Talk:KYTV (TV station)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph of the KYTV transmission tower be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Missouri may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

On 18 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from KYTV (TV) to KYTV (TV station). The result of the discussion was moved.

On 18 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to KYTV (Springfield, Missouri). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Removed copyrighted text

This article contained about a page of copyrighted text from http://www.ky3.com/about/1578646.html I have removed the copyrighted text. Seano1 19:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kytv3042774.jpg

Image:Kytv3042774.jpg 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 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 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshfield, Missouri tower

I just added a section on the station's towers which are among the highest in the state. I'm not sure whether the Marshfield tower still exists. The wording on the station website http://www.ky3.com/about/aboutus seems somewhat ambiguous. Americasroof (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

I request that this article be semi-protected due to rampant vandalism. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KYTV (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

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) 00:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KYTV (TV) → KYTV (TV station) – Current title does not help distinguish from KYTV (TV series). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCBC 162 etc. (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#North America which says "For stations which do not have a suffix, if disambiguation is necessary ... place the type of service in parentheses; for example, "KSFO (AM)" or "KDFW (TV)". -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The above title is incomplete disambiguation as both the station and the series are "TV". A topic-level guideline can't dictate that its disambiguation schema can always be the primary over anything else. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I don't see a justifiable WP:TITLES basis for your vote. Surely WP:NCBC is not "primary over anything else" - it is limited in scope to the naming of broadcast entities, and it has a specific way of handling North American stations, which I quoted above. Now, you are free to disagree with the specific naming convention itself, and seek to change it, but to vote this lone article to a title which doesn't follow the convention would not be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles that follow the convention. Any potential confusion is handled by the hatnote, and I think you can agree that its an extremely rare case that a TV series and a TV station have the same name. -- Netoholic @ 10:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm positive you know the title policy as good as I do for me not needing to point out WP:INCDAB. Regarding your other points, WP:CONSISTENT does not matter when the disambiguation used is not sufficient, which is why good guidelines take that into account and offer solutions, which NCBC seems to not do (for American stations, but does for others). Regarding the rare cases, again, irrelevant here, as we aren't talking about a theoretical case, but a specific case where there are two competing titles, one which uses a disambiguation which can be used for both. If you feel that the title policy should be changed and exempt NCBC guidelines from it, feel free to start a RfC. --Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an awkward case because both camps of editors have points, and this is a highly rare circumstance. We don't have any TV station pages on active stations in the US that take a longer disambiguator, and this article is correctly named per WP:NCBC. We also have an incomplete disambiguation case that needs resolution. I understand the concern of the topic editors, who are used to this kind of disambiguation for station articles, but Gonnym is right that this is not very desirable and can be a bit confusing. The need for this is exceedingly rare, especially with US broadcast station call signs; I can only think of KFC (radio station), and that's a very early station. Australia has a number of disambiguated station pages like HSV (TV station) instead of "HSV (TV)", so there is at least precedent for the use of this disambiguator elsewhere in the project, though not in the North American stations. I have to side with the nominator and Gonnym and support the move because the incomplete disambiguation problem takes precedence over NCBC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would oppose, but the fact the British TV show title is KYTV–virtually identical to the TV station's callsign–there's really no other choice but to support. It's frustrating as it does go again all current naming conventions, but the TV show article is properly titled. KYTV (TV station) is unfortunately the only acceptable title. Nathan Obral (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... what's wrong with moving to KYTV-TV?! Plenty of TV stations articles are named that way – e.g. KUSI-TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @IJBall: Because that's not the official callsign. There's no "-TV" suffix at the end of KYTV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh – nonparanthetical disambig. is always preferable to parenthetical disambig. (esp. non-standard parenthetical disambig.), and moving to KYTV-TV would solve all of the problems in this case. This is an exceptional case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The topic editors will correctly disagree in this case, and let me explain why. US television stations can have official call letters with or without the TV suffix. For instance, all of these are valid call signs: KTVK, KPHO-TV, KSAZ-TV, KPNX, KNXV-TV. For stations that are not suffixed and need some sort of disambiguation from other topics, we use (TV) as a "silent disambiguator" as a first line of defense (official FCC publications do the same but without the space, e.g. "KYTV(TV)").

The only cases until now where we have used longer disambiguations are where defunct stations must be differentiated from current ones. I developed the priority formula (User:Sammi Brie/Radio naming) that is used to do this in North American television and radio, which is the reason we have pages like WFMZ-TV (channel 67), WRTV (New Jersey) and WTOM-TV (Lansing, Michigan).
An article at "KYTV-TV" would be flat-out incorrect. I get that the NCBC silent disambiguator approach doesn't work here because of the INCDAB issue that is of more concern, but the next best alternative is fairly clear. Gonnym's comment suggests that the solution adopted here be written into NCBC.

Hopefully this explains the stance that those of us who edit pages like this have toward that proposal, which I would roundly reject, IJBall. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a redirect at KYTV-TV – if it's "wrong", why is it there? Even if it is "wrong", who cares?! Like I said – this is a WP:IAR case: it's better to move it to KYTV-TV than pretty much any other suggestion here, all of which are unnecessarily complicated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect from KYTV-TV has been there since 2006, with literally one edit total. A discussion on "why is it there" should be for RFD, where people might actually determine that it shouldn't be. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The current disambiguator is not sufficiently disambiguating, and the suggested alternative seems straightforward and reasonable. As WP:NCBC says, the matter "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Here, WP:INCOMPLETEDAB needs to be taken into account. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 18 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KYTV (TV station) → KYTV (Springfield, Missouri) – Better disambiguation (would want to discuss this) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to KYTV (TV) per WP:NCBC. See previous RM above. 162 etc. (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be right in this case - see first part of RM above. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My argument (that you supported at the first RM) is that KYTV (TV) and KYTV (TV series) are sufficiently disambiguated, and that we don't need to diverge from the established naming conventions at WP:NCBC and WP:NCTV. 162 etc. (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the item to be disambiguated is not being disambiguated from a broadcast station in some other location—as is normally the disambiguation need for call sign-titled pages—but from other subjects entirely. This is highly unusual in the field because of the way our guidelines are set up and the rare clash of (TV), etc. as "silent disambiguators" with other items. I supported the current article title because it was adopted in the only similar cases, all Australian stations: TEN (TV station), HSV (TV station), ADS, ABN, NEW, ABS, et al. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oppose—there is no apparent need to disambiguate further than the current title provides for. Moving from one naming-convention-breaking value to another does not add value without a documented case where it would help. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.