselves and each other, and very little to comply with arbitrary dictates. Writing of any sort is almost always much more of an art than it is a science. None of us is able to anticipate every scenario and I very much dislike the enforcement of rules which would claim to do so. If any article's content goes too far off the deep end, good old broad consensus should be able to re-right the Good Ship Wikipedia. But I'll rant on about this and related irritants anywhere I can find an audience. I'm a committed contrarian; such is my nature. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm contrarian by nature as well, but I think you've offered excellent thoughts on the matter, especially insofar as they seek to avoid dogmatic applications. I'm still unconvinced that there's an informational imperative (a bit heavy phraseology, sorry) to include names of on-air personnel, and believe that this is as good a place as any to discuss the practice, if not the policy. I'm not consciously aware of distinctions between writing for ourselves vs. the larger public. It isn't part of our function to answer public curiosities about local personalities. My yardstick on these matters is the general policy on notability of persons. "A television station article should include: ... information on its personalities, past and present" appears open-ended, but there's no reason to think it exempts individuals from the same notability requirements as elsewhere, i.e., is notability sufficient to justify a stand-alone article? Writing is an art, but writing in an encyclopedic format requires guidelines that writing essays for publication--as I do--does not. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I don't see the relevance of the discussion of primary sources or IAR. Reader information for any part of an article is increased, when they can tell where the information comes from. That is generally done by some inline citation. So, where large blocks of information are presented without any inline citation, the information in the article is less useful or convenient, even when not "wrong" (although its harder to tell when it is wrong, and citation guards against that). A reader (or another editor) should be able to easily click to see, if Joe Anchor, still works there, and where that information came from. The person, who puts it in is in the best position to tell everyone that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI followup

This issue appears to have partially moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WFSB. I haven't looked in detail in the case but it may be helpful if uninvolved members of the wikiproject can provide some clarification. I may have misunderstood one of the statements there, but it sounds like it's being claimed that editors are forbidden from tagging or removing recently added large unsourced additions which doesn't seem to comply with any common intepretation of WP:V. If this is an accurate summation of the wikiproject rules, then I suggest editors here seek further clarification, since as mentioned there, I don't think such rules are allowed. If however there is simply a misunderstanding of this wikiproject rules, then perhaps uninvolved parties can help clarify the situation there for all involved. If I simply misunderstood the comment there, then I apologise. Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Another 2 cents here: I want to reiterate that, although it is encouraged for users to find sources instead of deleting content wholesale, ANY unreferenced content may be removed by ANYONE. To quote WP:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. [emphasis added]

It's not like the removed text disappears; if someone would like to re-add it with references, everything is still in the page history. The IP has done no wrong in this case, although I encourage him to work to improve the article with references. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 11:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where one will find references for the 'history' segments--if they're within the station's website that would suffice, but as yet I haven't see them there. This edit summary well describes the quandary [25]. Neutralhomer's desire to retain the content suggested to me that he might be familiar with the subject, and perhaps privy to relevant sources. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: List of CBS television affiliates (table)

I'm not sure if you people welcome the removal of the DMA numbers from this article. This makes the affiliate listings inconsistent here. I am currently in edit war with the editor responsible. Please remember to indicate talkback on my talk page. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DMA listings are NOT allowed per an OTRS ticket. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

+1. Do not readd them FOPF, DreamMcQueen has it right. We're not allowed to use those rankings at all (see the archives for the many discussions about how we're not allowed to use them or face a Nielsen cease or desist. There are other issues between that user that you need to work out though, so I would suggest you take a break and let the admins sort things out. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can some representative from the project begin stripping DMA numbers from the NBC and FOX tables and begin merging the two tables together? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media markets and college football

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page has been explicitly using Nielsen's DMAs since before the takedown, apparently flying under the radar by not actually being part of WikiProject Television Stations, despite linking to its market templates. As such, I expect that the expertise of someone familiar with that situation will be greatly welcomed in this deletion discussion. Morgan Wick (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Morgan, you have a good argument for deletion for sure. No cites and arbitrary criteria, and copyright-violating information? It's a textbook AfD case for sure. Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KTSB-CA

Wondering if someone wants to take a crack at the best way to clear this up. The existing article represents the facility ID that the FCC reflects in their archival records as DKTSB-LP, channel 43 in Santa Barbara. I can't determine the reason that the license was cancelled/call sign deleted. Meanwhile, the station currently holding the KTSB-CA call sign is what was previously KTSB-LP's Santa Maria channel 35 translator, K35ER. Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

KTSB-LP went off the air on November 12, 2008, and its license automatically expired a year later when it did not return to the air. For whatever reason, Entravision's attorney sent a letter at this time requesting cancellation of the license (although it would have expired on November 13, 2009 whether or not they had done so, by statute). The original application for remain-silent authority, BLSTA-20081217ABB, states fairly clearly that the station was destroyed in a fire (as were several other stations located on Gibraltar Peak). Six months later, they filed for an extension of the STA, stating that they were planning to rebuild. Speculation: if they had been given more time, Entravision might perhaps have rebuilt that facility, but the Act gives the FCC no discretion whatsoever to extend licenses of stations that have remained silent for a year. Due to the large number of stations which were affected by the fires, it is very likely that they could not have arranged for site access and trained contractors to rebuild the station before the one-year deadline expired (at least not without spending more than the station was worth). Some of the transmitter buildings burned to the ground and would have had to be rebuilt before station construction could begin. 121a0012 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

HELP!

On List of CBS television affiliates (table), I slightly changed a sentence from "This list does not include other CBS Corporation-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with The CW Television Network", to this: "This list does not include other CBS Corporation-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with The CW Television Network; a list is available the article CBS Television Stations." Is this allowed per guidelines? Because User:DreamMcQueen has some issues with this and keeps reverting my edits. Please be advised of an edit war history.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 01:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't List of CBS television affiliates (table) be at List of CBS television affiliates? There's nothing that "(table)" appears to be disambiguating from that I can find. I'd just boldly move it but since it's under discussion, I thought it prudent to ask first. - Dravecky (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, there's List of CBS television affiliates (by U.S. state). This just requires a dab page. Never mind. - Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fixed for the four major U.S. networks. It seems to me that these pages could be merged but unless and until they are, they need to be easily found by readers. (Done.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, are you guys gonna help me deal with this issue or not? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Style and formatting issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm gonna offer up a chance for those who follow this page to compare and contrast these two introductory paragraphs.

1) This is a revision I made recently at WVNS-TV, and incorporated into three other articles (WOWK-TV, WTRF-TV, and WBOY-TV):

"WVNS-TV, channel 59, is a television station licensed to Lewisburg, West Virginia, USA. Owned by West Virginia Media Holdings, WVNS is the primary CBS affiliate for the Bluefield-Beckley television market, which also covers portions of southwestern Virginia. WVNS also carries programming from Fox and MyNetworkTV over its second digital subchannel (59.2). The station's studios are located in Ghent, West Virginia, and its transmitter is near Alderson, West Virginia. WVNS-TV is one of four West Virginia television stations owned by West Virginia Media Holdings; the other outlets are fellow CBS affiliates WOWK-TV in Huntington and WTRF-TV in Wheeling; and NBC-affiliated WBOY-TV in Clarksburg."

2) This is what is on the WVNS-TV page now, a version that a couple of editors "prefer":

"WVNS-TV is the CBS affiliate for Southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia that is licensed to Lewisburg. It broadcasts a high definition digital signal on VHF channel 8 from a transmitter on Keeney's Knob between Alderson and I-64. Owned by West Virginia Media Holdings, the station has studios on Old Cline Road in Ghent along I-77. Syndicated programming on WVNS includes: Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy!, The Oprah Winfrey Show, and Rachael Ray."

