Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/markets

This is a workshop to help design an standardised templates for the television markets/regional area, groupings of television stations in North America. The surrent defcato standard is being used at {{Pittsburgh TV}} (their are several versions of this format, though they all for the most part share a common stlye), an "alternative" version can be seen at {{Toronto TV}}. Please leave you ideas or your version below.

I prefer to just stick with the defacto template. It's straightforward, it's clean, it blends into the article nicely. As for the alternate version... First, I just don't find the need to separate the VHF and UHF stations, in this day and age where just about every TV set can tune to UHF (and a lot of people either have cable or satellite anyway). I also don't think we need a separate row for the stations' digital channels; that information can be found on the individual stations' articles, and digital signals received by a tuner should (in theory) be remapped as per PSIP anyway. Sure, there are some digital-only stations out there right now (and I'm not talking about a substream on a parent station's signal), but there are so few of them that I don't think it's worth it to change all the media market templates just to fit those exceptions. - Hinto 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the very simple and clean {{Pittsburgh TV}} version. I hate any of the TV templates that are the blue + yellow color combo. My strong preference is NO color, but if there is any color at all, leave it as only a light blue for the header row. Another colorful TV template, for which was reverted back to a more colorful version, is Template:Superstations, although, at least, it is no longer as huge as it once was (compare original large version A with the de-colorized version B and the more current small colored version C). ^Blank ^Verse 12:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go for either the current Toronto TV, Superstations, or the Broadcast Television templates. My favourite is Superstations. The current one IS clean and simple, but it leaves much to be desired. the others are just as clean and organized, but look cool, and don't distract or confuse, as User:Boothy433 thinks. His opinions are right and justified, but I'm afraid i just don't see how one could be confused by a template that organizes channels based on frequency (VHF and UHF), and by Digital and Analogue transmissions. Raccoon Fox 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go with the {{Pittsburgh TV}}. I'm not a big fan of the colorful ones. (I believe) the template should be as simple and as non-busy as possible. --CFIF 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The format used at Toronto TV would probably work if we were including local cable channels (which is included with the New York TV market template). However, I wouldn't list the digital channels. Not only are digital channels quickly mapped by digital receivers to the corresponding analog channel numbers, but I recall that the FCC mandated that all analog channels have to be shut down by a particular year or when a set percentage (85% ?) of the U.S. population can receive a digital signal. Pentawing 07:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the {{Tampa Bay TV}} has the local cable TV channels, yet has the format of the Pittsburgh TV template. --CFIF 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worrie about the cable channels, the way it is set in the TB template is ok. I just used the PGH one as an example. As for an alternative to the expanded version with the cable chans, i have been fooling around with one, the NYC version here, i perfer the top one over the bottom one. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer top to bottom. As for cable, they should be true regional cable networks and NOT the Public-access television stations that are generally city and/or system specific. Somebody had added several of those to the LA TV template. ^Blank ^Verse 14:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should include standards of inclusion for the templates. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

