Talk:List of The CW affiliates (table)

This article was nominated for deletion on November 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Are we sure that WPIX New York will be the flagship of The CW? I ask because KCOP Los Angeles (though it was owned by Fox) is UPN's flagship, and WGN Chicago is the WB flagship station. Mhking 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the news reports say Channel 11 will get The CW, while Channel 9 will be left out in the cold (here's one example). --Aaron 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better link: CBS's own press release which says the Trib station in NYC gets the CW. --Aaron 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got that. I was just asking about confirmation that WPIX would be the flagship as opposed to WGN or KTLA. Mhking 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Newsday: "Tribune Broadcasting, one of the nation's largest TV broadcasters, will air the new network's programs, which means WPIX/11 will become the so-called flagship station of the CW. Meanwhile, WWOR/9, which is owned by News Corp. and has been the flagship of UPN, lost out in what amounted to a big game of musical chairs yesterday." --Aaron 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Market numbers

What do missing numbers from the market column indicate?? Georgia guy 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nielson market size. Mhking 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHCP-TV added

Confirmed via this article. And yes, they are a dual WB/UPN affiliate; the chart is not wrong to list both networks in that column. --Aaron 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's jumping the gun to list them at all - the general manager at that station said he doesn't expect things to change for his station, but he did not state they were an affiliate yet - I can assure you that NOTHING has been signed yet - all of the stations were blindsided by this. Yes, his station is a good candidate for the CW, but it is by no means a done deal yet. Only the Tribune and CBS Corp. stations are confirmed for now. TheRealFennShysa 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called them. I was told "We're staying with whatever they give us." So unless The CW itself is not going to happen (and after all, it isn't on the air yet, and anything could happen between now and September, so perhaps we should just kill the entire article?), this station is going to be a CW affiliate.--Aaron 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't confirm anything. Of course they're going to tell someone caling them that, as they don't want to alarm their viewers. But the plain and simple fact of the matter is, and this is coming from someone in the industry, they are NOT an affiliate yet. No one is, past the Tribune and CBS Corp. stations. NO agreements have been signed with ANYONE else, yet... Until such time as editors have verifyable confirmation about an entry, such as official press releases (as opposed to "well I heard..." or somesuch), we should keep this to verified information. TheRealFennShysa 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't just speak to the first secretary on the phone. Second, you're not the only person here involved in network television. And third, by the rationale you're using to try to keep all non-CBS/Trib stations off the page, this list shouldn't even exist yet because we don't have any iron-clad guarantee that any of the stations on it are going to actually end up airing CW programming. There's no particular reason this entire deal can't fall apart between now and September. If a station says they plan to be a CW affiliate, that word should be more than enough. --Aaron 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do. The Tribune stations have already signed 10-year affiliation agreements with The CW. That's pretty binding. I'm pretty sure (have to check) but the listed CBS stations are in the same boat, as they were listed as such in the original press release. The process has already begun for the dismantling of both networks. It's happening. But there's a major difference between a station having officially signed on, and them telling something to a caller. I still hold to the position that if it's not officially confirmed, it shouldn't be listed. TheRealFennShysa 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if people're going to keep adding every station out there that says it's going to be an affiliate, what's the point of this list? It should reflect FACTS. Fact is, these station people keep adding are NOT CW affiliates yet. Plain and simple. TheRealFennShysa 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHCP has now been confirmed and added (please note correct spelling and market name). [1] MPWard 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second section for wannabes and maybes