At issue here is what includes the most relevant information and makes for a better, easier read for the average (non-enthusiast) reader. My argument is that not every minute detail (no matter how "important" it may be to some editors) needs to be included, and that intros should be written very simply. In my opinion, the intros written by Strafidlo and endorsed by Neutralhomer, are long-winded and distracting from a writing standpoint, not to mention confusing to the average reader.

Another issue I'm having here is overall uniformity. What is done for one should be done for the whole lot of them. No one editor, or group of editors, should be given a tight grip of control over a swath of articles that when another editor comes along and makes valid, good-faith changes, they get immediately dismissed as "unhelpful" (as Neutralhomer said to me) or even worse (vandalism). How is this acting in good faith? Someone please explain, and give me an honest opinion. DreamMcQueen (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I know you and I have had our issues, but I can agree that there should be some sort of uniformity on these TV station articles. Quite frankly, as someone who has viewed many, if not all, of the TV station page here, many of them are written very "piss-poorly". I'm created some here, and I've done my research on these subjects and even going on personal memory, and I take pride in the work I do here. There are people, whether intentional or not, that have their own agendas, and it ultimately destroys the fun on being a Wikipedia editor. That said, I don't believe in "dumbing-down" things, as you're basically suggesting...it shouldn't be our problem that the average reader can't understand the information presented on these articles. It's going to be real hard to get everyone on the same page, in terms of editing.

Just my honest and humble opinion... ShawnHill 19:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

At least we come from the same place on the uniformity issues, but I disagree on the "dumbing-down" of the articles. This sub-community should not be a haven where the uber-geeks and inclusionists have free reign. For example, the average reader doesn't care about the "digital channel number" or the precise location of the station's transmitter, or anything like that. I can itemize line-by-line problem spots and what I think should be fixed and bring it to the community as a whole if given the chance. Change has to start somewhere. DreamMcQueen (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit and everyone has a different writing style. We don't do uniformity on really any of the articles here because it would create something that isn't "free". It would require everyone to write in the same style...and since we aren't all little gray blobs with the same personalities, styles and everything, we are all different, a uniform version of anything will never happen. It would be nice, but with so many different writing styles, it would be impossible. Plus, I am pretty sure it would violate a couple WP:NOT rules. Unformity would change this project and Wikipedia itself to a point it would no longer be "free". So, a uniform television station article (or any article) is 'not a good idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when does "uniformity" equate "not being free"? I don't see the correlation in that. What I am advocating is how the articles should be formatted and structured, and that includes what/what not should be included and where everything should go. Of course you need a template, then you take it from there. I acknowledge that there are many different writing styles, but there are also various levels of enthusiasm when it comes to this topic. Some editors need to be tamed in that respect. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a template right here. The infobox is the other template. There ya go.

As for your "uniformity", what you describe is not "free". When you have that many rules in place, that isn't free. Maybe you need to read Wikipedia:NOT#Community. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Try reading it again...and then maybe a third time. I'm going to bed, cause this conversation couldn't bore me anymore than it already has. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy. The encyclopedia is "free" in that it's available to all at no cost. Everybody is "free" to edit the encyclopedia (minus a few folks that have earned a ban) because all are welcome without regard to credentials or even verification. But it's not a "free-for-all" in the sense that there are no rules. There are plenty of rules, mostly established by consensus over many years, and any editor would be wise to follow them. (Yes, "ignore all rules" is also a guiding principle of Wikipedia but that's a call for judgment, not a license to run wild through the streets with no pants and your hair on fire.)

Personally, I think the lead sentence of every American broadcast station (radio or television) should start something like "WKRP (1530 AM) is an American radio station licensed to serve the community of Cincinnati, Ohio. Established in 1979, WKRP is owned by Carlson Broadcasting and the station's broadcast license is held by Turkeys Can Fly, LLC. The station broadcasts a talk radio format including programming from CNN Radio." For obvious reasons, the TV stations will include variants on this style as in the first example listed above. Listing specific programs in the lead paragraph? No. Giving the street address (or major intersection) of studios and transmitter? No. I'd even save the sister stations for the second paragraph along with any details of ownership beyond owner and license holder. - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What I said was it was free...we do have rules, yes, but we aren't all conformed to certain writing style or a template to create articles. Each one has a little something different. None are exactly the same, which is what DreamMcQueen is proposing. What he wants is uniform conformity of all articles. That just won't and can't happen. I use my gray blobs analogy again, if we all had the same writing style, the same way of creating things, the same speaking style, then we could, but we can't. We are all different and we write in different ways, then there is the whole "free encyclopedia" thing.

I am fine with a little uniformity in the lede...a little, but not much. Most articles have it, but beyond that, it is, kind of a free-for-all in writing styles. And in my defense, "as God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Dravecky. This is one of the points I was trying to get across:

"Listing specific programs in the lead paragraph? No. Giving the street address (or major intersection) of studios and transmitter? No. I'd even save the sister stations for the second paragraph along with any details of ownership beyond owner and license holder."

Now, we're getting somewhere in terms of dialogue. DreamMcQueen (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In both versions I have a problem with the license to a city. With that clause it seems like the city has say who has the station license. I think we have to mention that they are a TV station as we need the basics and there are radio stations and cable channels that have name using the K/W??? format like WOLV (TV), WWOR WGN, W/TBS. Some of the Ion affiliates are just cable channels, too (not that I expect that they have an article) but indicates that just mentioning the network affiliate is enough. Basically, any encyclopedia including WP needs to cover the basics. It isn't here as a programming guide or recreation of the stations website's information. The basics are call letters/sign/name, that it is a TV station, virtual channel number, location/(market?), 1st year of broadcast, owner, current affiliations, previous call letters and whether or not it plexes (uses subchannels). So I prefer Dravecky's version the most then DreamMcQueen's. Not sure that the licensee holder is need as the FCC still treats ownership changes of the licensee corp. the same as a change in licensee. Spshu (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On owner vs licensee, in radio Clear Channel Communications owns thousands of stations but thanks to mergers, swaps, and restructuring the license-holding corporations have more than a dozen different names, without consistency in any media market. (This is less of a problem on the TV side, obviously.) Often the license holder can stay the same while actual ownership changes. Listing both allows a reader to see both the legal entity holding the license and the probably more familiar corporate umbrella under which it rests. Dravecky (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• In reference to DreamMcQueen's behavior (and since it has been exhibited here), I am notifying you all of an ANI Thread regarding his behavior and edit-warring. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I am out of the penalty box I intend to continue this dialogue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Spshu is suggesting that we stop mentioning city of license. Actually, the correct term may be "Community of license" as opposed to city. But any way you slice it, the FCC licenses these stations to a particular community and that community has to be mentioned first when the station IDs itself. We all know that WNET, for example, serves New York City. But the FCC assigned its channel to Newark. Technically it's incorrect to call WNET a New York City station according to the Commission. That is a whole 'nother argument in and of itself. But I agree with Spshu about the basics and not all of this extraneous clutter, especially in the opening paragraphs. And when it comes to networks, perhaps we need to reestablish just exactly who they are. In my opinion, Fox Kids, Kids' WB, and syndicated packages like PTEN and NTA Film Network should not be considered networks. Take it from there. DreamMcQueen (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest that we stop mention city of license, just that the way that the either samples state it sounds likes the community is the licensee ("... that is licensed to Lewisburg.") not the licensed service community, or "Community of license". An initial attempt at something better: "the TV station has been licensed for the Lewisburg community." And just for everyones information PTEN status has been determined three times already. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recomendations

