Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Separate articles for digital subchannels?

I didn't think we were doing this, but I found one for KBJR-DT2 that was created in October 2007. I'd like to see an explicit consensus on this. For my part, I oppose separate articles for digital subchannels; they should be part of the article for the primary station, especially considering the likelihood that there will be very few, if any, reliable sources for subchannels. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to be in the FCC database so I'd say merge into the main article. It remains to be seen what the stations will do with the extra channels in the long run. Maybe at some point separate articles might make sense, but today I don't see that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They are in the FCC database in a round-about way, by being an child of the licensed station. The FCC doesn't regulate what programming is on ANY station (they don't care when a radio station changed from country to talk radio, and they don't care when a TV station drops Everybody Loves Raymond) they regulate the content that a station programs. I'm for the additional stations having their own seperate articles ONLY IF they're affiliated with one of the major networks, The CW, My Network TV etc, but not the numerous NBC Weather Plus stations and the PBS subchannels, because those are all rebroadcasts of networks that already have articles (PBS Kids, Create! and so on). Mr mark taylor (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that these are not separate stations; they are merely separate feeds on the same station. I don't see a reason for a separate article for KECY-TV's 9.2 subchannel, which airs ABC programming, or KSWT's 13.2 subchannel, which airs The CW. In each case, only the programming is different; the station location, transmitter location, major channel number, staff, and station history are identical. I can see your point, however, if a station with different staff and history and with original content signs on as a subchannel of another. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WNYF-LP and WWNY-DT2 are one and the same; a Fox TV affiliate. If it deserves an article as an underpowered analogue -LP, it deserves one as a full-power -DT2 (but not two articles, if one is a repeater of the other). So .2's are notable if they carry unique content, but if they are repeaters then their notability is no more (or less) than that of repeaters on their own individual channels. --72.140.46.227 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

KARE-TV and WCCO-TV ratings dispute

A dispute about ratings information and sources in the KARE-TV and WCCO-TV‎ articles began last month on Talk:KARE#KARE and WCCO ratings (it came to my attention because it was posted on WP:3O) which has apparently involved edit warring and even 3RR violations by two editors.

I am not confident that any of the WP:3O volunteers will be able to handle it, so I also appeal to the topic-specific expertise here on this project: could some of you look in on the recent Talk:KARE‎#Reverted discussion with an eye for what might resolve it? Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Followup: Many thanks to Dhett for stepping in there! — Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of SVG instead of PNG

It seems that several templates related to this project make use of Image:Television.png as an Icon. My I recommend instead the use Image:Blank television set.svg which is a vector graphic.

Also, have a look at how that SVG tv icon and flags or text can be combined, e.g.:  ;  ;  ; .

--Inkwina ([[:talk · contribs) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cable slot charts

Recently, editor RingtailedFox has inserted a table of cable channel positions in articles for television stations in Detroit and Toronto (see CIII-TV and WXYZ-TV for examples). Are these allowed by Wikipedia standards? I recall someone dinging another editor earlier for adding cable slots to articles. -- azumanga (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea if you list major systems in the market... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When does the information become non encyclopedic? Adding that information makes the entry appear more of a TV guide. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if the station specifically mentions it in it's marketing (KBCW and WFLD both on cable 12 in their respective markets), it's fine, or if it's placed within the text of the article and has a pretty set channel market-wide. But a grid (or a station with more than six channel assignments in a market) takes it into Not a TV Guide territory in my eyes. Nate • (chatter) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I could see it on some stations, mostly the UHF stations because some channel positions depend on the system or the station does not use channel number in it's positioning at all (i.e. "Fox Anytown, USA") but most Channel 2's are on cable channel 2, most Channel 3's are on cable channel 3, etc. so there's no need for a channel chart for a station unless it's on a different channel on every system. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That logic does not always work, especially areas where they are close to the transmitter; because of interference issues, a station would be on a different channel. For example: in Northern Pinellas, WTSP ch.10 is on Bright House cable 12, and in west Pasco, it's on cable 9. Also, UHF stations most often than not take a lower cable channel position, often in the 2-13 range. For example: Bright House carries WTOG ch.44 on cable 4. -- azumanga (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To list *one* cable channel assignment might be justifiable in rare cases where that number appears in the station's branding or advertising (CJOH-TV used "cable 7" [its Ottawa assignment] instead of its real channel numbers [6, 8, 13] during the 1980's, CIII-TV chose its callsign to match its cable position on various systems - not one of its real OTA channel assignments, WSTQ-LP used its Syracuse cable assignment in its "CW 6" branding instead of its real number - 14 UHF). Unless the station is using it as part of its on-air identity, I don't see its importance; there are too many CATV systems with too many arbitrary channel assignments for them to be notable. --carlb (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BenH, again

76.7.107.66 ... back to Embarq this time. Blueboy96 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way--already splatted. Blueboy96 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National Educational Television as former affiliation

Just wondering, I know we had a problem with some IP's adding NET as a former affiliate to PBS stations; it is OK to remove this, right? I don't remember what we came to about this. I find it annoyingly redundant, and some of the stations I've seen it added to probably didn't carry NET shows back then because they were meant as local educational stations. Nate • (chatter) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What we really need is a reliable source which lists NET affiliates from back in the day. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to assume that the older non-commercial educational stations and intrastate networks -- WNET, WGBH-TV, WQED, KUHT, KQED, UNC-TV, etc. -- were certainly part of NET. It's the smaller ones, and obviously those stations that signed-on after 1970, that could create uncertainty. I'll try to find a list of some sort. And welcome back Firsfron, nice to hear from you again. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I found one source here ([1]). Rollosmokes (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a huge page. I don't even know where to start. Are the individual pages available? BTW, thanks for the welcome back. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried searching for another source/other sources, but this was the only one I could find. It may or may not be all that helpful, but it's a start. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "signed on after 1970" category isn't even a straight-forward case. For instance, WPBS-TV signed on 1971 as WNPE-TV 16 but as a spinoff of WWNY-TV 7 Carthage-Watertown. Its "St. Lawrence ETV" programming ran on 7 (a CBS station in a one-station town, with secondary affiliations to everything, including NET and DuMont) before then. The articles currently list NET as having been on the commercial station, not on WPBS-TV itself, although it was WPBS' parent organisation that put NET there. --carlb (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WVVA

Rollosmokes and I (mainly Rollosmokes) have been trying to keep Bandit5257 in check -- this user keeps insisting on including past personalities in the article for WVVA, even though the personalities were not notable/ The big question is -- are they notable, whether they made it big or not? -- azumanga (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From a few articles I've seen (WBZ-TV, WHDH, WABI-TV etc.) if they can be tracked down to their whereabouts now or the years they worked there then I think they should be listed, but if we're talking about a weekend reporter/interns that never worked at any station again, then they shouldn't be listed. Mr mark taylor (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Rollosmokes on this one ... unless someone has a really long tenure at a small-market station or made it really big somewhere else, it doesn't belong in articles on small-market stations. Blueboy96 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jamesinc14...

...has been on a rampage the last couple of days. Through an IP sock, he keeps insisting that Noggin is now "Fox Noggin Channel". And each of my reverts have been met with a revert back to the vandalised version. Keep a sharp eye on him. -- azumanga (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropping the "-TV" suffix

There are several instances where a station dropping the "-TV" suffix from its calls, but making no substantive changes to the callsign, is noted as a call letter change. Somehow, I think that's way, way too trivial. Thoughts. Blueboy96 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blame New World Man for that -- as he's been overupdating the infoboxes he has done that a few times. I've fixed a few of those such articles, like WJW and WNBC. For the record, dropping the suffix is simply a modification, not a whole call sign change; NWM didn't see it that way. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just him. I've done it, too, but if the consensus is that it's way too trivial, I can live with that. The FCC listed them separately, so I did, too.

Rollo, please stop beating up on the other project members and contributors. Just because you have a deep disagreement with someone doesn't make them evil. Please. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not beating up on anyone. I'm only expressing my opinion. Apologies if it comes off as a tad strong, but that is how I feel. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat2007, again

now Word58. -- azumanga (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And Word56. Only now, he attempts to cover his tracks by editing in conjunction with an anonymous IP address. See KVIJ history. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

COL on the topic of "markets" at List of Gannett Company assets

I have quite a bit of information in the broadcasting field but am new to Wikpedia so please excuse me if I do not do everything right on here. I will post my opinion as seen on the talk page of

Main article: List of Gannett Company assets

There is a dispute on this page where it says market for Gannett owned stations. Market means what area the station is in and serves and has NOTHING to do with COL or (City of License). Although there are markets where 1,2,3 cities are noted such as Dallas-Fort Worth the COL of a particular station is NOT its market. For instance WLVI-TV is in the "Boston" TV market. But its COL is Cambridge and is listed so on the WLVI page. Its not called the "Cambridge-Boston" market but just the "Boston" market. The issue here is rather COL should be included in the market list. Keep in mind its MARKET we are talking about and not COL. By including COL it can confuse as to say that the particular COL is part of market ID when it is not. That provides inaccurate information. You can see the markets by theirofficial names on the link below. The next 2 also show on how stations are shown when "market" is asked for. Just to be clear on this I am not talking about each article for each station I agree COL should be displayed. However when articles of market relay to showing ownership and affiliates we should be doing it like they do in the broadcast industry--showing the market. And I for one have never heard of the "shaker heights-cleveland-akron market". Or the "Cambridge-Boston" market. Thank you.

List of MyNetworkTV affiliates -- you will notice WPWR-TV has a COL of Gary IN and WWOR-TV has a COL of Secaucus, New Jersey but as the issue is "market" its Chicago market and New York market. Oak999 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of ABC television affiliates (table) --ABC Tv station WJXX #49 has a COL of Orange Park but again in this article the issue is market not COL so the COL is left off on this list and the market is Jacksonville FL.

List of CBS television affiliates (table) ---CBS station WOIO-TV has a COL of Shaker Heights but is in the Cleveland - Akron #17 market. Since market is the topic COL is left off.

Raycom Media ---You will also notice on ownership it lists which market the station is in.

To conclude I do not feel COL is relevant and is confusing when talking about "market". If we put COL along with market in the page of affiliates and ownership it is not as accurate as it should be. Nielsen Ratings makes clear what "markets" are. Oak999 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "Talk:List of Gannett Company assets"

As Dhett (at KPNX) and myself (with the Gannett lists) have told you, it was by a consensus: City of license first, market's main city/cities second. The network lists are arranged by market name, but lists of commonly-owned stations have the COL placed before the market name.

The COL is VERY RELEVANT because that is how stations identify themselves, as they are required to by the FCC. You may not feel that way, but the majority of us here don't share your opinion. So please work with the consensus. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes- That issue is done. That is NOT what I am talking about. If you click the links I provided you will see what I mean. What is being asked for is "market" not COL. I understand you want COL below on station pages--fine. I too never disagreed with that. COL does not mean that much anymore its not my opinion its the info given to me by many engineers that work for stations. COL just means a station has to cover that city with a city grade signal and give a ID included at the top of the hour. But you all made your call on that and I respect that--fine. I urge you to click on the links to see what I am talking about. In the context Gannett Company it lists what "market" they are in. Why are we confusing and including COL? The New York City Market is NOT the Secaucus, New Jersey- New York Market. Thats not how it is. GIVEN--WWOR-TV has to ID itself at the top of the hour as WWOR-TV Secaucus-New York. But it is not the Secaucus-New York market its JUST the New York market. In the article about Fox O&O it lists the stations owned by Fox in the Market. So if its asking for market why are we giving the COL on the list of Fox O&Os? Oak999 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I do not see COL on WWOR-TV here or WPWR-TV Gary List of Fox television affiliates (table)

I do not see COL for WOIO-TV Clevland here (Raycom Media)

If we want to put COL on these--FINE. But then I would recommend on the top of the bar we put COL/market. Because when you put Gary-Chicago for WPWR-TV in the Fox O&O its wrong. Its not the Gary-Chicago Market its just the Chicago market.

If you're going to list EVERY DAMN ARTICLE that you have an issue with, all you're doing is wasting your time. As I said before: work with the consensus, not against it. If you don't wish to do so, then perhaps you shouldn't edit television station-related articles here. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am new to this site but you may want to read the sites " code of conduct" it seems you are WELL out of bounds. The articles I listed where examples. I have seen no one comment on this but you so that does not make a consenses. Oak999 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You will probably find hundreds of examples to back up your assertion, bur you're forgetting one key point: we have only arrived at this consensus recently, so there are going to be many, many non-compliant articles. Slowly, over time, we hope to change them to reflect the consensus (which, as I told you before, wasn't my choice). I hope you'll be a part of the effort. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the whole...