If people are going to continue to try to add unsourced and unverifyable entries to this page, we need to create a second section, clearly marked as *probable* affiliates... right now, no matter how good the situation might look for former WB and UPN stations, the plain and simple fact of the matter is that no one else has signed affiliation agreements yet, except for the Tribune and CBS Corp. stations. This is what I was trying to get across yesterday, when someone else kept trying to add in unverifyable information. The main list should remain for confirmed stations, with additions as they become confirmed. TheRealFennShysa 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a second list makes sense, with those who are confirmed moving to the main list. That way, those who are pointing to their local situation (i.e., Phoenix), but do not have formal confirmation will have somewhere to include their market. Mhking 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to add this list right now CoolKatt number 99999 03:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When adding entries to this second list, remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unless you have verifiable sources suggesting that an affiliate will go to the CW, as opposed to analyzing the situation and making pronouncements yourself (as in the Charlotte entry, which itself overlooks the reference in the Observer article suggsting WAXN may be in the running), do not add to the list. I know I have very few edits and theoretically am not in a position to make judgements on Wikipedia policy, but when we start getting into reasons like "The WB currently shares so-and-so station with the I network," or having a "stronger over-the-air signal" or "higher viewership," it seems like, unless we have information from the actual owners (or at least well-informed speculation) suggesting that one station or another will be favored, we should hold off on making pronouncements. Okay, I'm done ranting now, and maybe what I've just said is a load of crap, but hopefully it's food for thought. 67.150.92.63 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the last item on the list (Traverse City-Cadillac-Sault Sainte Marie) probably shouldn't even be there, as a) it misstates the call letters of the Fox/UPN affiliate (if that is really the case, and I'm reading the article correctly... someone needs to tag that article for cleanup and maybe split it into two pages!) and b) WBVC actually appears to be a cable channel broadcasting The WB 100+, so it's nowhere near a lock either. 67.150.92.63

I think I know what the article is trying to say now... the templates are the problem. Still, citing WFQX as "sharing UPN with Fox" is a little too generous of its UPN programming. The second point still holds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.92.63 (talk • contribs) 22:11, January 29, 2006.

I suggest we clean this up, make it a table, and only add stations for which there are substantive indications they will become affiliates of The CW (i.e. statements by station management to the news media). --Aaron 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation agreements

A new article on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine's website [2] says that initial affiliation agreements are set to go out via land-mail this week. It also confirms that the Fox-owned UPN stations in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Baltimore & Orlando will not seek CW affiliation, despite there not being a Tribune or Viacom-owned station in any of those markets. Mhking 02:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the agreements themselves, but the conditions for winning agreements. 67.150.212.131 04:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the fate of the WB 100+: [3] I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article. 67.150.89.129 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to main list

Please hold off from adding place-holders on the main list until there is some sort of confirmation. --Mhking 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing the adding, but I believe the anon in question is simply following the lead of List of My Network TV affiliates. If you wish, you may remove the placeholders there as well. 67.150.223.229 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC) -ETA: Just noticed that this appears to be the same person. Still, I haven't seen any reversions there. In fact, he's being thanked on the talk page.[reply]

Speculation and predictions

I know that alot of editors have worked on this article, so I'm going to ask for their help with this. There is entirely to much speculation in this article. I will remind all editors of this wikipedia policy and this wikipedia policy. There are waaaay too many factors at play with this whole merger to be listing any stations on this or the MNTV lists until there is a press release from a reputable source about a certain station. Please remove all speculation from this article including the Potential affiliates section. —A 08:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright it has been a day, with plenty of activity, and no signs of anyone removing the speculation. I am going to do so now. Per the Wikipedia policies above, do not add any speculation back into the article, everything added should be factual and have a source. A LOT of things could happen between now and September and Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of speculation. —A 07:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

The list is fine the way it is now. Please do not change it. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCWE added

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6313692.html?display=Breaking+News

I saw that - there are four other affils in addition to Kansas City that were added as well. --Mhking 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of them being a digital subchannel of KVIA-TV in El Paso. Does anyone know what this channel was/is previously carrying, or if it even existed (exists) before this point? Morgan Wick 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new digital station. Doesn;t exist right now.Davodd 03:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting/convention

Please only use quotes around the call letters of a station using a non-actual call sign as an identifier.

i.e. "WBCB" is in quotes, because it is merely the on-air moniker used by WFMJ-DT 20.2's WB-to-be-CW affiliate in Youngstown. "WRWB" is in quotes because it is merely the on-air name of Time Warner cable channel 16 in Rochester, which is not a broadcast station at all. Don't put quotes around actual call letters, please! MPWard 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've begun the process of matching the external links with the stations to which those articles refer. Ultimately, we should have a reference for each station on the list, thus making the list easily verifiable. I could use quite a bit of help with this, though. -- SwissCelt 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event?