Hello, I came across a renaming request here and it got me thinking. Is there a preferred or recommended naming style for television "broadcasters" (as I might call them). (Remember I am viewing this from a North American perspective) Do we only use "(TV station)" for actual "over the air channels" aka something with "call letters like "CFCF-TV", and "(TV network)" for what is considered a network, a distributor of programming. I know the line gets blurry with sattelite/cable, and things like "Disney Channel", and others "Oprah Winfrey Network" that in my opinion are essentially the same type of "provider". Some recommendations would be helpful.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a case where the U.S. and Canadian regulatory frameworks are quite different. In the U.S., "cable" channels are completely unregulated, and anyone can start one and program whatever they want, so long as they rent the satellite capacity and bribe (or extort, as the case may be) the cable companies to carry the channel. In the Canadian system, cable channels are regulated in the same way as other "(digital) broadcast undertakings". (It wouldn't surprise me if they were even assigned call signs, although I've never seen any such thing in published sources.) I agree that the average consumer often does not make any distinction between the cable channels that carry local programming and those that are purely national services, particularly now that nearly all cable companies do local advertising. But it is still an important distinction, both to people who don't have cable/satellite and to regulators south of the International Boundary. 121a0012 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, besides the obvious political rantings, what are we suggesting?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To what "obvious political rantings" do you refer? 121a0012 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

While interesting 121a0012's comments about regulation isn't too relevent here as we must decide using common usage for naming articles. Cable TV can be regulated by the state or their municipalities do to their granting of the franchise. Some requirement have been made in my state for public access channels by the franchising authority (but mostly my state has taken away most franchising authority from local government to low telephone companies to enter the market).

Having been involve with several discussion just over what a TV network is here, your question is very pertinent. A TV network is a group of affiliated stations that broadcast a scheduled programming slate. With cable, the local franchised cable company could fill the role of the "station". After all TV stations can now multiplex and have multiple channels over its broadcast bandwidth. The cable channel always has common scheduled programming since it is centrally programed. PAX/i/ION owns most of their TV stations and operated in a similar manner for those stations and other "owned and operated stations" are cable only. Some TV stations have Broadcast relay station are they thusly networks? They seem only to exist to extent their broadcast range, so perhaps not. NBC Nonstop has common programming but it cannot be confirmed that these programs are broadcast at the same time except for the three California stations that broadcast the same line up or does that mean that they are just in effect repeaters? Also, cable operators also have TV station's channels in their line ups, a superstation affiliate, or some times the national network satellite feed directly. Since trying to decide only between channel and network as a tag is difficult, perhaps having them taged with "cable". (I know they could be tagged IPTV or satellite or DBS, cable just is more available and more commonly used term.)Spshu (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cable TV carriers are regulated by a Local Franchise Authority. Cable TV channels are entirely unregulated, with the exception of the "must-carry" requirement. 121a0012 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NBC, CBS, CTV, CBC, FOX, ABC, Global, CityTv, and such are obvious "(TV Network)", WDIV, KTLA, CBEFT, KNOX, and such are obvious "(TV Station)". Now what do we do with Disney, OWN, Space, TvTropolis, Historia, and such. They are distributed through cable/sattelite/iptv only, some self described as network, some as channel, but never as station, are they "(TV network)" or "(TV channel)"?--MrBoire (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Education does not equal common sense., I think that 121a0012 might be suggesting that their might be assigned call signs for cable channels in Canada and thus usable for disamg.
• 121a0012, yes, but connect the dots.
• I think that Disney Channel, OWN, etc. since either could be used, those that self indentify as such as Oprah Winfrey Network solve themselves. Lifetime's full name is Lifetime Television although common refered to as Lifetime, so use the full name.

Channel definition

6. electronics a. a band of radio frequencies assigned for a particular purpose, esp the broadcasting of a television signal tv channel *noun a television station and its programs; "a satellite TV channel"; "surfing through the channels"; "they offer more than one hundred channels" [syn: channel] Network Random House Dictionary 2. Radio and Television . a. a group of transmitting stations linked by wire or microwave relay so that the same program can be broadcast or telecast by all. Collins English Dictionary b. a company or organization that provides programs to be broadcast over these stations: She was hired by the network as program coordinator.

radio, television a group of broadcasting stations that all transmit the same programme simultaneously

• Based on the definitions I am leaning towards using (TV channel) as that aboslutely applies (as the frequencies are allocated over a cable instead of the air).Spshu (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

FCC public file/political ad files are now up

Taking a break from the discussions above, the big day has come where the FCC has made it compulsory for the top 4 stations in the top 50 markets to upload their public files and political ad files to the web. The FCC has located that site at https://stations.fcc.gov/, and it would probably be nice to have a template with an easy link to each station's page, along with bot involvement to get every station on there; some edits adding a station page have already been made as a plain link, but a template would be easier, and it should be simple as the form is just https://stations.fcc.gov/station-profile/wxxx-tv for everything. Just putting this out there. Nate • (chatter) 05:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Yeah, this is a good idea. If consensus is established for this, ask User:Anomie, she always has an available bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. 121a0012 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Big news!

Another vandal has dropped the gun. I have just found out that User:DreamMcQueen, a user that has continually disrupted the process of this project is indeed a vandal, in fact a sock puppet of User:Rollosmokes. See w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rollosmokes for details. We should begin to check his and the sock puppets' edits for any controversial edits to ensure the place goes smooth. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1) DreamMcQueen was not a vandal, he was blocked because a personal attack he made against Neutralhomer. 2) Rollosmokes has said, in a discussion he started on the Radio-Info Boards about Wikipedia, that DreamMcQueen (not referring them by name) is not him, but a friend of his.[26] 3) This is not big news and is not needed here. Powergate92Talk 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We knew that two weeks ago when they admitted as such on ANI, this isn't news at all. And I'm not one to advocate grave-stomping; good quality edits shouldn't be reverted unless they're vandalism (especially considering RS was IB'ed four years back, so it makes absolutely no sense to revert back to those edits in any way). And whatever relationship each account has with each other doesn't matter. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

They matched the two via SPI and a CU, they are one-in-the-same. How many times have we heard the "it's a friend of mine" story and how many people still believe it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact is why would he say that the DreamMcQueen account is his on here, and then go on to the Radio-Info Boards and say "Then he did something I didn't agree with -- linked himself with my old user name so now the admins think we are the same person (bad move)." As for the CheckUser, no check was done because "Based on self admitted evidence, which he had no reason to admit otherwise (sour grapes)" per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rollosmokes/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments. Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss this. Powergate92Talk 22:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Powergate: I spoke to the CU on IRC, hence the lack of information on the SPI. The clerk was not the one who did the CU. Though I do agree, this isn't the place for this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say check not clerk, corrected the word right before you replied. Powergate92Talk 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we EC'd each other. The CU was offWiki, so no information is available (and I can't link the IRC chat per rules), but the link was between User:DreamMcQueen and User:Rollosmokes. Whatever he says on another website (if it is really him), doesn't matter. He was linked via CU, admitted it on his talk page, that's really all we need to block him. Plus, he has done this before (and was found out), so this isn't his first sock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious virtual channels & odd branding

WOAY-TV in Oak Hill, West Virginia brands using its digital channel, 50, instead of its historic analog channel, 4.

• Its article claims that 50 is its virtual channel, but the FCC database disagrees, saying it's 4.

WLIO in Lima, Ohio's article claims that its digital channel, 8, is also its virtual channel, instead of its historic analog channel, 35.

• The FCC database disagrees, saying its virtual channel is 35.