Oak999 is just another editor who wants to be difficult. Changes I made to the top of KPNX were unnecessarily changed by him/her and a random IP over the last 24 hours. Though I reverted back, Oak999 has gone over and flipped twice. This is the same thing he/she has done with the Gannett article; he/she isn't interested in consensus or compromise. Someone needs to set this new jack straight. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He just did it again with the MNT affil list, changing the entries to put Secaucus and Gary first within New York and Chicago, which I reverted. He quickly re-reverted me. I'm not going to fight with him about this; the style was unchanged since the article first went up, and it's set in stone that Nielsen market city is first, always. Nate • (chatter) 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution to all of this

Just create a separate field for "city of license" before the market name. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NWM/Infoboxes

Once again he reverted back to his "correct version" of his infoboxes on the Eastern Wisconsin TV articles (filled with fields that will never be filled) without any comment or regard to what I told him at all about how his edits were unneeded. If this happens again I will ask for admin action. I feel frustrated that he would add this cruft without any regard to any editor here at all and what they've told him is the correct way to collaborate. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also making my skin crawl is NWM's insistence to add "Inc." to the broadcaster's name in the infobox, even though it really doesn't needed. And not just that, but the way he adds it (see the code and you'll know what I mean). Apparently, he doesn't take the acronym "KISS" to heart. -- azumanga (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That did it for me--it's RFC time. I've already started one, but would appreciate if you guys could help find more diffs ... I have to go to work tonight and don't have time to do much diff digging. Blueboy96 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would like to add -- if we are against adding so much minutae to the infoboxes, why are the fields there? Personally, I would remove the unimportant fields so that there would be no place for them. -- azumanga (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm already working on that -- removing some of the extraenous blank fields and anything else added unnecessarily that is taking up space in the infoboxes. I'm also removing the BIA links, which I don't think really add anything. I've started with the stations in my main NYC area of interest, and will move on from there later. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While you're in there, could you add a Virtual Channel heading? We should publish the virtual channel for DTV stations who do not ID by their actual RF channel, as well as the actual RF channel (for purposes of informing readers of whether they need a UHF or VHF antenna for over-the-air reception.) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding mini-tables for DTV in several articles, just showing subchannels and brief info on where the station(s) will be broadcasting after 2-17-09 (including references to pertinent FCC documents). I'll see about that request, but I'm still pretty much a DTV novice myself. Rollosmokes (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - don't worry about it then. It isn't needed right away, so I can get it later. Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried editing down some of his "improved" infoboxes by removing the coordinates, but he just reverted my edits. At least he's finally leaving Independent linked and not rev'ing that as well. Though I think he's still unlinking and uncapitalizing Independent in new infoboxes he comes across. Kimmykun (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BIA links and "founded"/"airdate" fields

I put the BIA links in the TV station articles because they contain studio and mailing addresses and telephone numbers. Why would these be unimportant?

Also, dhett created the "airdate" field after an argument that he had with me on "founded" dates. As a result, I think the "founded" field has become obsolete.

New World Man (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the BIA links -- so does the stations' websites. And if they have none, I'm pretty sure the FCC has them. -- azumanga (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with you about deleting the founded dates, and still do. It was my understanding that we would use both, but decided it wasn't worth making an issue over. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The FCC does not keep records of studio or mailing addresses for stations. The address listed for each station is that of the license holding company, which is often not in the area the specific station serves. That's one reason I added the BIA links. New World Man (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the BIA/fn link, and if this is correct, it's value-added without being a directory. I have more of a problem with articles that list the station's address and phone #. That info doesn't belong in the article, but I think a link to a site where that info can be found is appropriate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin Public Television

Resolved

 – Conflicts have been resolved, and network/ECB articles more accurately reflect the network structure. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunprairie has been involved in a editing conflict with me for the last two months over Wisconsin Public Television, where they keep removing information about affiliate stations in Milwaukee and Duluth which air instructional and network-produced programming from the network, which takes up to nine hours a day on their daily schedules during late night and school time.

I feel it is important to reflect this in the article and have tried to accomodate their concerns with several compromise edits to break them out and make it clear they just air the stuff and they aren't owned by them. However their will not allow the content to appear in any way shape or form, and the brusk style of their edit summaries, their edit history of only editing this article and the lack of communication suggests he may work for the network in some form, feeling as if the affiliate stations are inferior to the network. I have attempted to remind them of the conflict of interest guidelines, but have been unable to recieve any kind of response from him beyond complete reversions of my edits. So I'm taking it here to see what the appropriate next step is. I gave him a level three warning with an explanation after their last blanking this afternoon, and I'm unsure of the next course of action beyond giving up and letting them have their way. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if they are affiliated with WPT, they should be included in the article. In my opinion, I would stay the course. -- azumanga (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And they are, as the stations carry the 'Instructional programming is provided by the Wisconsin Educational Communications Board' disclaimer (WPT's parent) during the instructional programming blocks, along with how their schedules are filled with the programming (up to a 1/4 of their broadcast day) and they cooperate with the other stations because they have to cover the entire state with their shows. They responded to my concerns through my talk page just after I posted this by saying that by 'my standards' (paraphrase), it should be inserted that WPT is an affiliate of WGBH and WETA because they carry Arthur and the NewsHour. I have broken the information out and added as many disclaimers as I can, but he continues to revert wholesale and claim I'm bolstering the stations for the sake of the network. I don't want to hit 3RR with them so I'm asking for a second opinion. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Following this is my response on Mrschimpf's talk page. The entry is about Wisconsin Public Television, a distinct network of stations that cover all of Wisconsin with the exception of Milwaukee, which is covered by a distinct public television outlet -- MPTV. That said, in this editing struggle, I have stated that explaining that these other stations carry some WPT programming and vice versa is fine and the current edit includes that. But, to include detailed informtion about these stations in the WPT entry -- both in the top info box and in a chart that mirrors the actual WPT stations is a tactic that only leads to confusion. This content should appear on MPTV's and WDSE's entries -- not WPT's. And, as a further point, the information Mrschimpf cites about instructional programming is untrue. Only WPT's content is bound by ECB to include certain instructional programming during the day. The other stations, MPTV and WDSE, have no ECB affiliation and are therefore not bound to and don't carry the same shows.

Original Talk note to Mrschimpf: I have read and understand the rules. I am unaffiliated with the organization, nor do I hold any beefs with those stations. I am merely trying to improve the article to reflect the truth of the entry. The paragraph on the article about those stations carrying some programming is enough to display their "affiliation" with WPT.

That said, WPT is a self-contained network within the PBS system and to muddy it up with outside stations is a disservice to the truth. If we are to include MPTV and WDSE as affiliates for WPT simply because they play a couple of WPT's programs, then we should also include WPT as an affiliate of WGBH Boston and WETA Washington simply because WPT plays some of their programs. That would be absurd and more importantly untrue -- just like including detailed information on MPTV and WDSE as affiliates of WPT is. And, I see the threat of blocking me from editing this article on the basis of this being an "impartial" encyclopedia as a ridiculous threat that only works to protect your apparent bolstering of these two stations. Why should your assertions of their affiliation be any more valid than my assertions of them not being affiliates, especially when I back this up with fact?-- sunprairie

Maybe put a 'graph in there that say WMVT and WDSE also carry some WPT programming? After all, if it can be verified ... Blueboy96 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that the station grid can be removed, as it is superflouous and can easily be replaced by prosed. But it should be noted that both stations carry the entire instructional programming schedule and a check of schedules for both WMVT and WDSE can confirm this. I will rewrite the paragraph slightly to reflect this, but I do ask that the link to the network's blog be removed as it provides nothing but promotional information. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest keeping the prose, but not the chart. I also favor the paragraph about the affiliated stations being at the end of the article, as they are actually outside of WPT. The reference to the blog should also go; it is redundant, as the first link from the WPT website is to the blog. I generally disfavor links to blogs are as they are not reliable sources, and since the WPT website already provides a link, those interested can access it from the website. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have rewritten that heading and paragraph one last time to insert links to the stations and further information gleaned through the station's TV listings, and if someone could read it over and make sure it's neutral I would be grateful. Hopefully SP's concerns have been addressed through this edit. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also to note, the above information about the "entire instructional programming schedule" is incorrect. Just looking at the WDSE, WPT and WMVT online schedule for today, 4/17/08 shows that:

WPT at 9:15 -- "Know it All" WDSE at 9 a.m. -- "Assignment the World" WMVT at 9 a.m. -- ITV from ECB.

If anything it should be noted that those stations get some instructional programming from ECB, not WPT. And that the schedules aren't identical -- especially WDSE which is a Minnesota station and therefore is no more affiliated to ECB (a Wisconsin governmental institution) than any of the other stations in the country that use ECB-produced programming like "Into the Book" and "Democracy It Is." If anything, to avoid confusion, the instructional ties between WDSE and WPT and/or ECB are no more than between ECB and Iowa, Nebraska or even Utah public television. sunprairie —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WMVT's schedule is identical to ECB's, they just don't break out the programming within their listings or that of other listings providers for some reason (likely simplicity). As a viewer of WMVT I can confirm that the programming airing between them and WPNE (the WPT station I recieve) is identical. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the real issue here. It's not a WPT thing. It's an ECB thing. And even though ECB is a co-license holder of WPT with UW-Extension, it is in-fact a self-serving production house. These programs (and schedules) are coming from ECB -- not WPT. That's why this paragraph, with an inclusion of WPT carrying the programming would be a better fit and would be more relevant and truthful on the ECB Wikipedia entry.sunprairie

Since ECB is a distinctly separate production entity from WPT, perhaps the paragraph added to Mrschimpf would actually be more accurate if added to the ECB's Wikipedia entry, as opposed to the WPT enry. I have added it to the ECB page and ask your opinion on removal from the WPT page.

Some network programming from Wisconsin Public Television and the ECB is broadcast on stations in areas of the state which do not have a WPT-owned station due to PBS member stations having been launched in those areas before the network's expansion in the 1970's. Milwaukee Public Television's WMVT (Channel 36) in Milwaukee, and WDSE (Channel 8) in Duluth-Superior carry the instructional programming of the ECB, with WMVT carrying the full ECB schedule, while WDSE carries all except the 3am-6:30am block and Reading Rainbow, along with the early Saturday morning telecourse from UW-Madison; at these times the station is off-the-air. During summer vacation and school recesses, WMVT airs the Create network overnights, and a PBS Kids block during the daytime programmed by MPTV and called Vacation Station. MPTV and WDSE also coordinate the telecourse assistance with faculty and teachers in their area. sunprairie —Preceding comment was added at 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it is about programs provided through WPT's infrastructure and airing through the network, it should stay in the article, though the ECB article should be expanded a little with this information also. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But, that's just it. It isn't provided through WPT's infrastructure. It is provided through ECB's infrastructure -- two distinctly separate things.--Sunprairie (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I have now addressed these concerns as shown;

• Within the lede, referred readers interested in ECB to that article, and rewrote ECB to reflect the WDSE additional notes found through here.
• Excised mentions of ECB instructional programming within the WPT article body.
• Reflect that MPTV and WDSE air WPT programming and vice-versa with MPTV stuff, and kept it as the last heading.

Are you satisfied with this rewrite now as it stands? Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article now correctly reflects the network and its work.--Sunprairie (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased that we could come to a consensus about the article; thank you for working with us to make things right. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But now a new question...

Should WDSE and WMVT be considered "affiliates" of WECB in the infobox, since they practically take their ITV programming from a "network"? -- azumanga (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean within the individual station infoboxes, it can be stated. Nate • (chatter) 11:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

All topics from December 1 of last year until March 31 of this year have been archived to Archive 7. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black is back...

...and is again on an anti-logo rampage.

RingtailedFox recently reinstated classic logos to the WGN-TV article -- only to be removed by MIB.

I take it a valid FUR means nothing to him. -- azumanga (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's another logo image war

The same thing is happening with the WJW-TV article, as BKNFCC (contributions) twice deleted the gallery of properly-attributed and properly-tagged logos, with the same claims A Man in Black uses. I restored it twice, most recently this morning. We don't need the free-image police on our backs again, this is just plain ridiculous. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BKNFCC is maintaining a list of articles that he and the rest of the image police feel are excessive in their use of non-free images. They have a list of talking points to bolster their claim that the images should be deleted; I have refuted them in Talk:WJW (TV). We can help preserve the logos by following a few steps:

• Use logos sparingly. Is it really necessary to add an image because the new logo has a shinier look? (See KNXV-TV). Ten images seems to be the point at which the image police begin to take notice, so be sure there's a good reason to have them.
• Provide critical commentary to each image. One of the arguments used for deleting them is that they are purely decorative and provide no critical commentary. What is significant about the logo, other than the years in which it was used? Be sure to state that the purpose of the logo gallery is to provide a visual reference to the evolution of the station's brand over the years, which is something that prose cannot do.
• Be bold in the wise use of logos, and don't be afraid to object when someone tries to delete them. The use of historical logos does not infringe on any copyright - the logos are historical - and do not damage in any way the free distribution of Wikipedia. The logos have a purpose in the article; they are not merely decorative. Do not buy the argument of excessive logos; there is no stated limit on how many properly-used non-free images are appropriate in an article, and the arbitrary establishment of such a limit by a group of zealots bears no weight. Just because some of them are administrators doesn't give them more say over the matter than you have. Wikipedia is about consensus-building, not authoritarian rule.

dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At WJW's talk page, I left some choice words on the situation, practically saying that either the logos stay, or they might as well make Wikipedia a strictly-text service, focusing only on post-graduate topics. This was after BKNFCC refused Dhett's comments on the situation. It very well looks like BKNFCC and Man in Black want to make Wikipedia, if not the internet as a whole, a dictatorship. Stay the course; defend your rights. -- azumanga (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again?!? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BKNFCC was right, though. Your choice words were not civil. Battle with your head, and keep your heart in control. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the articles on BKNFCC's hit list that are relevant to us (in addition to the aforementioned WJW-TV) are: CBNT, CBWT, CKND-TV, CNBC, KCBS-TV, KSTP-TV, KTEN, WBBM-TV, WBYD-CA, WFTC, WKBW-TV, WLNE, WMAQ-TV, WNET, WOIO, WPRI-TV, WTVT, WUAB, and WYTV.

