Jump to content

Talk:KSTU

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KSTU: Since 1978 or Since 1987?

[edit]

Actually, it's the latter. The KSTU calls were attached to two distinct licenses, hence two distinct stations. They even co-existed from January 1987 through November 1987. What makes it confusing is that MWT Ltd., original permittee of the KSTU 13 in January 1987 (then called KTMW), bought KSTU 20 from Adams Communications in October 1987, for the express purpose of using channel 20's equipment to build channel 13. Presumably, they immediately shut the station down and returned the license to the FCC, because two weeks after the deal was consummated on KSTU 20, the KSTU call letters were moved to channel 13 and the KTMW 13 callsign was deleted. The details of this whole affair can be found at FindLaw for Legal Professionals - it reads almost like a soap opera. When I get a chance, I intend to correct the article. --dhett 06:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections are made. To any who should wish to revert the changes, my revisions are all verifiable. There was no verification for the previous versions of the station's article. --dhett 10:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like while the current channel 13 is a separate license from the old channel 20, MWT bought the KSTU intellectual unit (programming, staff, calls and Fox affiliation). This appears to be a similar situation to WHDH-TV in Boston--while its current license dates from 1982, the channel 7 intellectual unit in Boston dates from 1948. Another analogus situation is WSVN in Miami. Blueboy96 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the primacy of intellectual unit over FCC license. It is the FCC license that takes precedence, however, as intellectual unit plays an important role in the station's history, the previous incarnation of KSTU was also included in the previous version of the article. There have been other discussions on similar matters and I agree with the final opinion posted. I also believe that the WHDH-TV and WSVN articles should also separate the two licenses into separate article sections. The current WHDH license dates back to 1982, not 1948. That was a separate station. Further, if one queries the FCC database for KSTU, one will find KTMW and DKTMW in its station history, and the original construction permit granted January 20, 1987. One will not find the previous incarnation of KSTU. That is under a separate entity, DKSTU.
The FCC license and its accompanying Facility ID Number provide an objective accounting of a station's history, unlike intellectual unit, which can be subjective. For example, did the intellectual unit of the old KSTU change in 1986 when the station became a Fox affiliate? The FCC is an authoritative body, and I think it wiser to rely on their standards of reckoning a station's history.
Obviously, we disagree here. You were within your rights to change the article; I was within mine to revert it. However, in the interest of avoiding an edit war, I suggest putting this question to the Television Stations Project with the hope of forming a consensus. dhett (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is that no station ever went to the air between January and November 1987 under the KTMW calls--at least as far as I can tell. If there's a TV Guide out there that shows a KTMW airing on channel 13 between those dates, that's another matter.
And WHDH does date to 1948--in 1982, RKO sold the WNAC-TV assets (including the studios, from where channel 7 still operates today) to David Mugar, who then got a new license from the FCC under the WNEV calls (which have since become WHDH). [1]
While I will agree that most revisions prior to yours in September were inaccurate based on FCC filings, I figure it reads a little better to reflect that it's the same station, under a different license from the original.Blueboy96 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was best to make two notes in the infobox--the original KSTU went on the air in 1978, while the new one went on the air in 1987.Blueboy96 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct: no station ever went on the air as KTMW in 1987, but that's not the issue, nor is it a problem. It's the license that matters, and the license is determined by the FCC ID Number. You yourself have said that the current WHDH went on the air under a new license; that is why WHDH correctly dates to 1982, not 1948. New license, new station, regardless of the intellectual unit. However, because the intellectual unit is important, the prior station merits mention in the article.
Although I'm not totally on board with your edits, I will accept most of them as a reasonable compromise, as it is plainly evident in the article that the two KSTUs were two separate stations. I made some corrections to your timeline; the current station was founded on 1/20/87, not 11/9/87.[2] When available, the date the original construction permit was granted is used as the founding date, not the on-air date, which isn't documented in the FCC database. Also, the old KSTU license was deleted 11/9/87, not in 1988,[3] and MWT turned the license in, not Adams; the sale had already been consummated 10/23/87.[4] dhett (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notice

[edit]

It's not standard practice on Wikipedia for a television station's list of transmitters to be a separate article from the one on the television station itself. Is there a specific reason it should be allowed to stand in this case? Bearcat 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of merging these lists ongoing at Talk:KTVX#Merge notice and a related deletion debate. Cool Hand Luke 10:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News Programming

[edit]

The article claims KSTU "launched a 9pm newscast in 1996" ... In reality, it launched a 9pm newscast in 1991, after being acquired by Fox, per Fox directives that all Fox O&O would have a newscast following the Fox primetime programming block. The year can be indirectly confirmed by a page at the official KSTU website (Mike Runge's Personality Page). I believe 1996 is the year they got rid of the original anchor Nick Clooney and brought in the current anchor team of Bob Evans and Hope Woodside.