Stations owned by Sainte Partners II, L.P.:

• KVIQ in Eureka, California brands using its digital channel, 17, rather than its historic analog and current virtual channel, 6.
• KCVU in Chico, California brands using its digital channel, 20, rather than its historic analog and current virtual channel, 30.
• KBVU in Eureka, KCVU's semi-satellite, brands using its digital channel, 28, rather than its historic analog and current virtual channel, 29.

Do the Sainte-owned stations broadcast as, or claim to have virtual channels different from, what the FCC says?

Does anyone know of an explanation/rationale for these odd brandings which could be added to the articles? --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• On WOAY (the only station I have knowledge of), their logo shows a "50" instead of the historic "4", but as far as I know, they do not use either the "4" or the "50" on air. WOAY-TV has been a cheaply run station for years (look at their product from years back to today, it shows), so they probably couldn't afford PSIP technology to map as Channel 4. I am just speculating, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. As far as I know, though, WOAY does map as channel 50. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

PSIP is a mandatory part of the standard: if you're broadcasting ATSC, you're sending PSIP. Some early-adopter stations took a while to get their air chain fixed to emit the correct PSIP format, but those were fixed several years ago (before the transition). If a station isn't broadcasting the right virtual channel table, it's because their equipment is misprogrammed, and they are in violation of FCC rules. 121a0012 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The FCC database should not be considered a reliable source on this issue, it is merely pointing to the analog channel number and stating that is the virtual channel. I have a whole list of stations for which that information is wrong: http://www.rabbitears.info/oddsandends.php?request=drop_virtual In this particular case, WOAY maps to 50, WLIO to 8, KCVU to 20, KBVU to 28, and KVIQ to 17. And KAIL maps to 7, WVFX to 10, WEKW to 11, and WGNM to 45. Nothing dubious about it; the TSReader output does not lie. 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripEricson (talk • contribs)

There's a distinction that's relevant here between what a station is supposed to emit, according to the FCC rules, and what it actually does emit. I believe CDBS accurately reflects what the Media Bureau believes the stations are supposed to be doing (specifically, for stations that had one, using their old analog channel number). WP should probably prefer the "facts on the ground", to the extent they can be verifiably established, over the FCC's view of what should be happening, lest readers think WP is accusing the stations of wrongdoing. (They might well be doing something wrong, but that's between them and the Commission.) I'm not sure through what channel a station might request assignment of an alternate PSIP virtual channel, or whether that would be reflected in the engineering database (quite possibly not, if that data is not required for engineering purposes). 121a0012 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that WVFX does map as channel 10, they also ID as "FOX 10" on the air as well, though they were previously channel 46. The FCC claims WVFX maps as "46", but this is not the case. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The FCC database does not contain any virtual channel information, at all. I know of two stations, from first-hand conversations with station managers, who requested and got permission to map somewhere other than where they were "supposed to," but the process was entirely informal and appears nowhere in the FCC database. TripEricson (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The FCC website has begun adding virtual channel listings and in some cases network affiliation to the database listings for TV stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that there's nothing in the database about virtual channels. All it does is point to a very old "analog channel" field in the database that hasn't been updated since who knows when. TripEricson (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is true, I just wasn't sure if you know about the changes on the FCC site. It's kinda new and not all stations have the virtual channel or affiliation listings yet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You say "yet" as though there's any indication it's going to be added for every station. All of those things have been in the database for years in exactly the same condition you see them in now. Many network affiliations are either wrong or outdated (go look at WKEF, for a good example), and I've been told directly that only full-powers get them. The "virtual channels" are no different. TripEricson (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the virtual channel or affiliation listings appear on pages they weren't previously on everyday, so I think it is being rolled out across all TV stations in the FCC database. I am hoping that once they roll it out completely, they will go back and check all the information and correct mistakes like WKEF (ironically WDTN also shows NBC) and the virtunal channels. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The network affiliation and "virtual channel" appeared randomly on the TV Query about a year ago, give or take. The data in them dates to 2008 or earlier; the data may not have been on the TV Query, but was definitely in the database that far back. In the past year, I have not noticed changes in any of the network affiliations or virtual channels noted on the FCC TV Query. TripEricson (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I was a little slow to notice them, I guess. :) We do have confirmation on WOAY's virtual channel though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The network affiliation and Nielsen DMA information was added to CDBS to support the early DTV implementation requirements for network affiliates in larger markets (section 73.624(d)). The requirements having been overtaken by events, the Media Bureau no longer maintains this information, but it remains, moldering, in the CDBS tables alongside all manner of other obsolete columns (like the old BAPS "mainkey" field). The Commission explicitly cautions that data fields which are not required under current regulations are not maintained. Coordination of virtual channel numbers is specified by ATSC A/63 Annex B, which is incorporated into the FCC rules by reference (section 73.682(d)).

In the case of WLIO, they are indeed following the rules. (No surprise to me having met Fred Vobbe.) WOHL-CD is commonly-owned with WLIO, and it is assigned RF channel 35. Under Annex B rules 1-4, WOHL-CD is supposed to use major channel number 8 (because WLIO, which used to be analog 35, is on digital 8). However, Annex B rule 5 provides that, when two or more stations under common ownership have an overlapping service area, they may use the same major channel number. 121a0012 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And just to correct Trip's misapprehension: according to the CDBS release notes, the tv_virtual_channel column was added to the facility table on 01/23/2012. This suggests to me that the FCC intends to use this data. 121a0012 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Last time the FCC added a field to their database, my database threw an unholy fit, completely unable to make heads or tails of it. Didn't do so this time for some reason, which I guess I should call a good thing? I've now added the new field to the database.

In any case, looking at the field right now, it looks to be largely unpopulated, with a direct copy of the former analog channel numbers having been placed into those slots for full-powers, several of which are wrong by the FCC's own rules (KPJR, WDPM, KTAZ, KDCU, KSQA, possibly others, that's from a quick glance), plus a few oddballs, several of which are obviously wrong due to channel conflicts (WDFL-LD, WMYS-LD) or a pre-existing analog (KLRA-LD). Confusingly, WNVC and KAXT-CD seem to have been manually overwritten, as no automated insertion method could have input those as 30 and 1, respectively.

I maintain that Wikipedia should reflect reality and not consider the FCC's virtual channel field a reliable indicator of actual mapping of the stations, as many more than the ones I just noted do not match. I will write some code to do a side-by-side comparison in the next few days. TripEricson (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@121a0012: Don't say "Nielsen" or "DMA", bad things happen. Trust me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so the FCC's "Station Search Details" are unreliable? What is a reliable source then, rabbitears.info?

That being said, does anyone have insight on why WOAY-TV and KVIQ chose not to use their old VHF channel assignments for virtual or branding? --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I think what Trip meant was the FCC database isn't reliable when it comes to virtual channels only, the rest is reliable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so. CDBS is reliable for those data which the FCC uses to implement its regulations. As regulations change, new tables are added and new columns are added to existing tables, but nothing is ever deleted. Thus, data which was created for a regulation that is no longer in force will still be present in CDBS, but will never again be updated. Some other fields are updated only when the FCC has formal notification of a change, but licensees are permitted to make the change without notifying the FCC. You have to actually know something about the regulations and watch which columns are changing in order to figure out which ones are reliable and which ones are obsolete. You can see the daily changes in the Experimental CDBS data differ at bostonradio.org. 121a0012 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer and 121a0012 are both correct. RabbitEars is largely based on the CDBS but I do a lot of manual overrides on things that are wrong or not implemented by the FCC in a number of areas. It's up to Wikipedia how reliable you want to consider RabbitEars to be, which seems to vary based on who I talk to, but all I'm saying is that we shouldn't depend on the CDBS for things that aren't well maintained, like the virtual channel numbers.