Other television-related entries he/she's also targeted are: CNBC Asia, Disney Channel India, Headline News, History of BBC television idents, ITV television presentation, List of BBC test cards, Major League Baseball on NBC, NBC Sports, Nikkei CNBC, PBS idents, and Showtime.

Now we do what we must to protect our rights. Rollosmokes (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a little hot-headed, but everytime an editor acts "high and mighty" in disregard to established standards, it makes my blood boil, to a point where if it's worth getting involved at all. All I can say is to keep up the pressure, stand up for your rights, and make sure no one is above the rules. -- azumanga (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More about our rights to use historical logos

I've been doing a little research on copyright laws, and gleaned some interesting information. As expected, copyright laws are not simple. If they were, why would we need attorneys?

Prior to January 1 1978, copyrights were in effect for a 28-year period. During the final year of the copyright, it could be renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to do so. Depending on renewal, copyrights expired after 28 or 56 years, and could not be renewed for a third period. In 1976, Congress passed copyright reform, effective in 1978, in which, for our purposes, i.e., works created for hire, the copyright is in effect for 100 years from the date the work was created, or 75 years from the date that the work was published, whichever occurs sooner. There is only one copyright period, and the copyright cannot be renewed.

Congress also passed a series of laws that in effect, extended those new copyright protections back to 1964 by means of an automatic renewal, but only if the work had a copyright notice. Per the non-free content guideline, for works created before 1978, if there is no copyright notice, there is no copyright, and the work is in the public domain.

Here's what it means to us: nearly all logos created 56 years ago or earlier are now in the public domain. Therefore, use of any such logo in Wikipedia no longer falls under the non-free standard, and should not be deleted, as it is not a non-free image. The exception are those logos still in use, such as the CBS Eye, which almost certainly are still protected under trademark laws. What's more, any logo created before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain.

Any logo from 1951 or before can have its licensing changed from copyrighted to public domain, and the fair use rationales can be deleted. Any logo from 1977 and earlier can also be changed to public domain, provided it is not still in use, and provided it does not have a copyright notice. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are some good nuggets. Thanks for that, and let's see what the Policy Police have to say about it. Rollosmokes (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we have federal copyright law to back us up, I hope this is the thing that will cause the uptight editors to give in. Then again, they'll probably find some other excuse that would keep the logos off. Here's hoping something good comes out of this. -- azumanga (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And not a moment too soon. Policy Police Officer A Man in Black deleted the galleries from WGN-TV (again) and KNBC (again) and has also done it to WFMY-TV. Check out his comments for the deletion at WGN-TV: "This is a gallery of non-free images, none of these are the subject of commentary, so they go away now." And for KNBC: "Attribution doesn't suddenly make this use a fair use." He's so full of himself, someone needs to bring him off his high horse. Rollosmokes (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

His tone is certainly objectionable; he seems to no longer assume good faith. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What can we do to get him to keep quiet AND keep the logos where they are? It seems that everything we do is for nought, and that AMIB and BKN have their own personal standards. -- azumanga (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unless a thorough search is conducted to determine that a copyright has expired or not been renewed, it should be regarded as copyrighted."

"As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?' and 'Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?' If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion."

"As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."

"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Meditate upon those things, and eliminate the logos that don't meet that standard. That may be all or some; at this point, I can tell you without a shred of a doubt that it isn't none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Meditate on this:

• Any work published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice is irrevocably in the public domain. That's the law; no further search is necessary. Post-1978, the logo is automatically copyrighted for 95 years, regardless of copyright notice, and so, must meet the standards set forth in WP:NFCC.
• For a logo gallery, the answer to both questions on the quick test will always be no, as most logos created since 1978 are non-free and cannot be replaced by a free image (pre-1978 logos are free images, see above) and it is preposterous to even consider that the evolution of a station's logo could be adequately described without using visual references.
• For there to be displayed an evolution of the station's logo, there must by definition, be more than one item.
• Not only is non-free content significant to the understanding of the evolution of the station's logo, it is critical.

I will agree with you that the answer isn't none, but I can also tell you without a shred of doubt that the answer isn't all, either. If you're so interested in the good of Wikipedia, why don't you roll up your sleeves and actually contribute something? Add critical commentary to a non-free image; change the licensing of a logo to public domain whose copyright has expired. Given your history, I no longer believe you're acting in good faith; helping rather than senseless deleting just because you can would help to restore your standing, at least in my eyes, if you're so inclined. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't see this issue just being about what's free and what's not but what adds irreplaceable value the article's content. One of the primary means stations have to identify themselves past and present is the on-air logo. Television is a visual medium and their frequent and historical use gives them an entirely different context and weight than simply trying to label them as a "gallery of non-free images" to be deleted at will. Tmore3 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! That's someone who GETS IT!! Rollosmokes (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If we can establish that some of these logos are indeed public domain, then we can do whatever we want. I don't think it's as easy as you imply, but it'd make all of this a lot easier.

I would caution against just going and changing tags now; I would suggest starting an RFC, especially to get the attention of whoever the Foundation lawyer is at present. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The logos' presence here is on account of history, not mere decoration. If you are so intent on removing all logos other than the current one (or maybe all logos period), why not ask the federal government to close the Smithsonian Institution? Why not ask for the closure of all libraries and museums? I bet what they have there is as obsolete and old-fashioned as the old logos. -- azumanga (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're so intent on not talking about the issues at hand, why not bring up a non sequitor? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing licensing to public domain

Wikipedia has a template we can use, {{PD-Pre1978}}, to properly tag a logo published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. I have already re-tagged the four oldest logos from WJW (TV) and will be looking for others in days to come. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's gone too far now

As I write this, A Man in Black has again deleted the logos from KNBC and WGN-TV. I've reverted them back, and have copied Dhett's recent comments on fair-use copyrights onto his talk page. Perhaps this will consider AMiB to engage in discussion with us about this issue. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well he has, and it's not what we hoped. Direct quote:

“ Right now, these are tagged as non-free images. Until you can make a case to tag them as free (and I don't think your case is very good), they need to be treated as non-free images, with all the requisite bullshit. This hasn't changed since the last time we went round this merry-go-round.

Besides...it is the law of Wikipedia, though. If you don't disagree that Wikipedia policy prohibits these images, then I don't think we have any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck

”

There you have it. Abuse of authority? I say yes. Fight for your right to party...and keep the logos. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Work up some good descriptions of the images. It's our only way to innoculate ourselves against such abusive zealots. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Given everything we try, I have a strange feeling that AMIB will continue to trump us. Has anyone tried reporting him for overstepping his authority? Also, are there any license tags that would tag them as free, in accordance with copyright laws? AMIB's main issue is that the images were tagged non-free. -- azumanga (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Work up some sourced descriptions of the images, based on commentary on the logos or logo changes in reliable sources. Don't look at the images and say some stuff about them; that's particularly empty original research.

I believe I mentioned that the first time we discussed this. Go do that. It makes the encyclopedia better. AMIB's main issue (since you get to refer to me like I'm not here, I get to refer to myself in the third person, mwa) is that the images aren't free, and need to be treated as such. Arguments about whether they are or are not free are a red herring while they are still tagged as non-free. Trying to tag them as free with a spurious claim is going to generate a whole bunch of new problems.

BTW, having not deleted anything, locked any article, or blocked any users, I'm not really seeing any use (let along abuse) of administrative authority. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you want us to find a source that thoroughly describes the logo, instead of merely describing the obvious. More often than not, the logo itself is a source of a description -- putting too much work into something simple and obvious is wasting too much time. -- azumanga (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm saying that if you want to have historical logos, you're going to have to say something about the historical logos, and if you're saying anything in Wikipedia, it's going to have to be sourced. Trite original research (It was blue, and now it's green!) isn't any better (or any more allowed) than a bunch of non-free images with no commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Find me a policy or guideline that says that the commentary must be sourced. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive, and that is a violation of policy. We're making a good faith effort to make non-free images conform to policy; you're not satisfied until all non-free images are gone.

BTW, the law is not a spurious claim. Anybody without an agenda can see that. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you a copyright lawyer? Are you offering your professional opinion that such-and-such logos aren't currently copyrighted?

I am not, so I am erring on the side of caution, as Wikipedia policy instructs. The way to stop having to err on the side of caution is to properly establish that images aren't copyrighted, something I strongly suspect is going to need to be done on an image-by-image basis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but I can read and I can count. I don't need a lawyer for that, and I don't believe that your "caution" is warranted. As for your insistence that commentary must be sourced, it is neither necessary nor advisable to source every statement, especially when the commentary is self-evident. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, take the example image from the article you linked above. It was taken from a website that is clearly and prominently copyrighted, and the owner of that website's copyright would be the same one to make a copyright claim on that image. "I can read and I can count and I don't need a lawyer for that" is a far cry from the "Unless a thorough search is conducted to determine that a copyright has expired or not been renewed, it should be regarded as copyrighted" in Wikipedia policy, especially when the image was taken from a prominently copyrighted website.

Trite commentary is valueless; a section with inane commentary on the superficial differences in the different versions of a logo would be deleted as junk if it wasn't being used to justify 12 non-free images. Putting bad, unsourced prose to say, "See, there's commentary!" is the tail wagging the dog. Write good, sourced commentary, then use the images you're talking about and only those images, and it's a different story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Trite" and "inane" is your opinion, and it is not shared by this project. If you don't like the commentary, improve it. Deleting the image is not improving Wikipedia. Regardless of website's copyright, the images were first published prior to 1978. Just because the station chooses to use a public domain image in its website doesn't make the image copyrighted. The image is irrevocably in the public domain. This path of deleting legal and acceptable content is getting dangerously close to vandalism. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I AM improving the commentary by removing all of the unsourced parts. Sadly, this is all of it. Deleting images that damage this encyclopedia's ability to be redistributed is improving Wikipedia.

The images were first published prior to 1978. How do you know for certain that they were published without a copyright notice? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You yourself said they were from a station website. If the images had a copyright notice, I'm pretty sure the station's website would have included it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wjkw-logo 1977.gif is from here; which clearly states "TM and (c) 2008 Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its related entities. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication, or distribution in any form is expressly prohibited". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record only, because I believe Mike Godwin has provided necessary guidance, the trademark and copyright you cited were for the website, not the image. The image itself was pre-1978 and had no copyright notice of its own (i.e., as part of the image - see KSAZ.jpg for an example), and is therefore public domain. Use of a public domain image in a copyrighted website does not make the image copyrighted. It is irrevocably in the public domain. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't yet established that it's public domain. It's a moot issue, apparently; the fair-use claim is valid, so there's no need to make questionable claims that it's free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(discussion continues from "You have't yet established...")

Steps to establish public domain: Image created before 1978 + No copyright notice with image = Public domain. It's that simple. But don't believe me; believe Cornell University's copyright guide. How do you specify copyright notice? The US Copyright Office published the standard. In the case of the WJKW logo, the image was on the former copyright holder's own website and displayed without any copyright notice. The fact that the website is copyrighted is immaterial. The image wias not created in 2008, so the copyright notice was not the image's. The image was first published prior to 1978. Thus, it is public domain. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

After some time as an inactive editor, I'm slowly returning to activity. I'm disturbed to see the edit warring going on at WGN-TV. Some of the images certainly serve to establish the station's affiliation history (DuMont, independent for 40 years, then WB, followed by CW... a 1950s WGN logo showing the very early CBS affiliation would be nice). Blanket removals of the images are to be avoided, as this puts them in danger of deletion. I hope we can all agree that several of these images should be preserved no matter what, and so blanket removals aren't helpful here.

I understand AMIB's reluctance to use copyrighted logos in galleries, per the policies on copyrighted material. (As an aside, something that our current WGN article only briefly touches upon is that much of the "DuMont" programming carried on the network actually originated from WGN (for example, Music From Chicago). A screenshot of one of the Mutual-DuMont programs (produced by Mutual's WGN, aired on DuMont) would be a boon for this article. Unfortunately, most of the DuMont programs no longer exist. The DuMont programs, however, are in the public domain, according to the Internet Archive. I'm not certain if this includes the logos accompanying the programming, but one might naturally assume that since the DuMont collection was trashed, their copyright was not renewed. The U.S. copyright office seems to confirm this. This site indicates that works originally published between '23 and '63 where copyright was not renewed are in the public domain.)