Why is this tagged as documenting a current event? Is it because they are regularly adding new affiliates? I'm just wondering... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWMB

WWMB's been on the list for a while, but the only evidence I can find is that the station article said that their website said so - a likely affiliate, but no announcement. Can anyone prove me wrong before I remove it? — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and removed it. It really needs to stay off, as that proclamation preceded both 1) the announcement of My Network TV and 2) all of the official affiliation announcements, including some WB 100+ affiliates, suggesting the cable-only WB in that market might not be doomed. Morgan Wick 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wpde.com/viewarticle.asp?view=559 <-- the announcement that WWMB will be a CW affiliate. - Davodd 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the "website" reference I was referring to. The station made a unilateral statement - likely on the day of the network announcement - but there's no evidence of an agreement. Thank you, Morgan. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now there is. Morgan Wick 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New affiliation announcement!

I won't add it to the article, but whoever does, could you go from this [4] instead of this [5]? Broadcasting and Cable has been okay thus far, but this time they brush off the 19 digital stations and completely ignore some broadcast stations, including at least one in a top 100 market. We want to be as accurate as possible. Morgan Wick 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then a bit of addition shows that CW coverage is just over 75%. Almost home... Gatorman 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: WQOW in Eau Claire and WAOW in Wausau each have a satellite station: WXOW and WYOW, respectively. The satellites operate on digital channels 14 and 28, respectively. Gatorman 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth - I think the ownership listing should show the group operator, and not the local operating company. For example, I edited WLIO/Lima to indicate that its group ownership is Block Communications - same people who own "WT05" up in Toledo. MPWard 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of this. Morgan Wick 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WLYH

I added WLYH onto the list, however, I can't find a press release or article specifically saying WLYH will become an affiliate of The CW. That having been typed, I remember reading in the Patriot News that they would become an affiliate of The CW. The problem I have is finding that article. If anyone can help in finding it, that would be great. Also, on the WLYH website, they make a broad reference to UPN becoming The CW, which suggests that they are becoming a CW affiliate. --myselfalso 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. No reference to WLYH in any official network announcements I've seen. As noted above and elsewhere, just because a station is dual WB/UPN doesn't automatically mean it'll be CW; it has to reach a new affiliation agreement first. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All official network announcements have appeared in Broadcasting and Cable and TV Week; the former especially is readily available to the public. Any references anywhere else (unless you have a press release from the network itself that will soon be verified by those places anyway) that aren't verified in either of these two places, especially those from January (right after the announcement and well before the announcement of My Network TV) is purely speculation. Very logical speculation, but still speculation. Morgan Wick 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WVIR

In this list, WVIR/Charlottesville VA is listed twice, once as "DT6" in Harrisonburg and once as "DT7" in Charlottesville, both on the same signal. Am I missing something, here? As far as I know, WVIR only has one DT signal, and as far as I know, they don't have 5 other subchannels... MPWard 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site and this site, CW will be on neither DT6 nor DT7, but on DT3. Monty Barker 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KHWB to be KHCW

This threw us all for a loop...no announcement in B&C, yet KHWB did request the KHCW calls, and the station is showing off the calls on its website. [6] Gatorman 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring solely to the call sign change, I wouldn't expect a mention; they didn't mention KBEJ beocming KCWX. If you're referring to affiliation, that's old news. A TVQ says calls are still KHWB. Look for local media coverage. Morgan Wick 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm not seeing mention of the new calls on the web site. Morgan Wick 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one mention, at the top of the web browser: HoustonsWB.com | KHCW-TV | Houston's WB. But yes, I suppose it COULD wait... Gatorman 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The station logo now shows KHCW beneath the WB logo. Nate 06:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And according to the FCC, KHCW is now the official call sign. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New CW station web site