As for why they didn't map... who knows? TripEricson (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Template changes and pre-announcement of additions to Infobox broadcast template

{{TVQ}} can now take an optional second parameter to override the default URL text. Documentation has also been added and the talk page has been changed from a redirect to a soft-redirect. I will be making similar changes to {{AMQ}} and {{FMQ}}.

The new {{FCC-TV-Station-profile}} template provides a web-link to the FCC's "station profile" page for a given station.

I will be incorporating both of TVQ and FCC-TV-Station-profile into additional "line-items" for the {{Infobox broadcast}} template as well as adding two new parameters: country and licensing_authority. There will be a time for discussion and consensus on Template talk:Infobox broadcast after I am finished. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since TVQ has different information that FCC-TV-Station-profile, I would have them both. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FCC-TV-Station-profile (FCC TV Station Profiles & Public Inspection Files) will also take numeric FCC Facility ID; TV stations can change call sign. Facility ID will eliminate ambiguity for example: WYBE (Facility ID 28480) and WYBE-CA (Facility ID 40211). - Bob08033 (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Infobox broadcast template

I've drafted changes to {{Infobox broadcast}} to add an optional country parameter and an optional licensing_authority parameter. If the licensing authority is the FCC, the template now displays links to two different FCC pages regarding the station.

Here is a mock-up of what it will look like (ignore the first two items).

Notice the "profile" and "CDBS" items in the new "Public license information" section in most of the test cases? These come from {{FCC-TV-Station-profile}} and {{TVQ}} respectively.

Please discuss this at Template talk:Infobox broadcast#Merge in sandbox changes for country, licensing authority, licensing-info web links for a couple of days just in case there's a good reason not to merge in these changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Television Stations information on Template:Infobox Broadcast shows parameter AMSL (Height above mean sea level), is not used in actual template. - Bob08033 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed. If you see any other clerical errors, please fix them. After all, this is Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia anyone can edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot proposal

The KTVB page includes the recent changes to {{Infobox Broadcast}} outlined above. You can now see the new web links to the FCC data for this station in the template. In addition, the station is clearly marked as a United States station.

I'm proposing a bot that would add

| country                  = [[United States]]
| licensing_authority      = [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC]]

to the Infobox Broadcast template of any United States broadcast television station which uses this template.

Unless someone has a better idea, some or all of the following can be used as starting points to generate lists of these stations:

• List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter K)
• List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W)
• Category:American TV stations by channel number
• Category:Television stations in the United States by state
• Category:Television stations in the United States by city

Future runs of the bot can cover other countries' TV stations and licensing authorities. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Needing clarification of the notability of television station subchannels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Spshu has determined on his own, with no consensus from this board or any other, that subchannels (ex: WHSV-DT2) are not notable. In most causes I would agree, but Spshu is claiming that all subchannels are non-notable, no matter their programming. I concede that networks like The Cool TV and MeTV should not have subchannel pages as they are just simulcasting those networks. But in the case of WHSV-DT2, a FOX affiliate in Virginia, it airs programming that is unique to just that station, along with newscasts and other local programming. In more and more areas, stations are adding subchannels with syndicated programs and local newscasts that are unique to that station alone. I am talking about ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW and MyNetworkTV affiliates, not MeTV or Antenna TV affiliates.

Spshu, again with zero consensus or discussion, has unilaterally decided all subchannels (no matter their programming) or non-notable, even edit-warring in some cases. The user has not come to us or any other board to establish consensus and is relying on old discussions of this board (dating from 2006 to 2009) to show his consensus, which there is none.

So, I would like to do Spshu's work for him and come to this board and ask...are subchannels that carrying unique programming (ie: syndicated programming, newscasts, local shows, sports seen only on that subchannel) like ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetworkTV affiliates notable? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

360 North airs coverage of the Alaska Legislature and the Alaska Supreme Court, historical media from the Alaska Film Archives, Alaska magazine and the University of Alaska Museum of the North (amongst others), original programming (perhaps most notably ANCSA at 40, in addition to reruns of former original programming such as Rain Country, produced by parent KTOO-TV for roughly a decade in the 1980s and 1990s), national public television programs of particular interest to Alaskans (e.g. The Aviators, "and so much more!" I'd call it independently notable. Right now, the only mention I can find is in Template:Juneau TV, as its "flagship station" is actually a subchannel of KTOO. The channel is somewhat Juneau-centric, but hardly limited to Juneau, either in terms of what or where it airs. I believe it's also a subchannel of KUAC-TV and aired on a number of cable systems. The television operations of KTOO, KUAC and KYUK-TV are all independently notable. However, all of these currently redirect to AlaskaOne (which hasn't been updated to reflect its current situation, BTW), which I'm guessing is due to the unwillingness thus far of interested parties to properly document those stations' histories on here like we would do with any other television station. To complicate things even further, there is an entirely different "Alaska network", with programming geared towards tourists, so many people get to see that instead of 360 North.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave notability and unref. notices for these articles for some one to establish notability. And we have been through this already, Neutralhomer. You have claimed that this has been discussed before when we deal with subchannels (Talk:WNEM-DT2) and they were and they went against keeping these articles but you shut down discussion there and failed to note the previous discussion that I request that you point to. You where taken to ANI for your warnings/bullying of other editors and where pointed to the below as proof that you were lying to every one (and doing my homework):

• • • On top of notability's WP:BROADCAST
    • Digital_TV_information
    • UPN14
    • Listing_of_DT_channels_in_market_boxes - in effect indicates that subchannels are a part of the TV Station and are not another TV Station
    • Separate articles for digital subchannels? - again subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article
    • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Articles_on_subchannels - another subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article
      • WENY-DT3 - 3 to 1 vote against subchannels receiving their own article
    • Subchannels - ignore earlier discussion, it comes up again. 3 to 2 against them having articles.
  • Digital Subchannels