At any rate, AMIB has, I believe, conceded somewhere in this conversation that network affiliation changes might well be a fair use for a logo, so at least four or five of the logos should be able to stay, yes? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I, too, understand the reluctance to use copyrighted images, but don't believe that we should be unnecessarily restricting ourselves by calling copyrighted that which is in the public domain. I believe that we've come to a consensus that there is a fair usage for historical logos under copyright; I'm working to ensure that we can put out as rich a product as possible and still maintain our freedom of distribution under copyright law, at least as it applies to the United States. That means taking full advantage of public domain. I will also be looking into the copyright registration process, because, according to the Cornell guide, images as recent as 1989 may also be in the public domain. If so, I say let's use them to the fullest extent allowed. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

People, there is such a thing as "fair use". A series of TV station logos over the years is perfectly acceptable in an article about the TV station. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. A TV station logo is perfectly acceptable in an article about the TV station. A series of logos is not. That's the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That is pointless. Suppose there is a computer museum that only has the latest technology. You came to see Altairs, Apple IIs and IBM PCS with CGA monitors and Intel 8088 chips, but all you see are Windows Vista PCs with Intel DuoCores and Macs with OSXs. Suppose Cambell's soup introduces a new label for its soups, but not only orders a recall of all soups with the older label, but orders the destruction of Andy Warhol's famed Cambell's Soup painting, just because it has an old label. What if the Louvre museum in Paris only has their modern art section open, and only featuring works of the past five years? The TV logos are not just a mere collection of logos -- they are history. If you can tell us EXACTLY where in Wikipedia that say that the older logos aren't welcome, regardless of fair use laws, fair use rationales or copyright status, please tell us. Furthermore, I have a feeling that you're only here to wipe out the old logos -- you do your work, take a long hiatus, and come back for more. I don't think your actions are fair. We should have a say in what belongs, not just you and you alone. That is what Wikipedia is all about. If you want to control content, open a blog. -- azumanga (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a museum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I want you to remove EVERYTHING that has to do with history -- wittle ALL articles down to just the basic facts; if you want to know any history, go somewhere else. The logos are about history, and as long as they meet well-defined requirements for their inclusion, and as long as EVERYONE's okay with it (not just a select few or just one person), they should be included. This is the message that everyone on this board is driving at, and, so far, you're the minority. -- azumanga (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're so intent on not talking about the issues at hand, why not bring up a non sequitor?

This is an encyclopedia, and it is free content. Wikipedia's policies protect its encyclopedic nature, but they also protect its free nature.

Things that are useful or interesting to someone that nonetheless violate WP policy are deleted or transwikied. This is as old as WP:NOT, and isn't going away. Stomping your feet and staging a protest and saying, "They're useful, we should keep them!" doesn't negate or even address the fact that they're a pretty blatant violation of the policies that keep Wikipedia free. Were these images actually free (and for those images that can be properly vetted as not copyrighted), I would have no objections and AFAICT there would be no problems (assuming the galleries were actually in articles and not spun off into standalone galleries, but even then, wouldn't do much harm). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm also having a hard time of seeing exactly what your point is and would ask that you point out the particular fair-use guideline you are using to justify your edits. Would also like a reference that expressly limits an article to x amount of fair-use images as well as where specifically the authority is granted for an individual to delete without consensus, images that have been appropriately tagged, sourced and provided with fair-use rationale. Until then if you're truly interested in working together as you stated on your talk page, I might suggest refraining from continuing to try to delete these images as your edits communicate quite the opposite. Tmore3 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUC, Wikipedia:Copyright.

There isn't a hard number because it doesn't work like that. In fact, such a hard number would be detrimental; I can see a good reason to have many non-free images in a station article (if that station were repeatedly resold and rebranded, for example). There is almost never any good reason to have a gallery of non-free images; a gallery doesn't allow for sufficient commentary.

Two non-free images isn't necessarily too many, but a gallery of two almost always is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We have never had an issue with the images used in E/I until tonight, with anyone, and they have been properly rationaled. I've taken out one redunant image and added commentary to meet the guidelines and feel that it would be useless to not illustrate the article without examples of the E/I bug (of which there are multiple versions mind you, defeating AMIB's assertion that it is 'redundant') because visual illustration is important within an article.

We have tried to work with you multiple times on this, and we have pretty much bent over backwards to meet the March 2008 FUR deadlines set by the WP law office to stay within the lines and meet our needs as a project. We have met our burden of proof and worked hard to make these articles meet all the needs between free use and fair use. What else do you want us to do? The Web was created to add graphical content to web pages. That's what we're doing here. It's not as if we're putting in WGN logos and saying 'In 1995, they debuted this logo. Boy, they must've been desperate to look hip and 'wit it!'. How pathetic of them to do that!'. We have shown nothing but NPOV and respect towards the copyright holders, and if we had an issue, someone would bring it up and we'd work with them. Heck, on the WGN-TV page you say is slandering their image, there has been an editor who seems to work for the station and had no qualms with the logos there at all (his argument has been more with the text than the pictures). You'd be surprised that a few logos were even provided by the employees of the stations with their permission to help create a more neutral history of their station than what corporate makes them post on their site, and as a courtesy to help us present information in the cleanest way possible.

This is the only thing I'm going to say on this subject because I've been working within the guidelines and the articles involved aren't in my area of expertise (or my region) beyond E/I. Please try to work with others, not against others. We're all here to build a resource and there's bound to be some disagreements that you need to work on through consensus, not just by hard-pushing your ideas against the community. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We've never had an issue with that typo in the article until tonight, with anyone. How dare you correct it?

The commentary is unsourced and is nothing more than a caption. Images need to illustrate and illuminate text; these images aren't illustrating the captions, the captions are merely explaining the images.

You just don't use multiple images when one suffices, and that includes using many non-free images showing different examples thing when you can show just one example. Now, Image:Cyberchase-ei.jpg is probably salvageable; if you're going to write about FCC standards for what the should be displayed could definitely benefit from an image, probably this image cropped down to the upper-right quarter.

But, if you're not illustrating/illuminating text, you're back at "Can identify this subject with one image? If so, don't use two." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But here's the thing; different networks use different E/I logos. There is no one universal logo in use. The PBS logo is assumed to be a standard, but many syndicators want their show to stand out, so they decide not to use that version. They create their own to stand out while meeting guidelines. This is the same as the NCI and CC-screen logos used interchangably (though only shows using NCI captioners can use the NCI logo). That is what we're trying to illustrate here. No harm will come from illustrating an episode of Teen Kids News; they probably encourage others to show an example of their show because almost no stations ever show the promos they create; they just air the show and move on because of the malignment of E/I. The producers of Little House are probably happy their show is being used to educate (though it's a bit of a gray matter with E/I guidelines, admittedly). If there's an issue, fine, we'll be the first to help them out. But in the two years since the images have been put up, you've been the only one to have any issue with them. Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need an exhaustive directory of every E/I logo used. Can we illustrate the topic with one image? Then why do we need five? This is different from the issue with historical logos; while those illustrate a progression, these are just multiple examples of the same thing presented differently. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about if we create an image collage of the examples and post them as one picture, focusing only on the logos without the needless content of the program itself as an example of the use of an E/I bug? Would that be acceptable? Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Same issue, you've just combined the five non-free images into one physical image. It's fewer images, but not less copyrighted material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest breaking up the galleries and using the logos alongside the "History" sections. Many changes to logos happened as the result of a network membership, move to color TV, or corporate rebranding campaign. So instead of having a gallery at the bottom, with long captions that just repeat what was in the text, the logos should be integrated with paragraphs about that era in the stations history, with a one-line caption. This would also make it difficult to find fault with the inclusion of logos in the article. Look at American Telephone & Telegraph as an example. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been tried before, and that was shot down before. As for sources for descriptions, that is impossible and redundant. I bet you will be requiring a source for all of my opinions. I bet you will be requiring a source for what I just type. I bet you'll even require a source for my username. That has gone too far. -- azumanga (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AZ, who were you responding to just now? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See Weigh-in from Wikimedia General Counsel on logos, below. -- azumanga (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the image needs to somehow reflect the text; simply putting 1968's logo with text about the late 60s isn't good. However, if you're talking about a station going from one network to another, or changing hands and being rebranded, or other such things that can be illustrated with an example of the branding, you've got a much better fair use claim.

In general, anything you put in an article needs to be sourced, yes. WP:V has been a core of this project for a long, long time. (And I'm guessing your name is from Azumanga Daioh, but that's just original research. ¬_¬) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Weigh-in from Wikimedia General Counsel on logos

Mike Godwin wrote:

Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use. I think
it's unlikely that the local stations will even complain about the use
of the logos.

--Mike

On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:54 PM, C J wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I realize you are an incredibly busy individual but am writing to
> you in hopes of getting some clarification that no one else seems to
> have the particular expertise to provide. Specifically a user within
> the project has begun deleting historical logos formally used by
> local television stations within the United States. The logos are
> sourced and tagged with fair use rationale for their historical
> significance but it was argued because they appeared next to each
> other they needed to be deleted as they constituted a gallery of non-
> free images. The other side to the argument has remained that the
> historical logos uniquely illustrate how it identified itself to
> the public during a particular era as well as how that identity
> evolved over time.
>
> We are all hoping to reach further clarification from a definitive
> source to resolve this somewhat contentious issue so any feedback
> you might be able to provide in regards to this would be deeply
> appreciated.

While logos not sourced and tagged with fair-use rationale are certainly challengable for removal, the issue on whether or not past station logos can be displayed together to more adequately communicate historical progression, is done. Attempting to remove these logos displayed in such a way that are sourced and provided with fair-use rationale is not productive and can no longer be regarded as good-faith. Tmore3 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as historical progressions of logos on station articles go, point conceded. I'd still like to see them placed in context in historical sections (and weeded for same-logo-different-context and random screenshots of newscasts and such), but I suppose I was wrong about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable enough. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, too. As for galleries, what I would like to see is a template for gallery usage, saying that its usage is discouraged (similar to those used for trivia) -- this way, other users can try to intergrate the images into the article, rather than "piling them up" in the galleries. -- azumanga (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, A Man In Black, what point are you conceding here? I removed the logo gallery from WGN-TV per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2; "The use of non-free media in galleries [..] generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)". I didn't see an exception listed there for TV station logos. --Geniac (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. On one hand we have that, on the other hand we have Brad saying it's okay. I was convinced that I was right in saying that these galleries aren't kosher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But it still doesn't mean that they can be removed willy-nilly, with all logos within being removed. My point is that others should be given a chance to work things out. -- azumanga (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Which Brad and where did he say that? I'm still not convinced these galleries are kosher. --Geniac (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, Mike. Brad is the old counsel. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the words "me" and "I" in Mike's above email make it sound to me like an unofficial opinion from Mike, not an official Wikimedia General Counsel statement on the use of historical logos in galleries. --Geniac (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what makes it "official", then? Apparently, Mike has some significant weight, here; otherwise, we wouldn't have brought up his reply. -- azumanga (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One that doesn't use the words "me" and "I". --Geniac (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of wehther you consider his statement "official" or not frankly is not the point here. The fact remains Mr. Godwin's experience and expertise extends well beyond what any of us can provide on the subject, not to mention trying to debate his response based on the usage of pronouns seems more than a little silly at this point. Tmore3 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon obsession

Is it just me, or is there a lot of extraneous information about cartoons in TV station articles? Just an observation. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to keep it to the bare minimum as possible as far as the current day to mention which station carries which E/I block/shows, but if you're talking about "Who carried the Disney Afternoon/Fox Kids/Comic Strip at this and this a time", it is a bit crufty. Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WWCG-LP

Currently up for AfD, despite the fact that it is a licensed station with details listed for it. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very weak article stub that has no references, other than a blog, which is not considered a reliable source. There is no evidence that the station provides locally-produced programming, so it fails even the broader media notability guideline. Someone had better find some good info on this station, or it's a goner. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to build it up as much as I could to a keep; it seems like the station just launched in the last two months, thus the lack of sources. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed - in fact, the station isn't even officially licensed yet. I even did a quick Google on the calls and got Worldwide Church of God. When I try "channel 11", I get WXIA. That's classic non-notable. I'm still at work - Mountain Standard Time - 3 hrs behind the East Coast, but tonight, I'll see if I can find anything else for the article. Otherwise, we'll just have to let it die. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I could not find any reliably-sourced material for this station, so I recommended that it be changed to a redirect to White Springs Television instead. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article was kept. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since it really was non-notable, I was bold and changed it to a redirect to White Springs Television. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BenH/Vandal?