The CW's new web site contains much of the information on this page: [7]. There's probably nothing new, but I thought everyone here might like to know. Morgan Wick 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This web site is causing a number of problems. I have removed two stations from the list; the adders of both cited this web site as their source, but the web site contains neither station's call letters. Biloxi's addition was probably guilty of misreading the web site, but it's possible KNOE was listed at one time. Specifically, there are a number of place-holders for markets where the CW does not yet have an affiliate, listed as "Check Local Listings". The bad news, compared to the site's launch, is that digital stations now look the same as markets with no affiliation at all. The good news is that thewbpass.com has been removed from the website category for stations with no website per se. As a rule of thumb, if you think the CW's web site is stealthily introducing a new affiliate not announced in B&C, TV Week, or elsewhere, check for two things: call letters, and website. If neither are present, wait for an official announcement in one of those two places. I'm changing the commented-out notice to reflect this new threat to anti-crystal-ballery. Morgan Wick 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WFFF

Please do not add this station until there is some mention in Broadcasting and Cable, TV Week, or until the station shows up on the CW web site, linked above. All I have so far is a site reporting a rumor that it's nearly a done deal, and one anon's word that they are "advertising the CW" on WFFF, which is probably being done on all WB affiliates in preparation for the CW. If not from one of the above sources, we need a source that is verifiable and reliable. Morgan Wick 03:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last May, I wrote an e-mail to Bill Sally, who is the Programming VP at Fox44 (WFFF), asking him if they had an agreement with the CW. Here is my question to him: "A few weeks ago, I sent you an e-mail, asking if FOX44 would be offering shows from the CW network and you told me to write again later to have my answer. So I am asking you the same question today and hope that you have been successful with the negociations." And this was his answer: "We got it!!! Right now, the plan is to simply sub it in where we currently run the WB time." I received his answer on May 31. So now, we're in August and I was wondering why this information hasn't been confirmed elsewhere?!? Verotrep 06:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they actually don't have any sort of deal, and they are actually thisclose to a deal, to the extent that they have it and there is no doubt that they will have the affiliation, but not quite there. Wait for confirmation on Monday or Tuesday. The trade magazines may have abandoned keeping track of affiliations, but cwtv.com should be considered largely infallible. I would at least look for coverage in local newspapers, if only to inform the public. Morgan Wick 04:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KUVI and the shame of Wikipedia

I had originally written a long diatribe, but idiotic Internet Explorer had to crash on me. It's too bad, because now I can only express a fraction of my shock and dismay because I can't, don't want to, and won't rewrite it again.

KUVI was recently removed from the List, spurred on by its recent affiliation with My Network TV; the reason given by User:TM56 was "Nothing ever confirmed KUVI affiliated with the CW. The info is wrong." The first lengthy mention of KUVI on Wikipedia affiliating with the CW came from Wikiscripps on the KUVI page on March 31, claiming it had been "announced in late March". CW had announced a long list of affiliations on March 28, covered in B&C and TV Week, but as I noted above, the coverage in B&C was sub-satisfactory and only one truly reliable source was available. A scan of TV Week's coverage does not show KUVI (click here to see for yourself).

Wikiscripps is not completely to blame, although he is the main culprit; he later added this "information" to the main text of both the list and the CW article itself (in the latter, he even specifically cited the March 28 announcement; even after TM56 removed it from the KUVI article, Wikiscripps felt compelled to say "KUVI at first was tentatively awaiting to affiliate with The CW Television Network, but instead..." despite the fact there was STILL no source to back this up AT ALL). I have conflicted with Wikiscripps before for adding speculation, but here the original leak comes from someone else.

On March 29, KUVI was added to the List (diff) by an anon with IP 207.200.116.5 (talk · contribs), an AOL IP with a history of vandalism (its very next edit, the following day, was a nasty page blanking). No more edits occured until about two hours later, by Rollosmokes; he, TM56 himself, and Donmccullen were the next three people to edit, and none caught it. In fact, this went completely under the radar until Wikiscripps took it and ran with it.

It shouldn't have been. I don't know how many people had this page on their watchlist at the time; I already had an account but was saving myself from editing until I turned 18. I know I would never let such an out-of-nowhere edit pass unchallenged today. When something like this appears, we have to hunt around at our usual hangouts to see if we can find proper sources; if we don't, we press the people who added it. If they were IPs, we can easily revert it, and if more IP's (or the same IP) or established users challenge us, we press them for sources. If it can't be verified, then it stays off until it can be.