Additionally, I believe the newscast aired for a time at 10pm on Sunday evenings during a period that Fox was experimenting with an extended Sunday night programming block. This may not be verifiable at this point, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

CasaDeRobison (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: According to the following Wikipedia pages (1988-89_United_States_network_television_schedule, 1989-90_United_States_network_television_schedule, 1990-91_United_States_network_television_schedule, 1991-92_United_States_network_television_schedule, 1992-93_United_States_network_television_schedule,) Fox programmed part or all of the 9pm Mountain Time hour for five seasons, including the entire period from the inception of the KSTU 9pm newscast until the summer or fall of 1993 when Fox stopped programming that hour in its entirety. This would have pushed the Sunday evening newscast back to 10pm Mountain Time.

CasaDeRobison (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is a new logo for KSTU. It's now used on their newscasts and it's on the beginning of this video. I'm not sure how it's possible to get an image from that, but if anyone wants to find the logo, that's what you need to find. 67.41.231.60 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found an image of it here, but it needs to be cropped. Hope this helps. 67.41.231.60 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I Was in St. George 2 weeks ago and noticed that they are using a new logo for FOX13. 

 Here's the link for it: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568c6bae7086d7219d1a8400/56c36ec5555986cf566e028c/56c36ec5555986cf566e028d/1462294235767/FOX+color.png

Proposed merger

[edit]

I am proposing that List of personalities of KSTU be merged back into the main KSTU article, the main article is not large enough to have warranted a split, and should it be merged it should be placed as a subsection of the news operation section. (TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on KSTU. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