I've gone through several templates ({{Jonesboro TV}}, {{Memphis TV}}, {{Jackson TN TV}} as examples) where people are listing stations that don't originate in those markets, yet are seen there. (For example, Jonesboro viewers can watch Memphis channels, but those stations aren't part of the DMA.) I would presume that is the right thing to do, but I would like a second opinion. Amnewsboy 09:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates are supposed to have links to adjoining markets' templates when stations from those markets are commonly viewed in the market covered by the template. Only a handful do though. See Template:Dayton TV for an example. Morgan Wick 08:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best solution -- right now, there are several templates out there that have EVERY conceivable station listed for a given DMA, even when only one or two actually originate from there. I feel a lot better fixing them up with that. Amnewsboy 11:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in the small markets, when there is no affiliate station for that DMA, the affiliate(s) should be listed there. But I don't see why WLOX-TV is in {{New Orleans TV}} and {{PensacolaMobileTV}}. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but they should make clear that those stations are out-of-market. Template:Marquette TV is probably a good example. Morgan Wick 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I agree with listing out-of-town affiliates in a small market, just because the larger city doesn't treat the smaller city as its main viewing audience. I also don't think Nielsen treats them as being officially part of the DMA (although I could be wrong), and I think it could get really complicated if we start doing that. I'm more for the "See Also" approach instead. (Thanks, BTW, for cleaning up NOLA and Pensacola). Amnewsboy 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about {{Gainesville TV}} and such that do not have local affiliates for certain networks and include ones that can be seen OTA there. It does not include ALL Orlando and Jacksonville stations, just the needed ones. The See Also thing is too tacky, IMO and clutters everything. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like that, though, you get into issues like Jonesboro, St. Joseph, etc. where the DMA is so big that you have two (or maybe even three) out-of-town affiliates viewable OTA for one network, depending on where you are in the DMA. Putting all that into one info-box is going to be confusing. Also -- for individual station pages -- it's very cluttering to see 3 different DMA infoboxes listed for one particular station. There's gotta be a happy medium here somewhere. Amnewsboy 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't need to list every station that's viewable in some location in a market. Just the ones that are primarily viewed, because some affiliation is absent from the market otherwise. We can do that and have the links to adjoining market templates, where people can see stations that maybe, maybe aren't viewable OTA in that market. Morgan Wick 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand -- but the problem with larger DMAs (with small populations) is that you have multiple options for that. For example, the Jonesboro market is primarily served by an ABC affiliate -- but a viewer who wanted to watch NBC could either watch NBC from Little Rock or NBC from Memphis... same with CBS.. and same with Fox. Neither one is really a "primary" out-of-market affiliate for the city. Amnewsboy 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CW/My

When the switch occurs, should the WB template move to CW or the UPN template to CW? -TrackerTV 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A completely new template (or two, if you consider My a "network") should be created and the existing ones nominated at TfD. If we have to "move" one or the other, I would move the WB one, as my tracking suggested most CW stations are coming from former WB stations. Morgan Wick 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsen DMA Rankings

I noticed on the Template:Seattle TV template, it lists the Seattle/Tacoma DMA as number 14. Yet upon clicking the link, I see that we've upgraded a spot to number 13. Though my first instinct is WP:BOLD, I thought you kind folks at the Television Stations WikiProject might want to do the honors, since it is your project, (and because we're probably not the only market to shift places, I mean there HAS to be at least ONE other market to have shifted, right?) --Roninbk 12:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. The linked page is outdated on the AC Nielsen site; Seattle/Tacoma dropped from #13 to #14 in the 2006-2007 rankings, while Phoenix moved up from #14 to #13. Instead of publishing the new rankings on a web page, as they did with 2005-2006, Nielsen chose to provide the new rankings in spreadsheet form that you need to download, so the old rankings remain on the web page. I'm looking for a decent site that published the new Nielsen rankings on a web page, but haven't found one yet. dhett 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Standards

Since many templates have been upgraded lately (Re: Template:Toronto TV), i've noticed that the {{clear}} line in them fixes one problem, but creates another. <nowiki>{{clear}} keeps the templates from interfering with other templates, such as [[Template:Infobox broadcast]], however, it creates a gap above to the tune of one line in between television market templates, in the event there are two in a row, such as [[Template:London TV]] and [[Template:Kitchener TV]] on the article [[CKCO-TV]]. Is one gap in between templates any issue, becuase, i have also found a solution. The <nowiki>{{clear}} coding line would be removed from all templates, and simply placed on the television station's article, directly *above* the templates, such as: <br> <nowiki> {{clear}} <nowiki>{{London TV}}
{{Kitchener TV}}
(bullets/asterisks inserted to keep coding structure simple)

However, if a small gap between templates is reasonable, then there is no issue. I'm only bringing this up, because i saw how close the templates are, at the bottom of KING-TV's article, and proposed a solution.

Now, this will be a great deal of work, but it's mostly time-consuming. Remove it from one template, apply to all applicable television stations, and then move on until it is completed. I offer to do this. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]