If you bother to look I had this discussion on my talk page with Strafidlo. It is you "running roughshod around the rules". Don't threaten any one again with blocking. Spshu (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If we come to a consensus about subchannel articles notability, that consensus would still have to follow WP:Notability#General notability guideline which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Therefore, if the subchannel article does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then that subchannel should not have an article. If there comes to be a consensus here that does not follow WP:Notability#General notability guideline, then that consensus is invalid per WP:Consensus#Level of consensus which says "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Powergate92Talk 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the notability question here. We're talking about secondary program services airing on stations that are presumably already notable. It seems like the real question is whether they deserve a separate article, which depends not on notability but on how much WP:V there is to be said about them, same as any other subtopic article split out from a larger parent. 121a0012 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability has to do with WP:V, 121a0012. So to have its own article, the subject must be notable. Spshu (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, for something to have an article on Wikipedia, it must be notable. For something to be notable on Wikipedia, it must meet WP:Verifiability. See also, WP:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence. Powergate92Talk 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this is about article notability, I think it would be better if this were discussed at WP:Notability/Noticeboard. Powergate92Talk 22:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Spshu, you were shut down at Talk:WNEM-DT2. The decision was no consensus. Let me repeat that again...no consensus. Yet you came back two months later and continued like you have consensus for this. You don't. You have "no consensus". If a TV station is notable, the TV station's subchannels (operating from the same signal as the original TV station) is also notable. You can't cherry pick your notability. But again, you have no consensus as demostrated at Talk:WNEM-DT2. Also, remember, consensus can change...and the posts you continue to link to are from 2006 to 2009. Not current, not consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Powergate, are you honestly saying you can't verify that these stations exist? I can, pretty easily. I can show that they are on-the-air, on a certain frequency, with unique programming, with a unique affiliation, with local newscasts exclusive to that channel. If you can't do that, then you need to take the blinders off and start looking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I'm saying I "can't verify that these stations exist", it is that we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for subchannels to have their own article. Powergate92Talk 02:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand what a subchannel is? It is a second (or third, etc.) channel on the main signal. It is independent of the main station. Let's say WXXX-TV (also called WXXX-DT1 on HD TVs) is an ABC affiliate, WXXX-DT2 is a CBS affiliate. WXXX-DT2 operates on the same signal (we'll say channel 2) as WXXX-TV. WXXX-TV is 2.1, WXXX-DT2 is 2.2. It is independent of the main station, but on the same signal. Stations like WXXX-DT2 have programming unique to that station (like say Ellen, Dr. Phil, etc.) and newscasts (some stations with FOX, CW, or MyNetworkTV affiliates have 10pm newscasts), plus local sports games are aired. Along with shows unique to that network. Get it now? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I know what a subchannel is. We have an article on digital subchannels that's gives a good explanation of what they are: "digital subchannels are a means to transmit more than one independent program at the same time from the same digital radio or digital television station on the same radio frequency channel." Therefore, a subchannel is still part of the same station. Weather it's independent of the main channel or not, does not matter when it come to having its own article. What does matter is if it meets the general notability guideline by having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If it does not meet the general notability guideline, then the info about it can be in the main station article, since it is part of the same station. Powergate92Talk 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong, it does. We could put WXXX-DT2's information in WXXX-TV's article, but the information about WXXX-DT2 has nothing to do with WXXX-TV besides it is on it's frequency. WXXX-DT2 is a seperate callsign and a seperate station, hence the seperate article per MOS and naming conventions. Also, with the TV station itself (in this case WXXX-TV) having notability and WXXX-DT2 is an offshoot (a subchannel) of that main station (WXXX-TV), the subchannel enjoys that notability as well. Sorry, but you are wrong on all counts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DT2 is not a seperate callsign. An example of this is the callsign WHSV-DT2 does not show in the FCC's TV station database[27], but the station's actual callsign WHSV-TV does.[28] Therefore, WHSV-DT2 is not TV station, just WHSV-TV is, WHSV-DT2 is a subchannel of the TV station WHSV-TV. You can also look at WHSV-TV on RabbitEars and see that the subchannels are all part of the same station.[29] Even if a subchannel were a seperate station, it could not have a article if it does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Powergate92Talk 05:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, duh, of course it isn't, because it is a subchannel of WHSV. But via PSIP, it is called WHSV-DT2, like are all subchannels (ie: WXXX-DT2, WXXX-DT3 and so on). That is the way subchannels work, else we wouldn't have subchannels. PSIP makes it possible. So, since it is on the main signal, WHSV, and the main signal is notable, the subchannel enjoys the same notability. Sorry, you lose again. Please, go somewhere else where you know what you are talking about cause you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about when it comes to TV stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) There would be no reason to have articles about a station's other program streams unless there was already sufficient WP:V content about them in the main article to justify splitting out. Just because you can cons up a unique article title for a subject it does not follow that there should be an article on that subject, even if it is associated with another subject that is in fact notable. If the secondary program streams were licensed as independent stations, they would have their own call signs and separate licensees; in that case there would be the same presumption of notability as applies for other licensed broadcasters (the regulatory authorities' public records being unquestionably WP:V). But the FCC has only ever talked about doing this -- it has never actually done so. (Not sure where other regulators stand on this.) 121a0012 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

@121a0012: Actually, if you look back in the history of the articles in question, there was, hence the new articles creation. There is always some information about the subchannels of the main signal in the main signal's article. In most cases, if a station has subchannels, there is a section for them in the article of the main station (example: WJLA-TV#Digital_television). There is also references in the infobox of the article, plus in the template for that particular television "market". We don't just create an article without adding information to the main station's article.

To be clear, there aren't any articles for subchannels of ThisTV, AntennaTV, MeTV, The Cool TV, or other "simulcaster" networks unless they are also affiliated with a larger network like FOX or CBS. An example of this would be WBBJ-DT3, which has a primary affiliation with CBS and a secondary affiliation with MeTV, while also carrying syndicated programming.

To also be clear, the articles that are created for subchannels are for subchannels affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW (to an extent), and MyNetworkTV. The reason we don't create subpages for all subchannels with CW affiliation is because they may carry CW Plus, which is the satellite version of The CW. Since it is a simulcaster network, it isn't notable. There is a reference to it in the main station article, but no subchannel article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Responding to an earlier point, each article has to pass WP:GNG on its own, since notability is not inherited. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't cherry-pick notability. The subchannel is part of the main channel, if the main channel is notable (and it is per LOTS of consensus and WP:BROADCAST), then the subchannel enjoys the same notability. You can't pick and choose, else it could be said the main station isn't notable and that's a slippery slope. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"belongs to something notable" is not mentioned anywhere as a condition to establish nobility in any notability guideline.Skyfiler (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That would imply that every show on every station in the world was notable. I don't think anyone actually believes that. 121a0012 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but we aren't talking about every station in the world (and even I don't believe that). We are talking about subchannels with unique programming for that subchannel (ie: CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, MyNetworkTV and some CW affiliations, plus subchannels with NBC Nonstop as they have unique programming as well). If one looks, we actually aren't talking about that many articles (because there aren't that many notable subchannels). These are particuarly in lower-level television markets.

But that is outside of the bigger picture and the 800 pound elephant in the room picture everyone is ignoring and hoping no one notices....that TV subchannels are a seperate entity of the main station, but operate on the main station's signal. The main station already enjoys inherent notability (it's established by consensus from AfDs and WP:BROADCAST) so the subchannel would also be notable since it operates on that main station's signal (ie: WXXX-DT2 is part of the signal of main station WXXX). We aren't talking about each and every subchannel network (ie: Antenna TV, MeTV, The Local Accuweather Channel, etc.) as having a page, or even all CW affiliations (as CW Plus is the satellite version of the network and a pure simulcast across different markets), this is only subchannels that have programming and affiliations that are unique to that station and that station alone, that broadcast market exclusive programming (ie: newscasts, syndicated programming, sports games, locally-produced shows, etc.).

To put it in a different way....it would be the same as the rules for radio stations (under WP:BROADCAST) that cover translator stations. Subchannels that carry Antenna TV, MeTV and the like would be the same as translator radio stations or stations that simulcast networks like K-LOVE with no local involvement. K-LOVE affiliate stations (or other networks like that) aren't notable if they don't have any local involvement, local programming. So, in TV, think of subchannels with MeTV as radio stations with K-LOVE programming. Think of subchannels with local involvement, local programming, market exclusive programming, like stations such as KIIS-FM in LA. Local programming, local involvement, it's notable. THAT is what I am getting at...which everyone seems to be ignoring like the 800 pound elephant. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To put my in two cents, I get what NeutralHomer is stating here, there is a line where subchannels should get their own articles. These should be separated in two categories: subchannels that deserve articles (ones that are affiliated with a major network) and subchannels that don't deserve one (ones that are affiliated with a largely subchannel-only network). Subchannels affiliated with any of the five major networks (and MyNetworkTV) are worthy of a separate article due to the factors of having an affiliation with networks whose affiliate body otherwise largely consists of primary channel affiliations, the fact that they may provide local programming supplied by a station and that information on a major network-affiliated subchannel in the parent article may become comprehensive enough to warrant a split into a new article (an example of this is WKRC-TV, which has a three paragraph section on its CinCW subchannel, although the CW-affiliated subchannel incidentally also has an article of its own).