[2] - that guy looks suspicious. T--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. Has a fascination with newscast titles. Fortunately, those can be verified. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmbabies a month later

So it's been a month since we seemed to finally get everything under control with him, and I think we can call this finally resolved, but I wanted to make sure that it was OK before the tag gets slapped on and we can call him history. Nate • (chatter) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost a month later, and, to my knowledge, he never resurfaced. Case closed? Or do you think he can bide his time for so long? -- azumanga (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone put the case closed on his LTA, so I think we can be safe in assuming that he's gone. Unfortunately our new friend from Tucson has taken up his mantle, so it never ends. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More on "-DT"

At the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas earlier this month, I spoke to a few people at the FCC booth, one of whom was an attorney working in the Media Bureau. These people were not able to come up with any more clarity on the issue of "-DT" and whether that is an official suffix that stations are entitled to request, or just an administrative convenience for the Media Bureau staff. However, the attorney said that the Commission intends to take up a wholesale revision of the television rules once the DTV transition is complete next year, and that the call sign rules are likely to be revised as a part of this process. 121a0012 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

TV schedules under attack

There's a talk over at WP:VPP#Television schedules in network articles where some editors are removing primetime schedules from articles about TV networks, saying WP is "not a directory" and somesuch. There does seem to be a distinction though between schedules that stay the same through a season versus schedules that change often and contantantly get updates, which the editors are pretty unanimous on. It appears that most of the editors who want to take them out are not from the United States, and in other countires schedules may change more frequently or shows begin at odd times. But I do feel that in an article about a TV network, there ought to be some mention of what they show. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall an older conversation on this talk page about this. Dunno what the upshot (or if there was one) ended up being. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Word67 (aka Dingbat) is back...

Discussion (and probably plenty of mopping up) here on ANI. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Notablilty of repeater and translator stations

Are repeater and translator stations notable for Wikipedia purposes? They don't originate anything. Some have Wikipedia articles; some don't. Wikipedia doesn't list cell sites or other non-broadcast RF emitters, even ones that are bigger than some translator stations.

The FCC broadcast station database shows the class of each US TV station. A standard of notability based on FCC class might be useful. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion from a few months ago is what I found in the archive. As for my .02, right now I've seen TBN translators, DT2 and HD simulcasts of standard deff channels have their own articles. If it originates its own programming (HD channel, DT2 or Low Power/translator) it should have its own article, let all the translators that simulcast another station redirect there, unless it's a special circumstance (i.e. rural translators that simulcast a cable net). Mr mark taylor (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I raised this issue only because there was a problem reported on Administrator incidents with someone bulk-adding phony stations intermixed with lists of real translator stations.[3] The bogus stations have been removed, but there's a question as to whether the translator stations should go too. But I'll leave that to the project people here. --John Nagle (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Translators, for the most part, are non-notable, unless they had been independently programmed in the past. The user you've encountered is a persistent and prolific vandal and has been community banned, so all of his edits have been reverted, regardless of merit, and any articles created have been tagged CSD-G3. TBN translators do have their own articles, although I believe that any listed in its last license renewal as rebroadcasting KTBN-TV ought to be just a redirect to KTBN. However, others had other ideas. DT2 and HD simulcast articles should be merged into the primary station article; they do not warrant articles of their own. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The digital transition begins September 8...

Not nationwide, but for Wilmington, North Carolina at least. UNC-TV isn't participating to maintain one analog signal in the area (along with a barely-there LP MyNet affiliate), but the FCC is using Wilmy to test everything out before Febrary 17 nationwide, so we also have a perfect test market to play with anything regarding digital details and template experimentations. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the templates contain digital_temporary as a field to indicate the current DTV channel (where it differs from the final one)? That particular template "experimentation" does not apply to Wilmington (as the NC stations were chosen as guinea pigs because all are on their final DTV channels already). Also, the idea behind that one template field is that reverting the template makes all of the current temporary DTV assignments disappear from the articles nationwide, not just one market.

Currently,

{{Infobox television station
| callsign = KQRM-LP
| analog   = 50 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])
| digital  = 21 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])
}}

gives:

KQRM-LP

Channels	Analog: 50 (UHF) Digital: 21 (UHF)

That much will remain unchanged, while:

{{Infobox television station
| callsign          = WNFG-TV
| analog            = 14 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])
| digital_temporary = 66 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])
| digital           = 14 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])
}}

gives:

WNFG-TV

Channels	Analog: 14 (UHF) Digital: 14 (UHF)

WNFG-TV

Channels	Analog: 14 (UHF) Digital: 14 (UHF)

In 2009, the template is reverted to remove the temporary field(s) and the extraneous data automagically disappears from every affected page with one click of the mouse. That's not a change that would be advisable if just Wilmington NC were completed; it affects every page that uses this. --carlb (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

IP block request

75.108.83.180 (Talk • contributions) has been vandalising various articles again, making unnecessary changes in the infoboxes. A block of longer than 24 hours is recommended. Thanks. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks later...

...And still no action. More poop to clean up from this IP vandal at WJZ-TV, WBAL-TV, WRAL-TV, and WMAR-TV. If we can block the BenHs, Mmbabieses, Jamesincs, Codyfinkes, Elladogs, and Dingbat2007s of the world, then why can't anyone block this one?? Rollosmokes (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After little notice or no interest from any admins from the group, the IP was blocked by Acalamari for 24 hours. As soon as the block was over, the IP started his sh*t up again, and I'm cleaning it up again. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you reporting this user to WP:AIV? I don't see either your handle or the vandal IP, so I'm assuming no. That's where you need to report the vandalism to get it blocked. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why I never thought about that before, but this is now DONE. Thanks for the suggestion. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

TV page needing attention

The page for WSCP-CA has been tagged requesting expert help. That's us, so if anyone has the time... dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little and added links and such to make it look better :). Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

TV stations by State

I have another different issue with the TV stations by list. Sometimes the anchor city or market a station serves is different then its COL. For instance WJXX in Jacksonville which has a COL of Orange Park. So on these lists we see WJXX- Orange Park (Jacksonville). In the top of the paragraph it states these lists are based on COL. I included in that that the Designated Market Area is in parentheses when the COL is different then the market served to clarify it. Does anyone have any issues with this? Oak999 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See link for example List of ABC television affiliates (by U.S. state)

Do you have a problem with every affiliate list? The line about DMA clarification is not necessary. That is why there are TWO lists for each Big Four network -- the state-by-state list, and the market-by-market table. The state lists are arranged by COL (the recording is scratching); the second city is there for the casual reader -- not necessarily the TV junkie -- to identify the larger city the station serves. The market tables get more technical with the fill DMA names and links to the market templates. That stuff is absent from the state lists, and there is no reason to add an additional line about DMA. BTW, would you please stop deleting KPNX from the NBC affiliate-by-state list? ([4]) Rollosmokes (talk)

" to identify the larger city the station serves." What is that called? What does that mean? Answer--Its called the Designated Market Area. Its already included in this list. I think it should be added in it to make it clear to people in the top paragraph. The bottom line is you have included DMAs in this list BUT did not clarify what it is in the top paragraph. For some people who look at WJXX for example (one of many) they might ask since its not included in the top paragraph "what is Jacksonville there for?" What is the cities in brackets for? The addition I have proposed will clarify this. This is not hard stuff to get.Oak999 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are some similar questions being raised with radio stations by city categories. It might be nice to reach a common solution that covers all broadcast media in the US. I think that the market area nav boxes do a good job for navigation and the actual city of license can be covered in the infobox. So what should the category be used for? I'd say either the COL or where the station is actually located. This works if you say that there is no need to categorize by market. The other option is to categorize by market. This happens automatically in some templates where the category is added for some radio markets, not sure about the TV ones. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian- I agree. But what I am proposing is not that we add DMAs to each station. The reason is because they are already by each station in Brackets example (Jacksonville). So it looks like this "Orange Park (Jacksonville) - WJXX 25" this is not the issue. The issue is that DMA--(Jacksonville) is already included in this article in the list but at the top paragraph the intro it makes no mention of what "(Jacksonville)" or any other station that has a different COL and DMA actually are. So in the end a reader will read the top paragraph see its listed by COL but may ask himself-herself what are these cities in brackets ()? The answer should be in the top paragraph the answer is "This is a listing of ABC's affiliates, arranged alphabetically by state, and based on the station's city of license and Designated Market Area in parentheses when the COL is different then the DMA." Oak999 (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, have no problem with the concept of what you're doing. I've changed the wording to something a little less cumbersome (IMO). dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis Vandal

He's back, this time as User:24.207.163.11 (as if he ever left). Is there ANY way we can get rid of this moron? --Mhking (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, unlike other vandals, this vandal never established an account to which we can link him/her, so until I started my list, there was no vandal category to link this person's "contributions". Furthermore, this person doesn't generally come back to the same IP address, so it's like playing whack-a-mole. I've started to 4im-warn any talk pages that have been the source of recent vandalism, so that if the vandal does ever come back, we will have basis for a lengthy block, and perhaps even a range block. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Digital-only stations in market templates

How do we wish to list these? By virtual channel or by RF channel? An example is in the Phoenix template, where digital-only KAZT-CA had been listed by its virtual channel, 7, but someone has changed it to its RF channel, 27.

I believe the stations ought to be listed by virtual channel, as that is what you key into your remote to tune to the channel. Also, full-service stations with companion channels are listed by the analog channel, which will be the virtual channel after Feb 2009, not by the DTV RF channel, even though the separate DTV subchannel feeds are listed. Please share your thoughts. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should list both PSIP and actual channel? In the case of Phoenix, it's especially tricky, as viewers there tuned into channel 27, before it became a digital-only channel. -- azumanga (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We do list both in the article, but in the template, that might be cumbersome, especially in a case where two or more stations are simulcasting and have different RF channels than virtual. Such an example is WTTO/WDBB in the Birmingham market. RE: KAZT, it's true that viewers used to tune to channel 27, but now, they tune to channel 7. Plus, KAZT uses 7 in all of their promotional material, not 27. In all aspects, it's as if KAZT changed channels, even if its RF channel stayed the same. Having to choose, I think the virtual channel is the better option. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't tune to 7, but to 7.1 - the virtual .0 position being reserved for the companion analogue broadcast. Would this format work? :

--carlb (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. For example, KAET-DT 8.1 is not a simulcast of KAET 8.0. Also, on my television, when I tune to 7, it automatically goes to 7.1, since there is no analog signal on channel 7. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Elladog

We have a new TV-related sock on our hands -- Elladog. In the last three days alone, he used three different sock accounts to vandalise, and in the past, he used various IP accounts. His MO is that he comes from Tucson, Arizona (it's your beat, Dhett), he has Asperger's Syndrome, and he has an affinity for the El Con Mall, a Tucson-area mall. Be alert, everyone. -- azumanga (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fate sealed for an indef block thanks to a death threat to an admin, but keep your eyes peeled for socks. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tucson - that figures!  ;-) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One more MO -- he denies that he's Elladog; see the talk page of his latest sock, Supermall. In reality, all his socks matched to a T. -- azumanga (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure he's not...he needs to get his MO's straight. Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

He's now Stick Figures On Crack; he's been banned, but now he wants to be unblocked, saying that he hasn't even heard of Elladog. Hopefully someone will do the right thing and reject his request. I also would like to put some sort of protect on his usual suspects (El Con Mall, Template:KidsTVBlocksUS, etc.). -- azumanga (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Caught him today trying to kill my RFD nomination his incorrect redirect for El Con Plaza (which I did because a typo speedy was denied). For a Slovenian he speaks perfect English (shakes head). Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He's now Damplips, a 20-year old from Trenton, New Jersey who, strangely, has the exact same likes for department stores and cartoons like Elladog and all their socks. And yes, he's been blocked. And yes, he's playing the denial card. -- azumanga (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He's now Skinnydipping, a Latin teacher from Denver. Who also likes dogs and malls. -- azumanga (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Skinnydipping has now been banned for the same shenannigans, including impersonating other users. I would like Elladog be formally community-banned, as he's now entering serious waters. He is a liar, and he is NOT to be trusted for anything. Revert everything done by him on sight. Even if it's verified as 100% true, any by Elladog, regardless of merit and sources, is 1000% false. -- azumanga (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, if not....it will continue to snowball, and get worse than it already has. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

KCPM folds months ago, but its schedule lives on

This past February, a MyNetworkTV station in Grand Forks, North Dakota, KCPM, has left the air. This past Thursday (5/22), KCPM notified the FCC, saying that they have ceased operations, due to the economy.

However, I noticed that KCPM still has a current schedule at tvguide.com.

