Jump to content

Talk:KXTX-TV

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

Re-write

[edit]

This article could use a major re-write as many of the sentences do not make sense (perhaps due to language differences?). I'm willing to volunteer if no one else does. 64.221.15.66 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Censorship of Star Trek

[edit]

In the 1970's, at the height of the Christian Broadcasting Network, KXTX held the Dallas-area syndication rights to Star Trek, but refused to air six episodes because of their "inappropriate" content. For example, the episode "Catspaw" dealt with witchcraft, while "And the Children Shall Lead" featured a demon, played by Melvin Belli. Those six episodes perennially drew large crowds at Dallas Star Trek conventions. Lincmad 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KXTX.PNG

[edit]

Image:KXTX.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KXTX-TV. 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) 00:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KXTX-TV. 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) 20:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KXTX-TV. 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) 07:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Geardona (talk to me?) 05:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is coherent, and follows a logical pattern, Done some of the section titles might need work Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No words to watch (outside of quotes) Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Good amount, good reliability. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Spot checked sources # 2 (not sure I fully understand it, but it looks correct (numbers add up and such)); 7 (checked for copyvio as ell); 9 (no copyvio I can see, verified); 137 (technical data, if i'm reading it right it is true(I don't speak random numbers sorry) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) cited, no OR Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) 'ran through earwigs for good measure, but also spot checked. Only found quotes on earwigs Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers all aspects of the topic, not really missing anything (that I can think of). Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) No distracting side tracks. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No neutrality problems. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No edit wars/disputes Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) tagged, done Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)  Done The images might need some work on positioning and scale Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Passed after small bits of additional work.

Discussion

[edit]
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.

Discussion

[edit]

NOTE:This was on the Wikipedia:Discord before we decided to re-enact it here, here's a little transcript and summary, if you want the full transcript, reach out to me. Geardona (talk to me?) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes/Questions round one:
Lead is a little long
In the lede "licensed to" or " licensed in"? in the first section thats a small image, is that for fair use reasons? The section names might need some workshopping.Geardona (talk to me?) 06:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one got funky, so I'll put what happened here:
  • MOS:LEAD puts the maximum length of a lead section at four paragraphs. This 4500-worder justifies it, in my opinion. We suffer, almost exclusively, from overly short leads.
  • "Licensed to" is the correct verbiage in this industry.
  • That first small image was moved down one level-2 header so I could bump up its upright to 1.4 from 1 without creating a high-level sandwich.
  • Changed some L2 and L3 headers to be a bit more encyclopedic (notably CBN and "Doubleday giveaway").
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After this (little more fluff)
In the next image the caption says "DFW Airport" maybe expand the acronym? --> it got linked to the airport. Geardona (talk to me?) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then went to
in "New studios in Fort Worth and news expansion" maybe some more inline sources, not all at the end (unless thats how the sourcing goes idk).
Also WP:CITEOVERKILL --> the section got slightly altered. Geardona (talk to me?) 07:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then wandered to
increased the size of the images that are super horizontal and moved the one down one l2 header
Then its the spot check. Then we are  Done Geardona (talk to me?) 07:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice list for spot check

[edit]

Spot checked sources

  1. 2 (not sure I fully understand it, but it looks correct (numbers add up and such));
  2. 7 (checked for copyvio as ell); 9 (no copyvio I can see, verified);
  3. 137 (technical data, verified)
  4. 75  Done
  5. 79  Done
  6. 84  Done
  7. 71  Done
  8. 3  Done
  9. 10  Done
  10. 65  Done
  11. 61  Done
  12. 70  Not done Source 404'ed
  13. 72  Done
  14. 86  Done
  15. 5  Not done Source 404'ed
  16. 6  Done

Geardona (talk to me?) 06:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Geardona In re ref 70: I have the clipping of it at [1]. In re ref 5: that's ProQuest's database containing Broadcasting, which TWL does not subscribe to. you need to cross-verify with another source that has Broadcasting. luckily, I know a guy... [2]
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:59, 14 March 2024 (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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KXTX-TV; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • There's a very good chance for this to be an April Fools' Day hook. I can't propose hooks, but something like 'a Christian TV station in Dallas found a preacher's style to be too "controversial" and "effeminate"' would fit perfectly in the day's set. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, meant to ping Sammi Brie. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[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: Prefer ALT1a for April Fools set MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KXTX-TV&oldid=1228858380"