If a station has a subchannel that is affiliated with a network that is largely or exclusively a subchannel-only service (like Me-TV, Antenna TV, Live Well Network, etc.), those should be limited to a footnote within the article. Duly noted, there are some subchannel-only networks that do have primary channel affiliations with a local station, like KCEB, KXTF or KDMI; that's a different definition, if a largely subchannel-only network has an affiliation on the primary channel of a local station (particularly if it is a full-power station), the station likely still deserves an article, especially if it was previously a major network affiliate. As far as CW Plus subchannel-only affiliates are concerned, most do deserve an article as the histories of several CW Plus can be traced back to their existence as cable-only services (for example, KNPN-LD3's history can be traced back to cable-only WB 100+/CW Plus affiliate "WBJO"). TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally someone understands what I have been saying. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before: We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for subchannels to have their own article per WP:Notability#General notability guideline. Tvtonightokc: In the case of your example, KNPN-LD3, it has 8 references which are to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, KNPN-LD3 meets the the general notability guideline and should its own article. However, in the case of some subchannel articles, for example WHSV-DT2, they do not even have any references, better yet reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore should not have their own article. In fact, the article for WHSV-DT2 doesn't even have a link to a website for subchannel. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

...and as I have said before since the subchannels are notable, GNG is moot. Moving on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in this discussion that shows agreement that subchannels are notable, and you can't decide that we should not follow a Wikipedia guideline per WP:Consensus#Level of consensus. Powergate92Talk 03:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can, since subchannels are notable. You and Spshu are splitting hairs on this one. You claim the main channel is notable, but the subchannel isn't...even though the subchannel is part of the main channel. You can't have it both ways. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The station (not main channel) articles, for example WHSV-TV, are notable because they have FCC licenses, and most stations have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Subchannels don't not have FCC licenses of their own, and most subchannels like WHSV-DT2 don't have any references, better yet significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. User:121a0012 even said this in a comment above. Also note that WP:Consensus says "This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Therefore, you need to respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when building a consensus. Right now, what you have said does not respect Wikipedia's general notability guideline, but instead ignores it. Powergate92Talk 05:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As much as I would like to keep going around and around in circles with you, I must say it is making me dizzy and I might need to throw up. Seriously, read my posts above and come up with something new instead of repeating the same thing over and over but in different ways. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer: Please read WP:Notability#General notability guideline, WP:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence, WP:Verifiability#Notability, and WP:No original research, because right now, what you have said does not respect those Wikipedia WP:Policies and guidelines. As well, please also read the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited essay, and the feedback of other users above. Powergate92Talk 17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When you have something different to say, not the same old tired-out stuff rehashed into something that looks like new, but ain't new, you let me know. I want new sentences, new ideas, new something, not rehashed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The presense of consensus does not depend on how many times you make conclusory statements like "subchannels are notable", but rather on whether people generally agree with your claim. As you may perhaps have noted from the discussion above, there is not general agreement that "subchannels are notable". 121a0012 (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is established consensus that television stations in general are notable and subchannels are part of television stations (being part of the main signal), hence subchannels are notable. It's covered under the WP:BROADCAST rule. You all are splitting hairs and going around in circles. Plus, 3 to 2 does not a consensus make. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When does inherited notability end? To the smallest division of every notable entity? This is against the very idea that why we require notability on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTINHERITED.Skyfiler (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BROADCAST is not rule, it's an essay: "This notability essay for media topics is not policy." Yes, WP:BROADCAST does cover subchannels, but it says they should not have articles: "digital radio and television subchannels, generally do not merit separate articles and should be covered in the station's main article." Remember, WP:Consensus says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." Therefore 3 to 2 means nothing. Also note that WP:Consensus#Determining consensus says "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." With that, what you have said maybe invalid when determining the consensus, as you have not said how the articles meet the policies and guidelines I noted above. Powergate92Talk 07:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

An essay which is part of WP:N. New, not rehashed or this is going nowhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

←NeutralHomer: "Spshu, you were shut down at Talk:WNEM-DT2. The decision was no consensus. Let me repeat that again...no consensus." But, you did not demonstrate good faith by failing as request by me to show where the previous TVS discussion regarding subchannels where the outcome was that they do. On top of notability's WP:BROADCAST, I have pointed out several discussions with two of which included you that indicated that subchannels don't automatically get their own article, but you failed to indicate them nor show a discussion or page as I repeatedly request of the "TVS way" that allows this. So that is why the discussion was still open. Also, in good faith I search to see if the subchannel was notable as Dravecky request: "That said, the article is unreferenced, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion, since it's apparent that sources are available. An interested editor should add some of them to this article. - Dravecky (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)" I found nothing. Then the discussion closure came, disregarding the notability/source search. I have been acting on the Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. The WNEM-DT2/My 5 discussion effected only that article. Secondly I found the various discussion that you failed to reveal that it was discussed several times that subchannels do not automatically get their own article. And now you claim: ". Also, remember, consensus can change...and the posts you continue to link to are from 2006 to 2009. Not current, not consensus." Well then your argument re:"TVS way" during the discussion at Talk:WNEM-DT2 did not hold because it didn't exist at all as found those looking for it. Or current request for clarification.

• Your PSIP argument does not hold, as PSIP doesn't establishes notability just how your TV handles the subchannels. Go read Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Not that the term is "subchannel" not channel. No station must multiplex.
• RE: unique programming subchannel ie. the networks, yes the networks already have articles and once again they don't pass on their notability. NBC NonStop channels all share a core, or in effect network, programs together as a branded format article are notable but not seperately.

Re: that TV subchannels are a seperate entity of the main station. Not so, if you bother to read most subchannel articles they just repeat staff from the main channel/subchannel/station.

• TVtonightOKC, NeutralHomer is arguing that notability is inherited (major network subchannel affiliates but Torchiest already pointed out that is against WP:NOTINHERITED.
• Another is that most of the articles on subchannels lack independent sources or any sources at all. There content consists of duplicated material from the station's article, list of programs and staff which should not be (NOT DIR) and if it involved UPN/WB/MNT/CW then it spends 2 paragraph go over that event when a single sentence with wikilink would do. It is all padding. Even at the WNEM-DT2 discussion, I pointed out that the article CBS programming from the primary .1 subchannel showed up on the DT2 subchannel, so these are not independent entities. Some times in writing corporated articles a subsidary corporation/LLC would be a subarticle of the parent corporation until notability is established.
• These subchannels are just that SUBchannels as they can be split. If a station has a 3 subchannels then desides to split the last two subchannels in two thus the original subchannel .2 becomes .2 and .3 and the original subchannel .3 becomes .4 and .5. The old and new .3 are not allocated the same frequency. So if the DT3 programming stays on the first half of its original bandwidth it would be PSIP Wxxx-DT4 not Wxxx-DT3, the DTx is not fixed. All that is needed for a subchannel is for the station to have another control board. Note that subchannel are never called substation or station (except in these unsourced articles). The subchannels can also be eliminated with a single channel broadcast over the stations complete banwidth. See how virtual these subchannels are. Multiplexing is just another way to add more programming to the station. WNEM before digital multiplexing had secondary affiliation with UPN and the WB. Under NeturalHomer's position, there should have been articles WNEM-UPN and WNEM-WB because hey the networks broadcast over them make them important enough to have seperate articles.Spshu (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks if you all are going to rehash the same crap over and over and over and over, then we aren't going to get anywhere. You want to work to a compromise, that's fine with me, otherwise, this is rehash. Also, Spshu, don't put words in my mouth. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you bother to read what I typed (which seem to be a recurring problem with you), you will see that I brought up a few new points (padded articles, subchannel spliting, subchannel v. substation) and counter new points that you brought up. Also I brought back up points that were discussed in the WNEM discussion for those that didn't see them. Secondly, you ask for "clarification" not a establishing a new consensus of subchannel notability. But that is where you went in trying to get a different consensus so hence the seeming rehashing. There really is no compromise space here, either the subchannel is automatically notable for an article or must prove it is notable under the WP notability standard. Spshu (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