If the station was dark since February, why would the station still file a schedule with tvguide.com (and, presumably, the other schedule services)? Has KCPM been a cable-only offering since closing its analog signal? -- azumanga (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the KCPM staff had filed their schedules with TV Guide/other schedulers months in advance, and simply failed to notify schedulers when they went dark. It's not hard to imagine the station managers letting go of the very staff who would be in charge of scheduling notifications before letting go of staff in charge of the most important station components. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What's just as unusual is that KCPM's shutdown has been all but ignored in its market -- a Google check revealed nothing about its demise; not even northpine.com, which generally thoroughly covers midwest radio and TV, had nothing about KCPM's closure. -- azumanga (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the channel lineups for the cable system websites in Fargo and Grand Forks; Fargo it's off, while GF hasn't been updated yet. I assume that they just quietly went off the air one night and didn't come back and since the newspapers up there don't seem to pay attention to television all that much (and The Fargo Forum has a good reason to not report about other competitors), nobody noticed. Plus the schedule can pretty much work until September since small network affiliates don't change schedules all that often and can program months in advance. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in Grand Forks, ND and subscribe to cable TV and KCPM went cable-only in February, and has left the cable lineup in June. It's been rumored that the Fargo NBC affiliate (KVLY-TV) will pick up MyNetworkTV programing on a digital subchannel. The local newspaper, Grand Forks Herald, is also owned by Forum Communications, which owns the Grand Forks ABC affiliate (WDAZ-TV, which has the only locally produced newscasts in GF). Hope this helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.196.176 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Digital stations

I'm having trouble understanding how digital stations in the US work. The digital section of the article for Los Angeles' KABC-TV#Digital television doesn't give much info, except that 7.1 / 53.1 is for ABC, 7.2 / 53.2 is for ABC Plus, and 7.3 / 53.3 is for The Local AccuWeather Channel. How does this work for picking up the digital channels? What would a viewer push on a remote control? Because I use Time Warner Cable, and ABC+ and Weather channels are in the 200s on the programme guide, I haven't thought about this before. Thanks. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are the OTA channels (for those of us still with antennas on top of houses). I think on the remote controls it doesn't matter which channel number you push, both would take you to KABC's digital channel, most new TVs/converter boxes have a . button to go directly to 7.2, etc. Mr mark taylor (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I get it now. It will help with my a new list I'm creating. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The ATSC specs for digital subchannel indicate that the number of the (former) analogue channel is used as the base, so 7.1, 7.2 are valid per the standard - whether tuning to the physical channel number (53) will work varies between receivers. What works on a Samsung ATSC TV doesn't necessarily work on a Panasonic DVD+-RW unit, for instance. I'm not sure why we're listing both numbers in the subchannel section, unless the second set of numbers is for a repeater on another channel (such as WPBS-DT 41's 16.1 as WNPI-DT 23's subchannel 18.1 - the same channel on a full-power translator) --72.140.46.227 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The PSIP standard is here: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a65.html as "Annex B, ATSC standard A/65". It indicates:

1. The virtual channel numbers are based on the current analogue NTSC channel number for the same station, where available.
2. For new broadcasters without an analogue license, the virtual channel number will match the physical channel number.
3. A change in the physical channel assigned to a digital broadcast does not change the virtual channel numbering.
4. If a frequency used by a former analogue channel is reassigned to a new station, the new station will use the digital channel to which the old station was moved as a basis for its new virtual channel numbering.
5. A broadcaster controlling two channels in the same area may use different subchannels of the same virtual major channel number for both if this does not overlap other local broadcast numbering.
6. A transmission may contain information on broadcasts available from other channels, if their source and location are correctly identified and there is no duplication between broadcasters in the same area.
7. A station retransmitting a different licensed broadcaster may use the major/minor channel numbers of the original broadcast if these are coordinated in the local area to avoid conflicts.
8. Virtual channels 2 through 69 identify the individual licensed broadcasters in a community, to guarantee that the two-part channel number combinations generated will remain locally unique.
9. Virtual channels 70 to 99 may be used if a broadcaster wishes some individual service to be identified by a different channel number, but these must be coordinated so that they are kept unique in each potential receiving location.
10. Virtual channel numbers for broadcast translators remain the same as the original station unless these conflict with another broadcaster in that area.

Fine mess... and most of these are rarely (if ever) used. So, in general, the channel number the station *used* to be on when it was analogue-only is the official numbering used to generate the virtual channel numbers. --carlb (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New idea for list

I'm working on a new List of broadcast television in the Los Angeles, California market in my sandbox. It's basically information pulled from the infoboxes of each broadcast station listed at {{LA TV}}. I think it will be the first of its kind, so I'd like to hear from other Project members what information should be included. I've already made a start with 6 channels. The problem right now is that the columns are narrow. I'm wondering if the transmitter height, power and coordinates are necessary. Any feedback would be appreciated. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you're trying to cram too much info into the list, and the narrow columns are a function of that. That, in turn, causes a cluttered look due to split lines in the columns. I'd drop the VHF and UHF from the channel numbers, but then the separate analog and digital channel numbers, ERPs and antenna heights will all be obsolete next Feb., meaning you'll have to redo all those lists then as well. I would certainly get rid of the transmitter coordinates and abbreviate some of the headings. I hate to be a buzzkill, but you might want to forget about the list until the DTV transition is complete. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, Matthew. I would spell "analogue" as "analog", since this is a U.S.-centric list. I would keep the stuff that will be obsolete next February (because there's still plenty of time to complete this list), and the UHF/VHF. I like the transmitter coordinates: I wish more locations would have been preserved for stations during early broadcast history. One word of advice: absolutely do not do as {{LA TV}} does and have "unknown" elements in the box. For example, KCIO-LP 6's affiliation is actually listed as "unknown"!) Someone knows what the station's affiliation is, even if the person adding that information couldn't find out). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments guys. I would like to keep as much information as possible, but it is hampering the presentation. Perhaps the former callsigns and affiliations should go, because a some channels may go through quite a few in their lifetime? I left former owners for that very reason. Dhett, you said drop "VHF" and "UHF", but separate digital and analog channel numbers. They are currently separated by being in different columns. Do you have another way in mind of presenting it? Also, why will ERP and antenna height info be obsolete come the switchover? If they're being used currently for digital signals, surely they'll still exist when analog switches off, so it's just a case of removing the analog columns? Firsfron, if you had to get rid of a couple of things, what would it be? Also, I would assume that KCIO [5] is an independent station given it's low power signal and is located in Barstow, California (a city in the middle of the desert with no surrounding areas). Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel it's overcrowded. The columns all fit into my browser nicely. I certainly wouldn't get rid of the affiliation column; Wikipedia is so much better at collecting affiliation information than other sources. As far as KCIO-LP goes, I wouldn't just assume it's independent (with companies like Ion, A1, TBN, etc, willing to affiliate with LP stations in the middle of nowhere...) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I was saying was to drop the "(VHF)" and "(UHF)" that accompanies each channel number. Then, in an unrelated thought, I was reminding you that separate channel numbers, ERPs and HAATs for analog and digital will be obsolete in Feb 2009. I was using "separate" as an adjective, not as a verb. :-) If you're going to have both analog and digital, though, I agree with Firsfron: drop the -ue from analog, giving you the customary American spelling, and saving you a little space in the process. Another thing you might do is, instead of restating kW and m in every entry for transmitter power and height, you can have "Transmitter Power (kW)" and "Height (m)" as your heading, eliminating the need for the units of measurement with each entry. You'll gain more space when you don't have to list separate facilities for analog and digital, although with the channel number, you should list both virtual and RF channels, plus you'll have to adjust the DTV channel when they go to their post-transition assignments. For example KCBS-TV is on analog 2, digital 60, but will move to 43 after the transition, keeping 2 as their virtual channel. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought the table was overcrowded, but as I look at it a second and third time it doesn't look as cluttered. I would get rid of the former callsign columm and possibly the former network affiliations because those can change as often as call letters for some stations. Maybe digital subchannels affiliations/channels could be added?Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More BenH

76.7.106.194 this time. I blocked him for 31 hours, but he started right back up again. Now he's anonblocked for six months. Thought for sure he was finally tiring out.

Wcquidditch got most of his poop ... I got the rest. Blueboy96 22:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Local templates/digital subchannels

I'm playing with the Milwaukee TV and Green Bay TV templates as a testing ground to try out breaking out the digital subchannels into their own sections rather than listing them in the general map and making them overly long (PBS, ION and TBN being notorious cases of this). The problem is, how would I make it so that a section would have two columns rather than just one? I don't want to add too many more lines to the template, so if I could keep one section down to four lines that would work. Also, how would you split up digital subchannels yourself so we can get more ideas ahead of 2/17 of how to work on the templates? Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DTV info in the Infoboxes

WPXN-TV

New York, New York
Channels	Analog: 31 (UHF) Digital: 30 (UHF)
Branding	ION Television
Programming
Subchannels	31.1 WPXN-TV/ION 31.2 qubo 31.3 ION Life 31.4 The Worship Network
Affiliations	ION Television
Ownership
Owner	ION Media Networks
Links
Website	www.ionline.tv

Is this the way we're including post-transition channel numbers and subchannels inside the infoboxes now? I'm just curious because this is the work of a IP user, "66.102.80.212" (talk • contributions) and not anyone from the group. This is an inconsistent editor; I had to delete some extraenous stuff the IP added on that was redundant and unnecessary. However, I'm reluctant to remove the infobox stuff unless a consensus can be reached on keeping it in. That is, unless a consensus has already been reached and I didn't know about it. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The DTV information fields were added Sunday by Carlb by a request not debated on the Infobox Broadcast talk page. The post-transition field doesn't work for me (because we'll have to remove it on 2/17 anyways), and we have enough boxcruft as it is with the subchannels, which should be mentioned in the affiliations. I really don't like these changes and would endorse reversing them. Nate • (chatter) 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with you 100 percent on removing this stuff. I differ with you on the subchannel affiliations; as they differ from the main channel, I think they are better off (at least for now) with the mini-table I've inserted into several articles. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: just noticed something -- Carlb is from Kingston, Ontario. 66.102.80.212, the IP that made the changes in WPXN-TV and other articles, is also from Kingston, Ontario. That raises an eyebrow on me Rock-style, if you can smell what I'm cooking. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do prefer the subchannel table more to make them stand out (or writing text about the subchannels), so I do agree with you about that. Putting them in the infobox is more about tradition that I am trying to pull away from. As for the IP match, definitely makes you wonder. What I think we should do is add a link to here on IB Talk for additional debate about anything involving IB because it seems that he took the lack of debate as an OK to go forward. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The subchannels shouldn't be in the affiliation table; that was intended for other purposes. For instance, presume that KXGN-TV is the only notable US station because of the monopoly stranglehold it holds over the entire Glendive, Montana market (210 of 210). If it isn't on KXGN, it isn't on in Glendive. A station with that form of monopoly control would be free to exercise its massive market power to cherry-pick programming from as many networks as it chooses. For instance, primary affiliation to CBS in order to run that network's prime-time lineup, then secondary to NBC or another network to pick-and-choose whatever from those networks the station chooses to run. A powerful monopoly can do that, so the infobox would list CBS, NBC and whatever other networks are at the mercy of the whims of KXGN. There is no need to re-purpose this to be something completely different (a list of .2's and .3's) as those are (or should be) already in the "subchannels" field. A separate subchannel table in the article only leads to the info appearing on the pages twice - once in the subchannel table, once again (misplaced) as a list of secondary affiliations. That field was intended for something else, let's not turn it into a subchannel list if there is an available subchannel field in the infobox for use. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That raises one more question; are the old-style "secondary affiliations" (where there are more networks than local stations to carry them, so stations cherry-pick from multiple sources KXGN-style to feed a single channel) and the use of multiple DTV subchannels mutually exclusive? A station with a single channel joining multiple networks used to be very common in small markets, but now one -DT could carry each of various multiple networks in their entirety - one per subchannel. --carlb (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the project going to deal with these after conversion? That should drive what we do today. If you look at the infobox on the project page it says uses the 'affiliations' parameter for network affiliations. Why not list the affiliations by HD channel there? A likely solution in the future and it works today. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We won't be removing the post-transition field on 2/17 - we will be moving its contents into the digital field on that day and removing everything else. There are quite a few entries with content like "analog 6 VHF, digital 69 UHF, post-transition 7 VHF" where a channel 69 after this is over would be nonsense - the UHF band will only go up to channel 51 at the end of this process. As for whether "six" and "sixty-nine DT" should be moved to "former channels" on 2/17? Dunno, my first inclination is "no" - the analogue channel number already appears as the base for the subchannel numbers (which are now in the infobox) and the out-of-core -DT is only a temporary assignment and therefore not particularly notable.

The one case in which the "post-transition" field is omitted should be the one where it matches the current DTV channel. That's the usual case. Anything else should be in the box. Opinions? --66.46.167.154 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the analog should change over to the PSIP assignment I think, probably under the listing "Previous analog/current virtual PSIP" (or something shorter). No matter what though, using that post-transition field isn't going to work because it will break many boxes if it's removed on 2/17. It should not be there and the post channel should be mentioned within the text of an article rather than within the infobox because right now those post-transition channels can still change up to the last minute. Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would use terms that reflect the future, say 'DTV channel' rather then 'post transition'. That way a simple change to the template and you can automatically update what is displayed on all stations at transition. The old data can remain in the info box and we just don't display it. A lot less work at the time of conversion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So "analog", "temporary_digital" and "digital"? Might work, hopefully not too many of these edits have been made to remove the info on the permanent DTV assignments after this is all over. Renaming "analog" to "PSIP" won't work, though, as the template is on stations like CBOT/CBOFT which won't be shutting down full-power analogue transmitters when the US does so - as they transmit from Québec.

One possible option may be to modify just the template on 2/17 to use some sort of #if: if post-transition channel exists, display it *as* the digital channel instead of the temporary information that's there now. Still, your idea seems to be a cleaner solution - although the analog info will still need to be removed when this is over, at least the "temporarily on DTV channel 60" entries could be made to disappear cleanly.