KSTU's logo has changed - please update to use the same logo as on their website https://www.fox13now.com/ Thank you!

~~~~

Fei Xing Scripps (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KSTU/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed; Earwig shows no issues; sources are reliable.

  • "a decade-long proceeding began to assign VHF channel 13 to Salt Lake City, which was made available in 1980": needs rephrasing; as written this says Salt Lake City was made available in 1980.
    • Reworded
  • "applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for channel 20, which would become the first commercial UHF station in the state and its only independent": this doesn't actually say the application was successful, and "would become" is also indefinite. How about "successfully applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for channel 20, which became the first commercial UHF station in the state and its only independent"?
    • Reworded
      I've read through the paragraph a couple of times and I think what bothers me about it is the sequencing. It starts with Springfield's application in 1977, and then goes back to give the history. Because of this, you're using the subjunctive for the approval, since the flashback means we're still in the past. But then we say at the start of the next paragraph that Springfield got a construction permit. For a reader who knows this industry, as you do, no doubt the obvious implication is that the FCC approved the channel 20 application, but we haven't said so. Can we change this so that the paragraph starts with "There had been two attempts" (and if we're not in flashback then we don't need the past perfect, so this could be "Two attempts were made to operate ...")? Then mention KWCS-TV/channel 18, and finally give the information about Springfield in chronological order, adding the notes about it being the first commercial UHF, but (because of KWCS-TV) not the first UHF station in the state. And at that point you can say "approved" without the subjunctive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really a problem for GA, but what are all those comments saying "Wed" and "Tue" for?
    • Those are generated by PressPass, the utility I use to format newspaper citations which is made by User:JPxG. "Weekday" will include an HTML note indicating which day of the week the newspaper was published on. This is not a part of the citation template, but is available for convenience in writing articles: in a tacit acknowledgement of their ephemeral relevance and planned obsolescence as artifacts of Spectacle, newspapers have been saying stuff happened "last Thursday" for several hundred years, and it is often useful to know the specific day some event happened.
      Struck, but I have to say that's not at all obvious that that's what this is to another editor who might come along and want to work on the article. I don't know if the templates permit it, but wouldn't it be better to have the comment inside the parameter in the ref tags? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie Responding to this one specifically: that's not a parameter. Also going to ping @JPxG to see this comment. It is a setting you can disable, and if you suggest I do so going forward, I will (but you will likely have to put up with it in dozens, even hundreds of improved pages). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sammi: No, there's no need to stop using it unless someone else comes up with a reason; all I'm saying is that I couldn't interpret it. Looking at the cite template document I found this: The date of a Web page, PDF, etc. with no visible date can sometimes be established by searching the page source or document code for a created or updated date; a comment for editors such as date=2021-12-25<!--date from page source-->|orig-date=Original date 2011-01-01 can be added. Wouldn't that be more useful than a comment outside the ref? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the first UHF station in Utah in five years and first-ever full-market UHF outlet": suggest "As the first UHF station in Utah in five years and first-ever full-market UHF outlet in the state", just to be clear.
    • Reworded
  • "When the FCC allocated television channels, the station spacing guidelines meant that inserting channel 13 in Salt Lake City was not possible. In 1968, the FCC denied a petition by Salt Lake radio station KLUB to add channel 13 to Salt Lake City, which would have required changes in unused VHF assignments in Richfield, Vernal, and Rock Springs, Wyoming. That petition was opposed by Great Desert, which at the time was seeking channel 20; the Salt Lake VHF stations; and educational television interests in Utah, including KWCS-TV, who noted the intensive use of channel 13 by translators." I don't understand this. KLUB is a radio station, so why are they interested in a VHF television channel? Because they wanted to start a new station? If so I think we should say that explicitly. I assume Great Desert opposed the addition of 13 to Salt Lake City because it would have been competition. But why does it matter that 13, not currently in the local area, had a lot of translators? And as written this says it was KWCS-TV who "noted the intensive use of channel 13 by translators", but I would have thought Great Desert would have been the ones to make comments in the petition. Or were KWCS commenting in support of being acquired?
    • Yes, that's what KLUB wanted to do. In re translators: The source doesn't say much more here. It might help to explain something about TV in Utah. There is only one set of network affiliates in Utah, in Salt Lake. Downstream from them are some 80 to 100 translators per station rebroadcast, some of which receive signals from each other. The end links in the chain are a very, very long way away from Salt Lake. (KWCS-TV not coincidentally had a channel 13 translator itself)
      The tweak you made addresses my first question. Re the translators, can we say something like 'KWCS-TV, who were concerned about the possible impact on the translators for channel 13"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American Television of Utah, a subsidiary of Salt Lake City-based American Stores Company, which had also applied for channel 14": is it relevant that they had applied for 14? We haven't mentioned 14 at all at this point so I'm not sure what the reader learns from this. If it's relevant it should be clearer why. I suspect it's one of the other drop-ins; if so perhaps just "had also applied for channel 14, one of the other three drop-ins approved by the FCC". And now reading further I see it becomes KXIV in Salt Lake City. So when you say the FCC initially approved four drop-ins, does that mean four for Salt Lake City? Or nationwide -- that is, that approving a drop-in meant approving that channel to drop in in multiple places?
    Yes. Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mountain West partners would later claim that Adams had also been a client of Wiley Rein": I had to go back and check to see that Adams was the owner of KSTU, which then made sense of the Mountain West partners complaints. Can we make this "The Mountain West partners later claimed that Adams, the owner of KSTU, had also been a client of Wiley Rein"?
    • Reworded here
  • "but the winner attracted surprise: the Fox network itself": why is this surprising?
    • This was the smallest-market O&O, but yeah, nothing here said surprising.
  • "and ordered another trial be held": do we know the outcome?
    • Alas, no. There isn't a single article after that date.
      Not an issue for GA but it would probably be possible to get information from public records of lawsuits. I don't think you'd run afoul of WP:PRIMARY if you restricted it to a statement of the outcome but I also don't think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vote by the commission to designate it for hearing": I think you've explained this to me before, but what does "designate for hearing" mean? It sounds like it should be the start of a process, but here it looks like that was the end of it.
    • That's because in the modern age, when the FCC Media Bureau sends a huge media transaction to the judge for hearing, it's the death knell. The pending transaction involving KLKN actually has this as an issue! I've added some more clarity.

I will do spotchecks tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks (footnote numbers refer to this version):

  • FN 1 cites "Channel 20 was allocated to Salt Lake City in 1952". Verified.
  • FN 34 cites "The approval came even though KSTU and KSL-TV expressed renewed concern over a high-power channel 13 in Salt Lake City causing problems for the translator system." Verified, but I'd suggest changing to "had expressed", since this is prior to the approval.
  • FN 43 cites "with MWT to operate channel 20 until channel 13 was ready to be activated and then surrender the channel 20 license". Verified, but should be p. 73, not 83.
  • FN 51 cites "but the Utah Supreme Court discarded the monetary award in 2001 and ordered another trial be held, finding that the trial judge had improperly instructed jurors". Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caught the typo on footnote 34. Thanks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes look good; passing. I left a note above about PressPass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 01:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KSTU; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Sammi Brie: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KSTU&oldid=1195070287"