I'm glad this quieted down somewhat. It was starting to remind me of Glenn Beck's constant reminder to keep a roll of duct tape handy, so you can wrap it around your head to keep your head from exploding. Somewhere in the above mess, I read comments which I interpret to mean that as far as some project members are concerned, it's the broadcast license that's notable, not the station itself. That would be totally bizarre, but unfortunately typical of the contextual disconnect which pervades Wikipedia. I suppose it's the easy way out to give such weight to the license, when you have an easy source (e.g. the FCC database). However, what percentage of coverage by RS is devoted to a station's license versus what percentage is devoted to the station's operations? I would think this argument would apply to subchannels as well, if the operations and programming receives coverage. As far as giving too much weight on here to the license, I'll offer KJNP as an example. Why are there three stubs and a dab for what is essentially a singular entity? Other than perpetuating the "my little corner of the world is precious" syndrome, I just don't get it at all.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: To answer your question, it is because KJNP-TV, KJNP-FM and KJNP (AM) are all different stations and the radio stations have completely different programming from each other. The TV side has religious programming from various sources, primarily TBN. None of these simulcast the other, hence the seperate articles for all three. The Alaska articles need updated bad as they are insanely out of date. Problem is we don't have anyone in WP:WPRS or WP:TVS from Alaska, so we here in the lower 48 are kinda guessing when it comes to them. :)

As for your comments on a license makes a station notable, that isn't always the case. As you can see in the case of WZME, it had a construction permit and a license, but never made it on the air. Everything was on paper, so it isn't notable. What we consider notable in WP:WPRS is when a station gets a "License to Cover" (which means they can begin broadcasting). Once that begins, then and only then do they become notable. If everything is on paper, it isn't notable. There are examples of articles for stations that do, in fact, launch as planned like WTCF. It is to launch officially on September 4th, but will go through a "testing mode launch" on or around August 15th. This station is moving towards launching, so it's article (with all the notable information) is already on Wikipedia ready to go. Though if it would fail to launch, it would go back to userspace.

So, not all stations are notable, but as I have repeatedly said, since television subchannels (ie: WXXX-DT2) operate on the same signal as the main station (ie: WXXX-TV) and the main station (WXXX-TV) is notable under WP:BROADCAST and established consensus, the digital subchannels of that station (WXXX-DT2) are notable as long as they carry unique programming (ie: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, MyNetworkTV, and some CW affiliations) to that area. I have repeatedly said that subchannels with MeTV, The Cool TV, The AccuWeather Channel and the like are not notable (though if they operate on a main signal like in the case of KFDF-LD, it is indeed notable). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unique programming doesn't mean carrying network programming and MyNetworkTV sured doesn't provide even new programming any more. Carrying a network is so un-unique in that that an editor can just wikilink to the network article and indicate when the station began carrying that network. AccuWeather may have unique programming as it is localized and thus unique but unnotable as weather always accurs. Repeating that your position is "established consensus" doesn't make it so and makes us repeatedly point to the previous discussion that you wish to dismiss and go over up the logic again and again to which you then complain of us rehashing. RadioKAOS, KJNP may be an except to the rule and go the other way if is all one operational unit as it is easy to just have a single article indicated what each channel broadcasts and indicate any changes in programming formats in the history of the parent firm. Spshu (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Again

Neutralhomer is on the rampage again with threats and started a mass edit waring on subchannel articles by removing notice that they may not be notable and need sources. Will any administrator or some who knows how to handle this behavior please help. ANI doesn't seem to help as they are generally dismissive or don't look vary far into matters. Spshu (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, don't spin this back on me. Your last edit on this was back in August and in late September you come back around and do some reverts of your own after you got a "no consensus" vote at Talk:WNEM-DT2, ANI, another place that slips my mind at the moment, and this thread just plain died out. You don't have consensus, you are on a "rampage", you need someone to "handle [your] behavior", you have started a mass edit war. This is all you, don't deflect because you don't have consensus and none of your threads (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING) are panning out. Give it up and move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No you completely lied at Talk:WNEM-DT2, as this thread here stands in testament that is the case as I found several previous discussion here that all were decided against your position, but you still push your position. No administrator took your ANI against me. Request help to find the right forum is not forum shopping.Spshu (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? How did I lie? You didn't have consensus anywhere and you still don't. Actually, going from Talk:WNEM-DT2 to here to ANI is, in fact, the definition of forum shopping. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer: We gone over this before again and again. You are the one with no consensus to not follow WP:Notability#General notability guideline, and if you had a consensus it would be invalid per WP:Consensus#Level of consensus. As well, WP:Notability as a Wikipedia guideline has a Wikipedia wide consensus, so a consensus here is not needed per WP:Policies and guidelines#Role which says "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Therefore Spshu has a consensus. Powergate92Talk 02:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Powergate: When a !vote is ruled as "no consensus" that means there is no consensus for what that person wants. Spshu wants TV subchannels deleted, the many threads have either come up "no consensus" or just died out (like this one has and should stay). That means "no consensus" for Spshu. Consensus stands for me. Sorry if you feel you want to spin it your way, but that's not the way we do things here. I expected better of you Powergate than to support and spin this, you disappointment in this case.

Regardless though: This has been tried on numerous pages and ruled "no consensus". With Spshu's last comment on this in August and with him bringing this back up today (after more than a month of silence), I am going to have an admin close this thread as "no consensus" and would ask Powergate, Spshu and everyone to move on. The funeral for the horse is tomorrow morning at 10am. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On TV network flagships...

Are all Los Angeles O&O stations the West coast network flagships? I am thinking that all LA stations will be identified as "W.C. flagships". Is this recommended? Also, is WPIX one of two east coast CW flagships along WPSG? And should I note this? Thanks! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I have read that the flagship stations (EC or WC) were where the live broadcasts origined from in the early days, so most likely newer networks have no flagship stations. So no to tagging all LA O&O as West Coast network flagships and WPIX and WPSG as CW's EC flagships. You have to have a source. --Spshu (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So just ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC? Or just strip "flagship" identifications from all articles... Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a Google search and could not find any reliable sources saying that WPSG is a CW flagship station, just Wikipedia and Wiki type websites.[30] Without any reliable sources for this info, saying in the Wikipedia article that a station is one of the network's flagship stations is original research and should be removed. Powergate92Talk 03:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I revert all NYC O&O's from denoting themselves as flagships? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you do a Google search, and no reliable sources come up on the first few pages saying that the station is the flagship of that network then yes. For example, I just did a Google search for "WPIX flagship The CW" on first page I found one primary source, being WPIX website's about us page, and one third-party reliable source, a news article from The Washington Post. Powergate92Talk 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Those references are indeed mentionable, even though the 1st could be a self-reference and can hurt the article neutrality, I'm saying mention the NYC stations are both O&Os and flagship, i.e.,

WABC-TV is an owned-and-operated television station and the flagship of the American Broadcasting Company in New York City, New York.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)