But this was an addition with NO BACKING AT ALL. It was added BY AN IP. No sources were EVER provided. The Wikipedia community LET IT GO. Not only that, it MADE IT A PROMINENT PART of two articles. In so doing, it spread MISINFORMATION to COUNTLESS numbers of people. We collectively let this stand for TWO AND A HALF MONTHS, until something FORCED THE ISSUE. We took something that may have simply been wrong info and made it into a HOAX.

Wikiscripps is not alone in his shame. Everyone here should be ashamed of themselves and each other, and I especially glare at:

Rollosmokes, TM56, and Donmccullen, as above.
Also Rollosmokes, who made several overall "minor fixes" to the table over time, but never one critical major one.
Azuamanga1 and SonicAD, who edited Wikiscripps' comment on KUVI. They may have looked at the table and figured that was good enough, but that still doesn't make that the right thing.
Tknab, who edited the entry for KUVI to note its status as the only English-language station owned by Univision - but did the entry deserve to be there in the first place?
Gatorman. Either his coverage updates used inaccurate information for a long time or he had a discrepancy with the List he never checked out. Did a dispute with David Levy over coverage numbers that played out on my talk page a while back result from inaccuracies in either participant's list of CW affiliates?
Another anon who copyedited the addition to the main CW page. Stickguy, who took most of the sentence and made it into a single link in a newly condensed, revised sentence, cannot be praised or shamed.
And especially Robert Moore, for adding the CW network category after two other anons added speculation on the issue on the page and after the original addition to the list. Not only did this show a depressing level of sloppyness in verification on Moore's part, it may have paved the way for Wikiscripps to believe KUVI with CW wasn't a mistake or hoax.

On Monday, I will graduate from high school. On or before that day, unless I have reason to decide otherwise, I will remove this page from my watchlist, leave WikiProject Television Stations, remove from my watchlist several stations whose articles I either created or help expand, stop lengthening the tables I have in my userspace, and focus on A) announcements in the markets I have and B) adding more FAQs to User:Morgan Wick/2006 Network Shift, to the extent I work on television articles at all. I will return as the network(s) get(s) closer to launch to help with what could be an exhausting amount of work.

For two and a half months, Wikipedia purveyed incorrect info for no good reason, prominently and throughly. In so doing, it fell down on the job. And I could be leaving what got me editing Wikipedia in the first place as a result. Morgan Wick 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I really don't blame you for these actions. I also find it very suprising how this went overlooked for so long. Your vent just made me relize how corrupt WikiProject Television Stations really is, so I have also removed myself from the project for the moment. All this "speculation" that gets added to many articles annoys me to no end (I already delt with this twice this week on WFXT), and could easily be passed off as truthful information by someone who dosen't read between the lines. —Whomp [T] [C] 02:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now Desmond Hobson tries to claim that KUVI "defected" to My Network TV. Was it ever with the CW? Did he see why KUVI was removed? Morgan Wick 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Gatorman's figures, but mine were based upon this list. My arithmetic certainly was affected by the inaccuracy in question.

I'll note, however, that this was not the subject of a "dispute" that "played out on [your] talk page." You questioned my methodology, so I went to a great deal of trouble to type an explanation (to which I felt you were entitled). You responded by snapping at me for no apparent reason, a behavior in which you evidently engage on a regular basis. (And yes, I'm aware of the reason.)

I'll also note my opinion that you're overreacting to the KUVI incident. Yes, it was unfortunate, but it isn't the end of the world. Frustrating as this is (and believe me, I know), Wikipedia contains many errors. We can only hope to reduce them one-by-one, but there always will be more. You obviously have a great deal to contribute to the project, so I hope that you won't allow this unfortunate truth to break your spirit.

Regardless, it's unreasonable to cast blame on everyone remotely involved. You've compiled a list of users who failed to catch someone else's error during the course of their otherwise beneficial edits. For this, they should be "ashamed"? Meanwhile, you were waiting until your 18th birthday before editing. (Why?) Inactivity precludes the possibility of committing an editing mistake, but it doesn't help the encyclopedia one bit. No one is perfect, and it's entirely unreasonable to hold others to your standards.