That still leaves, in either case, the question of how to make the effective-radiated-power info for the defunct transmitters "go away" after they shut down on Feb 17. All of the power levels (analogue, digital_temporary, digital) are in the same template field, separated by <br/>'s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.227 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just ERP for the temporary channel assignments that needs to go away after this is over; some of these boxes list different antenna heights or other info for analogue vs. digital. I'm not sure how to handle these. --carlb (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The only other solution I could see is some sort of robot update - and it would need to get robot status here just to run once, on the 1800 or so US stations, to remove defunct analogue channel assignments (PSIP is already under "subchannels" so no need to create a PSIP section) and to remove out-of-core temporary DTV assignments. I don't expect post-transition channels to be changed that much, given that this is about the US channels primarily and they're less than a year from analogue switchoff. I do expect trivia like "WNET-DT digital: 61 (UHF)" to lose its notability very quickly after this is over; the permanent channel is thirteen and 61 will be out-of-core. Removing TV from 52-69 was the whole objective of this entire hideously-expensive endeavour, no? --66.46.167.154 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that we really can't mod the analog field (because it's still in use for many of the analog stations outside of the US in North America and for LPTV's after 2/17), so we will have to keep it for the other stations in North America. Probably we should go with some kind of bot to edit everything out, but we have to be careful because in the power level field there's no separate sections for analog or digital. And even then there are going to be analog stations shutting down before 2/17, so we might need to go with more human work than bot work on this one. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a robot replace {{Infobox Broadcast}} with an identical copy of the template under some other name (maybe {{Infobox Broadcast-DTV}}) on all US full-power -TV articles would provide a template from which you could remove or modify the analog field on 2/17 without affecting -LP, -CA, -FM/radio or non-US articles. At this point, though, I'm more concerned with the question of whether we even *have* the final channel frequency assignments for many stations post-2009.

All U.S. post-2009 DTV channels have been assigned. A handful may change on a case-by-case basis, most likely for stations that need to flash cut to digital and whose DTV allotment hasn't been formally approved pending international coordiation (KAJB and KFTU-TV for example), but the volume of changes should be very, very low. A lot of stations have invested a lot of money into the DTV transition so far. In addition, many stations that are giving up their temporary DTV allotment and going back to their old analog channel have already filed applications for their new facilities with the FCC, so those should be readily available. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also the question of what to do with the channel-numbered categories post-transition. Currently they're based on the analogue channel, but what happens when that signal is shut down? Should channels be categorised by analogue channel, digital channel, temporary digital channel, virtual channel or is it time to give up and just hit buttons on the remote control at random? If everything in Category: Channel 5 stations in Glendive, Montana just needed to be moved en-masse to Category: Channel 10 digital stations in Glendive, Montana that might be manageable, but add the other 209 markets and their 1800 or so channels to this and it quickly could become very unwieldy.

The entries that have digital subchannels listed as "affiliations" could also be awkward to update en masse as too many of these are listed in "some network, some other network (DT2), some other programme (DT3)" format without indicating the base number for all these virtual channels. Presumably the PSIP numbering uses the (former) analogue channel as the base for numbering virtual channels, so that's still in almost all of the articles at the moment, but at some point post-transition all of those analog numbers will be removed from the infoboxen. A format like "subchannels: 37.1 DuMont<br/>37.2 NET<br/>37.3 The Tube" would be preferable, but that's a lot of affected articles. --carlb (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm really perplexed

I'm not sure what Carlb is trying to accomplish here, and I'm sure his intentions are well-thought. But I think there's way too much experimentation going on with the fields in the infoboxes. First I see "Post-transition", and now that's been replaced with "DTV (temporary)". Then there's the subchannel field, which can get a bit lengthy with some stations. And finally, in WNET, for example, ERP for the final digital frequency is listed next to its channel assignment.

From what I've gathered, there is still no clear consensus on how to approach this. So for now, I think we should all go back to the previous status quo and revert the infoboxes until we come up with a suitable format that includes the post-transition information. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed here, at length. "Post-transition" was replaced as a result of that discussion to ensure that, once all of this is over in 2009, the final info is already in the digital field and other fields with obsolete DTV transition info are simply deleted from the template. To do otherwise would increase by far the number of manual edits needed on February 17, 2009 when this is finished; already a problem. Deleting information from the articles is not helpful, please don't do this. --carlb (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue I have is with placing both the current (pre-transition) DTV channel alongside the post-transition channel. What we should remember is that there are readers who may not be "into" this stuff to the extent we are, and we should't make things too confusing for the average reader. It was confusing for me, and I've been here for over two years now.

The fields are already there, and that is important. But I think they shouldn't be fully utilized until, say, two or three months 2-17-09, and kept blank until then. With the Wilmington, N.C. market making the early switch on September 8, there will be enough time to test and tweak the infoboxes before the rest of the country follows suit. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the data that needs to already be there, not just a field name. The displayed names beside the fields in each of the respective #if options (DTV stations which are moving, DTV which are staying put) are trivial to change, hide or redefine just by changing the template. Adding channel numbers to hundreds of individual articles that are missing the final DTV assignments, however, will be no small task and not something to be left to the last minute before transition. I do suspect that the continued removal of information from articles will mean that many will have no final channel info (or wrong info) come 2009. --carlb (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Further testing needed

I've been reading over and over again, and I've found a lot of talk on what to do with the infoboxes post-transition, with lots of ideas being tossed around. But in searching for some kind of general agreement, I found no clear and consensus.

Like I said before, I'm sure that Carlb means well. But I think what he's done is a bit too much right now and is more confusing and complicated than helpful. The point I'm trying to make here is this: there is such a thing as "too much information". It may be all relevant, but does it all really need to be in there, right now?

For example...there is no need to put post-transition effective radiated power in the infobox, because it's presumptive. There is also no need to list post-transition channel numbers yet, also because the switch hasn't happened yet. I will reiterate again that we all should remember that these articles should be easier to read for the novice (average) reader who is not a television geek. There will be no wrong info in any article come next February. As for subchannel information, the mini-table I've plugged into many articles should take care of that until the switch. Subchannels are a minor thing right now, and should be treated as such.

I wanted to tweak the infobox so that the "permanent_digital" data field becomes optional rather than required, but this stuff is beyond me. While Carlb did a good job in adding the new fields, the "Post-2009" line isn't really necessary right now and should not be a required field in the box. Also, there is no reason to add post-transition power in the boxes as well, but he's plugged that into many articles.

It may be necessary to start fresh, have more discussions, and do more testing before we go changing everything en masse. So, on that note, I've reverted the Infobox Broadcast template and several of your favorite station articles. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were looking for a way to simply hide the final channel assignments until transition, reverting the infobox is not the way to go about it. That reversion forces everything to display as they would appear after the transition is over; the "revert the infobox to make the temporary channel assignments go away" behaviour is by design and the explanation as to why this is true is above ("The digital transition begins September 8..."). It is possible to have the info present (and not displayed) everywhere by editing nothing but the infobox, if there were consensus here to do that. What you've done is not the way to go about this, however.

The choice of frequency and power to be used by stations after this is over will determine not only what antenna is needed to receive them, it will in some cases make the difference between receiving a good signal or nothing at all. Subchannels are also not just "a minor thing right now" in all markets; there's little of note on them in NYC but in other markets they are the current means of adding networks like Fox and CW.

If you're not certain as to how the template works, please don't make edits like this. The result you've created is quite clearly not what you intended and will need to be undone (at least at the template level) until this is all over. --carlb (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, what's there now is a compromise version (the full template, with the "post-2009" junk commented out somehow)? No idea why someone keeps changing this to break the template, but "analog 10 (VHF) digital 10 (VHF)" on the same channel at the same time because someone who doesn't understand templates is editing templates? No, thank you. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Power levels

One more issue; listing the final channel assignments with no power level is giving some strange results in cases where UHF channels are returning to VHF after all this is done. For instance, WJW "Transmitter Power 236 kW (analog) 625 kW (digital)" with "WJW-TV will move its digital broadcasts back to its present analog channel number, 8." More than half a megawatt of power on channel 8 would be impressive, only problem is that it isn't going to happen that way - Fox 8 will be back on eight but at greatly-reduced power, gracias FCC. *sigh* --72.140.46.227 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Listing the final channel assignments with no power level is giving some strange results...?" Read my response above: it isn't necessary for that yet. No reason to overload with information that is still useless right now. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat, yet again

He's back as User talk:76.195.180.84 this time. But when I tried to report him, I got chewed on for posting a sock complaint in the "wrong place" by User:Doczilla. So he still lives. Just damn. --Mhking (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I filed a sock report, so at least someone is working on it. I also had a run-in with Doczilla — you can see my exchange here and here, and draw your own conclusions. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an obvious sock of a block-evading vandal can be banned on sight. I personally would love to bust a block-evading vandal. But I have to know that's what it is. I've seen too many people hurl sock accusations -- many but not all of which are correct -- to take a sock accusation at face value. To give the accuser the benefit of the doubt would mean not giving it to the accused; so either way would fail to assume good faith about somebody.

Believe me, I know how frustrating this can be. A vandal once known as Creepy Crawler drives us nuts. A ready evidence list appears at Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler so that any admin available to evaluate the sock can quickly take action. The evidence list doesn't quite speak for itself, though. Someone referring to it would still need to point out which parts of the list match what the sock is doing.

If you want the person blocked quickly, please explain or point to evidence more clear than the person's unexplained edit history. At first glance, that person's edit history looks similar to the histories of those of you who combat him/her in terms of which pages are getting edited. When I look through the specific edits, it just looks like a content dispute. I can't know if the year 1995 or 1994 is right when that person has changed a year. So the edit history in this case is not enough for an admin to see what's wrong or to see proof that this is a banned vandal, at least not without investing an awful lot of time that you who know the case could have saved the admin.

So where should this have been reported?

• To report a sock, see WP:SOCK for information. Notice one thing that it says: Sock puppets typically are identified through requests posted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets based on their visible edits and/or requests posted at requests for checkuser based on edit information that is accessible by the few Wikipedians who have checkuser privileges.
• To report immediate, obvious, blatant vandalism that meets the criteria for going on right at that time, make an AIV report and, while you're at it, mention that it's a block-evading vandal, preferrably linking to the evidence. If it's not obvious, then you can still report at AIV if you clearly demonstrate why it's vandalism and why the perpetrator is obvious to you as a block-evading vandal. (You should still make periodic checkuser requests to establish the history more clearly.) You need to make it obvious to the person who will be doing the blocking, not just obvious to yourself. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I submitted another vandalism report, and the account was immediately blocked for 31 hours. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but socks of a banned vandal will be blocked indefinitely if you make your case correctly. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK: I like making sock reports, remember? Perhaps you care to educate us on the correct way to make one's case? So far, you've been no help at all. And you certainly didn't do anything to block this vandal, even temporarily. On the contrary, you stood in the way, choosing to investigate my history instead of his. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One source for the requested education can be found at Wikipedia:Guide_to_administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#When_reporting_at_AIV_is_not_appropriate. Note where it says that when a report at AIV is appropriate, you should link to the sock report. Doczilla _STOMP! 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive template change

If you haven't already noticed, someone created a new username MadeForMe, and immediately made wholesale changes to each state's TV network templates. I'll assume the edits were good-faith, but it's still a change I don't agree with. User:Enric Naval has opened an incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive425#New_user_mass-editing_templates and has invited MadeForMe to a discussion there. He also notified WikiProject Television of the discussion, so I'm posting notification here. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the Wisconsin templates and support rollback of every edit made. This does not have a consenus, is disruptive and pretty much redundant as each template is categorized in the intrastate and regional network templates categories already. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a tool that automagically adds summaries to all the rollbacks you make, and I rollbacked all the changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)So, what is left of this user's contributions is this list of templates that he created in order to use on the other templates:

• Template:FoxUSA
• Template:NPRUSA
• Template:PBSUSA
• Template:MNTVUSA
• Template:CWUSA
• Template:NBCUSA
• Template:CBSUSA
• Template:ABCUSA

Please, look at them and say if I should nominate all of them on WP:TFD templates for deletion or if you can use them somewhere --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't use them, the postal abbreviations in some cases are incorrect and there's no context to say what they're showing. They're already listed in the categories for intrastate and regional templates and are basically redundant. Nate • (chatter) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--I can't see where in an article you're gonna put these templates. It would just take up space where text could go. Blueboy96 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's strictly extraneous material, not to mention that he left out some states (such as Hawaii) and gave incorrect USPS abbrevs to Wisconsin (I didn't know they were "WS" instead of "WI"). Delete them. -- azumanga (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They've been WS ever since they became part of West Samoa, as far as I know. --carlb (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The part of Samoa that is American territory is American Samoa, whose USPS code is "AS". Western Samoa, now called just "Samoa", is its own country, not part of the US. -- azumanga (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the templates at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_2 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional callsigns

We have various pages, such as WAMY-TV, listed under fictitious callsigns. These stations were typically WB 100+ (CW Plus) affiliates originally created as cable-only channels with nonsense as call letters. These broadcasts are now finding their way onto legit digital subchannels of real TV stations under common ownership - so WAMY-TV is merely a fictional cable television brand name for the real WZDX-DT2. As much as an encyclopædia of fiction may be amusing, shouldn't these articles be using a real station callsign instead of a fictional one? --carlb (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a long complicated story behind this...pretty much they started out as cable channels programmed by the cable providers and WB homebase in Burbank carrying the WB in markets without a broadcast WB station, and then with the digital age they turned into affiliates for the CW and some of them were picked up by broadcast channels (or programming rights were purchased by the broadcast channels) for a DT2 affiliation. The call letters may be fictional but they serve a purpose to give the station a branding beyond the digital subchannel and allow stations to have a unique identity. There's no need to change them; even if the scheme got convoluted by the digital age, the branding is consistent. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The branding is consistent unless and until any of these calls are assigned to legitimate stations. At that point, we have a problem. They are not a unique identity. There is also the not-so-minor detail that these are fiction, not encyclopædic fact. --carlb (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that call signs of that type have no legal standing in an FCC sense, in situations like this the article titles also have to give some consideration to how readers are likely to identify the topic. I sincerely doubt that one reader in a thousand, if looking for an article on their local CW Plus cable carrier, would know to look up "WZDX-DT2" instead of the call sign, be it FCC-assigned or not, that the station actually uses in its identification breaks. I just thank gawd that the only station of this type in Canada, Atlantic Satellite Network, uses a brand name and not an unofficial pseudo-callsign. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some are constructed to look like real ITU callsigns for their respective area, ie: someone picks WTWB "we're the Warner brothers" for a fake callsign, puts the signal on cable television and doesn't bother to check whether there is a real WTWB on some radio station in Florida... --66.46.167.154 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The common viewer wouldn't notice, and since they're just fake call letters, theres nothing to be confused about (unless the cable channel picked similar calls of an area station in which then the real station can force the fictional calls to be changed.