I would have posted some of the above on your talk page, but I don't wish to violate any of your rules. —David Levy 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WDAY-DT2 (WBFG) added

I contacted WBFG (a The WB 100+ Station Group cable channel in Fargo, North Dakota) and they said that they are launching a digital subchannel on co-owned WDAY-TV (21-2) in September 2006 and possibly WDAZ-TV (59-2) at a later date to carry The CW network. It will still will be available on cable TV systems with different imaginary call letters (not WBFG).--grejlen - talk 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without an official announcement, that's unverifiable by independent onlookers and original research. Morgan Wick 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate-list style?

For the sake of consistency, I'm wondering whether we should begin implementing a similar style of list to this one (I call this the "DMA" style) for other networks, i.e. List of NBC affiliates, List of CBS affiliates, List of Fox affiliates, List of ABC affiliates. As with CW and MNTV, I can see this type being useful for people looking for info on station/market-size ownership at a glance. I've already started on one version of this at User:Stickguy/New Fox List.

~~The question for me is what to do with the existing versions because most casual viewers probably would search by state, not by DMA. So I can see four options:~~

convert ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox to the DMA style,
~~convert CW and MNTV to the state-city style,~~
~~keep both styles for each in separate articles (but then make sure the two are kept consistent), and~~
~~keep the status quo.~~

Any thoughts? — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's just been proposed here earlier today that the A/N/C/F lists be updated to the DMA style. Great minds think alike and all. :) However, you do have a point about the casual user wanting to look up the lists by City/State. I guess we could provide both types of lists. But let's keep this conversation centrally located, if possible.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portions of original comments withdrawn; see discussion linked above. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that idea, in fact I've been working on a "DMA" style affiliate list for ABC, and plan to do so on other networks. I copied and pasted the list code from the Fox affiliates list and I haven't been finished with it yet, though the top 25 markets are complete. You can add stations to the list (include satellite stations!) at my sandbox. --grejlen - talk 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panic time?

Recent additions to List of My Network TV affiliates with the network's own affiliate list as a source and claims of other impending or even in-effect affiliations have me worried that the trade magazines have simply stopped reporting affiliation announcements... or worse, that CW and MyNet have stopped announcing them.

We should expect any new affiliations to show up on the affiliate lists on the respective networks' websites, but we can't expect them to be kept up to date.

Barring press releases just before network launch with complete affiliate lists, are we in a state where things may be progressing, we don't know about them, and we have no way to know about them? At this point, what are we supposed to do, barring an announcement from either network reported on a trade magazine's web site? Morgan Wick 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WBMM

On a related note to the above, I note there is some discussion whether or not WBMM should be included in the list yet. I put it back, because I think I found more solid evidence, which is its being listed in the client list of Petry Media as being a CW affiliate [8], and for the appearance of this website, though I'd understand if that isn't considered conclusive enough. This is going to get harder as time gets closer... —SterlingNorth 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once it becomes very close, it should get easy again... but truth is, it is getting harder, because the CW is making it harder. See my thinking on Talk:List of MyNetworkTV affiliates. Morgan Wick 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I decided to send an email to the address listed for general info on Equity Broadcasting's website about WBMM's future plans (if any). I'll let you know if I get a response from them. —SterlingNorth 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, does anyone know how to contact anyone at the CW? I've had it up to here with them, especially now that I just noticed the above e-mail regarding WFFF came at the end of May. Morgan Wick 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering the same thing. I looked on their website and didn't find any "Contact Us" page. I even signed up for their newsletter, in case they would be announcing new affiliations that way, but I was supposed to receive a confirmation e-mail and I haven't received anything! And concerning my previous WFFF post, I thought about writing to the Programming VP once again, but I'm kinda shy to do it, because I don't want to appear like I'm doubting what he told me before. The only thing I know is that the CW adds are airing on WFFF during the WB time, but I know it's not really a reliable source. Verotrep 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's VERY odd. In my experience those confirmation e-mails come practically the instant you send in for them. Is it possible it failed your spam filter? Did you spell your e-mail address correctly? Morgan Wick 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think they don't send newsletters anymore, because this option has been changed into a message board (Lounge)! I think it's new from Wednesday (that's when the first post was made I think). And there's an option "Contact Us" at the bottom of the page, and it's to contact the Forum administrator, so I don't know if that's good enough for what you want to ask... Verotrep 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm officially asking you to write WFFF back, asking if they know why it hasn't been announced, since I'm starting to despair of any chance to contact the CW. You might want to quote the earlier e-mail in case you get someone else. Morgan Wick 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail sent. I'll post the answer here the moment I get it (probably tomorrow). Verotrep 16:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've already received the answer! And it's good news! I guess it could not be more official than that for WFFF. Here's the e-mail I sent and the answer I got:

Hello,

Last may, I wrote an e-mail asking if the new CW network would become an affiliate of your station, and the answer I received was that yes, Fox44 would be offering the CW programming. I have been looking out for official announcements of this, but I haven't seen anything, not even on the CW website. Now that we are less than a month away from the launch of the new network, I was wondering if the affiliation is really confirmed and if it is, why it hasn't been announced by other sources.

Thank you very much!

Yes......of course, it's official. We've been promoting the CW for the last several weeks. No need to worry......we will have the entire CW line-up for you this fall beginning the week of September 18th.

Respectfully,

Bill Sally, vp/gm

I asked why it hasn't been announced elsewhere, but he didn't answer, so maybe he just doesn't know and that's really the CW's fault that is hasn't been posted on their website. Is this answer official enough to add WFFF to the list of CW affiliates? Verotrep 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GrrRRR! "Good news" would be an answer to my question. Now I don't know WHAT to do. AAH! I'll think about trying the CW Lounge. In fact, I'll probably do that on Monday. Morgan Wick 22:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are new developments. See Talk:The CW Television Network#WBQT a CW station?. Morgan Wick 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there's a Contact Us link on the CW website, so I guess that would be the easier way to contact them if you're still looking for the full list of affiliates... Verotrep 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cynthia Turner who does a media trade publication has posted an Excel spreadsheet of affiliates for MyNetworkTV and The CW. She says the info comes from MyNetworkTV people. SterlingNorth 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, that list may not be completely up to date... I know it is missing some call letter changes SterlingNorth 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Minute Pickups?

With two weeks left until the launch of The CW, it'll be curious to see if they'll get some last-second clearances or do something to get on in the markets they're not on in. The lack of anything viable in Hawaii or Northwest Arkansas has to hurt given that unless they get someone to put them on a subchannel, they're losing audience right off the bat. Even with WPIX's cable coverage in the market, the WFFF-TV rumor (if right) is not a good move for all involved.

The WFFF "rumor" is right. It has been confirmed to me twice by the programming VP of the station. Verotrep 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is an awful, awful move on The CW's part. I know with WWBI and WGMU off the board they had no real option, but if The CW can get cleared in pattern in North Platte why would they settle for a delayed clearance in Burlington/Plattsburgh? Is the possibility that Anglophone Quebec may watch THAT much of a reason to not get a subchannel affiliate, especially when WFFF has wanted to launch a 10:00 p.m. newscast? Bad, bad move. Scrabbleship 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for me and for several others I know (and others I don't know), it is a really good move, because I live in Quebec and I'm not even anglophone, but I do watch several American shows. And the WFFF becoming a CW affiliate was the only way that I would be able to watch my favorite shows. So, maybe it's not a perfect move and I understand your point, but for people like me, it's a great move! Verotrep 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the concept of Hearst-Argyle and The CW entering an 11th Hour deal to launch subchannels on KHBS-DT/KHOG-DT, KITV-DT, and WPTZ-DT/WNNE-DT seems to be something that would be perfect for all involved. If it doesn't, those are three gaping holes in their lineup (McAllen and Johnstown notwithstanding though the former's demographics and the latter's lack of resources and cable access to CW affiliates may leave them out). Scrabbleship 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original post to the CW Lounge is languishing on page 60 with 0 replies, and only 10 views, but another thread started by angry Hawaiians yielded this:

oh i am way ahead of you i have been in e-mail contact with oceanic cable and i have some inside info on friday they will be getting a call from the CW and they promised to let me know about any developments

The thread is here. Let's hope we all "get a call" on Friday... Morgan Wick 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the number of affiliates

In the second paragraph, there is a note on how many affilates carry the network. I have taken the liberty of checking the edit history, and I can say that more have been added. I don't have the time, so someone should count how many there are now, and the percentage of households in the US the network is seen in. ErikNY 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new wikipage with ALL Major US Networks

How can I get my my wikipage, User:Mnw2000/TVAffliates, implemented as a formal wikipage? user:mnw2000 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsenless affiliates table

(See discussion here.) I've begun updating the table in List of CW affiliates to be based on metropolitan statistical areas, rather than Nielsen Media Research designated market areas. For now, I'm listing the city in which the affiliate is primarily headquartered in. I still have a ways to go, filling in the metro area population ranking numbers, and eventually linking to the new media market articles as they are rebuilt. I've created a StarOffice spreadsheet, which has the basic wiki table markup; I'm working from that. When I want to try out the code, I just save as csv with the save filter set to no field and no text delimiter. Unless somebody else wants to beat me to it (please, I'm begging you), I'll finish with The CW and then go on to ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC... user:j (aka justen) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about listing them alphabetically by state? I think our broadcast-geekdom is blinding us somewhat to the reality here, which is that anybody who isn't a media junkie doesn't know their local Nielsen market's ranking from a hole in the head. To anybody who isn't actually afflicted with our particular brand of geekdom, listing them strictly alphabetically by state is the only genuinely helpful way to organize such a list. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree; one of the great things about using the sortable table, though, is that if somebody wants it listed by city, by metropolitan area size, or by what the affiliate's network was before the merger, they will now be able to do that (or at least they'll be able to once the table is complete). The default sort could be anything we want it to be; if nobody objects, I can change it to sort by states when I finish putting in the metro area rankings later tonight. user:j (aka justen) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I like the new table and find it useful, I believe the "Area" ranking should be based on the Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas (CSA) and not the (MAS) due to the fact that the CSA is closer to Nielsen's DMA which is what television stations have always used. Since we can't use the DMA rankings, supposedly due to property rights, then we should use the closest thing to it which is a better match for each station's actual broadcast primary reach. Nielsen's DMA is more closely based on the CSA and not the MAS. I recommend switching the list to CSA which is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areas / [Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas] None of us really wanted to eliminate the DMA list from this or any other network affiliate list, but we can at least use the most similar list available which is the CSA. Geekified 13:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the List of CW affiliates is the only list of any broadcast network that isn't using the DMA rankings. Is it just that none of the other lists (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS) have been switched away from the DMA listings? If anyone begins to switch those, I again recommend the CSA rankings instead of the MSA because the MSA tends to leave out huge areas that these broadcast stations reach into with their primary signals. It is important to use a list as close as possible to the DMA list and that would be the CSA list [Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas]. Geekified 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a discussion on wp:an/i in which there seemed to be consensus that Nielsen data be replaced proactively from articles, even those that weren't covered by their takendown notice. I guess I'm the only one who began doing that, and I started with this article because it was the first one nominated for deletion. I haven't had a chance to finish the table yet, but I will switch to using CSA instead of MSA rankings, thank you both for the recommendation. user:j (aka justen) 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started to add the remaining Nielsen rankings in what was the "Area" column but instead decided to erase that column altogether. Part of the reason was the copyright concerns with Nielsen; however, not all of the stations had a market ranking assigned to it, and those that had a ranking appeared to have out-of-date information (Philadelphia, for example, had "8" for their "area" but they are actually the 4th ranked market by Nielsen). Darrel M 17:40 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Those were not the Nielsen rankings, but the CSA rankings which is public domain information. But, I think it is better to leave out rankings all together, as you have done, because it is always changing and way too hard for anyone to consistently keep up with unless they can study all population studies in every Combined Statistical Area. Best to leave as is, or allow sorting by city alphabetically. Geekified 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The CW Television Network affiliates (table) → List of The CW affiliates (table) – The name "The CW Television Network" was shortened to "The CW". AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Do you have proof? If you don't, they stay where they are. Nate • (chatter) 02:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, @Mrschimpf: the original proposal referred to the article The CW, not the network's official name. ONR (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs)
Support per WP:CONCISE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.