Aren't most of these fictional call letters going away anyway? Most CW (since I think thats what this discussion is mainly around) stations being grabbed up by the licensed stations are starting to position themselves as "The Valley's CW" or whatever their market area is. So only markets where the cable company keeps control of the cable channel is where we would have an issue. Mr mark taylor (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One can hope, yes. Legally, going on-air with a nonsense ID "This is WABBIT-TV 1 Albuquerque" is a far more serious matter than using this as a station's ID within a closed system such as cable. I doubt a legit OTA station would want to risk the wrath of the FCC by using an ID of some other distant station on the air, and they will be going away largely because they use -WB suffixes and WB is no longer WB but CW. --72.140.46.227 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WKTV-DT2 is still listed as WBU (The CW Plus) in Wikipedia, but no sign of this particular fake callsign on yourcwtv.com/partners/utica/contactus.php - just "WKTV/The CW P.O. Box 2 Utica 13503" --66.46.167.154 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Subchannels of physical channel numbers?

I notice the convention of using the physical channel number of a digital broadcast, followed by '.' and the minor virtual channel number is appearing in quite a few places here. This should be avoided. For instance, I note that the page for WNBT Channel 1 in New York has been edited to "subchannels: (see article)" as a bookmark to this text:

"The station's digital channel is multiplexed:

Digital channels

Subchannel	Programming
4.1 / 28.1	main WNBC-TV/NBC programming
4.2 / 28.2	NBC Weather Plus
4.4 / 28.4	WNBC 4.4 (proposed all-news channel)

"

It looks innocuous enough, but a look at the PSIP standard (ATSC A/65C Annex B, linked from psip.org's main page) indicates the following naming convention:

• WNBC's analogue channel is currently 4 (due to longtime abolition of Channel 1) so its virtual channels are numbered 4.1, 4.2... based on this NTSC branding.
• WNBC therefore keeps this 4.1 virtual channel indicator regardless of where its digital signal is moved (in this case, channel 28 as the permanent DTV assignment)
• When WNBC shuts down analogue simulcast in 2009, channel 4 becomes available for assignment to new applicants in New York City, but with a digital power limit of 20000 watts or less - likely much less. Odds are high though that eventually someone will apply for NYC VHF 4.
• The new licensee will not be able to use 4.1, 4.2... as their virtual channels (as they're in use by WNBC) so the ATSC standard defines a convention in which WNBC-DT's physical channel number (28) is used as the base major channel to number the new station's virtual channels as 28.1, 28.2... on physical channel VHF 4.

Confused yet? Good. Nonetheless, I believe the correct designation is "WNBC-DT, ATSC channel UHF 28, subchannel 4.1" and *not* "subchannel 28.1" on its own or in conjunction with other designators. It's a technicality now, but it will come back to bite us some time post-transition if handled incorrectly. JMHO. --carlb (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what's listed is correct. The low VHF channels are probably not going to be reassigned at all except to low-powers because of their lousy reception (WBBM-TV being a perfect test subject of this), and most every station except a few is preferring UHF to transmit digitally. If there's going to be a channel 4 assigned after the digital switchover, we're sure to find the appopriate way to disclaim it. Plus really most of the PSIP and branding has been done voluntarily and with consistent support through all the broadcasting standards organizations outside of the FCC.

As for going on about Channel 1...that was taken care of sixty years ago. There's nothing to apply an example of it to digital television. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I mention it only as in the case of multiple channel moves (analog 1 -> analog 4 -> digital 28) it's the last channel to be licensed to the station in NTSC analogue that is used for the virtual channel numbering, regardless of how many other times the station would have moved in frequency before or since transition. In this case, UHF 28 ATSC subchannels are 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4

WBBM-TV is going to a higher VHF channel, not to UHF, and I'm aware of the low power limits on 2-6 VHF DTV. Nonetheless, even if a one-watt station were licensed to take over the former channel 4 in NY, it would indeed have "28.1" as its virtual channel number. That much is spelled out in Annex B, ATSC spec A/65C, available on psip.org. If the ATSC standards work in such a way as to split physical UHF 28 NYC into virtual 4.1, 4.2... we should respect that convention instead of trying to turn subchannel "4.1" arbitrarily into "4.1 / 28.1". 28 does not and should not appear in WNBC-DT subchannel numbering. --carlb (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WNBC should only be listed as 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.4, and the only place channel 28 should appear is with a specific label of "RF channel". After the transition, should any TV station choose to use RF channel 4, its virtual channel will be 28, unless it's a repeater of another station, in which case its virtual channel would be the same as that of the station it's repeating. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-transition DTV frequencies

I notice that there are still many US stations which will want to (or will have to) leave their existing digital frequency assignments when this is all over, but where the permanent channel numbers are not in the articles. Even if it's just some non-notable backwater station like KCBS-TV, to list channel 60 as its only digital assigned frequency if that frequency will be out-of-core in 2009 is incorrect. Nonetheless, looking up all of these on FCC.gov and updating the pages is no small task, as they're scattered across eighteen DTV channels and across hundreds of markets from coast to coast. Many US stations can stay and will be staying on their existing DTV channels, but not all. BTW, the permanent allocation for KCBS-DT is channel 43. --carlb (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We have until February to add the information. I'll add post-transition info as I work on an article, but if you wish to organize such a project to get it done sooner, please feel free to do so. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Retro Jams

What is the status of Equity Broadcasting-owned Retro Jams and the various affiliates which listed it in their individual articles, including KIMG-LP 23 Ventura, California WJXF-LP 49 Jackson, Mississippi and WUHQ-LP 29 Grand Rapids, Michigan? It seems many stations which used to carry the channel are now carrying RTN instead, and there's no mention on Equity's site (emdaholdings.com) to say whether Retro Jams as a network is even still active. There appears to be a "Retro Jams by Request" which ran as a regular TV programme on some other channel, but is the full-time channel defunct in the finest tradition of The Tube? The article and related pages are a mess, I'm not getting anywhere trying to sort this out. --carlb (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The main trouble is very few people even watch the channels -- I didn't even know that WUHQ started carrying Retro Jams in late-2007 until after the demise of its former network, LAT TV (and that's after I commented about it on the Michigan Buzzboard). For many LPTV and minor-league stations, it's very difficult to keep current, unless you actually live within the coverage area and have an antenna (being a cable person, the only time I watch aerial TV is at the thrift shops). -- azumanga (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; with most of these networks airing on lower-tier cable networks and small television stations, you have to realize that usually, there is nobody watching, literally. Your audience is limited to non-cable households unless you can scrounge up must-carry and that most of the time these small networks just don't survive. NOYZ is a good case of this, where I could pretty much only go on some local stories saying the network was dead along with my personal observation that MavTV wasn't airing it anymore. Also WUHQ is notorius for picking the most out-of-luck networks in the industry. Once you dip below America One and the more established shopping networks most of them you have to scrounge up info that most of the time isn't there. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, some of this stuff is visible across most of the North American continent with a good, strong signal here: http://www.lyngsat.com/galaxy10r.html - it's just once it lands on the ground that it gets turned into underpowered UHF that no one watches. I used to be able to see Retro Jams (and before that, The Tube) but it looks like both may have gone the way of the dodo. I only raise the question of Retro Jams as the article is a mess and doesn't make it clear whether the channel even exists anymore. It might be long gone, in which case the page should be updated to reflect this. --carlb (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NOYZ is still listed as current affilation of WIIC-LP, even though the article on NOYZ itself indicates it as defunct. Looks like on this WP isn't even internally consistent? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that you assume good faith and know that if there's something that you don't see right, be bold and fix it. As noted, these are small networks nobody watched and they were on stations that barely have any kind of presence in their respective markets. Some of these station articles see as few as two edits in a year for just that reason, and I'm sorry if any of us missed this one previously. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC

(cc: Television and Radio WikiProjects.) Due to the use of a variety of different title formats, Category:Lists of media by city needs a review to determine a consistent naming standard. I've initiated a discussion at Category talk:Lists of media by city around this. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

krca62.tv

Any idea what will become of KRCA after 2009? It appears to be a live Riverside, California station, but it has no channels (and no FCC construction permits) anywhere in the 2-51 core spectrum. I'd be surprised were the FCC to allow it to stay on 62 (or 68) but where else is it going? --carlb (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is the point of all these questions? We've answered many of them above. If KRCA doesn't have a digital signal yet, obviously the FCC hasn't gotten to it yet and it doesn't need to be addressed. Please utilize the talk pages of the individual articles if the question doesn't deal in a broad sense and just applies to one topic. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the post-transition information to the article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On virtual channels

What do we do if a station's virtual channel maps to something different than their analog or digital channel? For example, I recently found out WWSB is on virtual channel 7.1. Is that significant enough to be listed in the infobox? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd presume a virtual channel is handled in the same manner as a subchannel; no idea how you folks intend to handle subchannels. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WWSB's use of "7" as PSIP (instead of "40" or "24") adds to the headaches on how we should treat TV stations in this new era. This also adds another problem to categorisation and listing the channels -- examples being WSWG, which is still categorised as "44" (its PSIP) instead of "43", despite broadcasting only on 43 in digital; and KAZT's Phoenix repeater, which is now listed in that market as 7 (its PSIP) instead of 27 (its actual channel, in digital and analog). Should we now move WWSB to 7? Also, does anyone have any aspirin? -- azumanga (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, we've got it bad. I could use some headache medicine myself. What should we undertake first? Rollosmokes (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WSWG and KAZT are identifying by their correct virtual channels, per FCC. WWSB is not; they are supposed to identify as 40.X. MHO is, we should be using the virtual channel for all identification in categories, lists, infoboxes, etc. The only reason the RF channel needs to be listed anywhere is for a situation like Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, where the market has been an all-UHF market for over 50 years, and it's common to see UHF-only antennas on rooftops, but now WYOU-TV 22 and WBRE 28 are broadcasting on VHF channels, 13 and 11, respectively, but their virtual channels are UHF. I'm thinking perhaps that the channel given by default should be the virtual channel, and any time the RF channel is mentioned, it should specifically be labeled "RF Channel". In the case of WWSB, even though their identification isn't FCC-compliant, they should still be listed under channel 7. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we use virtual channels in navboxes, I think the "actual" digital channel deserves little more than a mention as people don't watch a station on its "actual" DT channel. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse... the virtual channels on a transmitter don't necessarily all even have the same base number. KWBF has

42.1 MyNetworkTV

42.2 RTN

7.1 KATV (due to KATV Tower collapse) --66.46.167.154 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

KESQ-TV in Palm Springs CA is the same way:

• 42.1 ABC on DT1
• 33.2 FOX affiliate KDFX-CA, analog channel 33 on DT2
• 2.3 CW affiliate KCWQ-LP, analog channel 2 on DT3
• 42.2 AccuWeather on DT4

(The lineup in the KESQ-TV article is actually incorrect.) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I have now corrected. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse...

WWSB is on virtual channel 7.1; the article for that station is now worded to claim that it is doing this in violation of FCC rules. So who should be on 7? A repeater of underpowered Ft. Myers WEVU-CA, serving Naples, Florida. From that article:

Caloosa Television, the then-owners of the low-power stations, picked up the WEVU-LP calls for channel 7 on November 6, 1995. At that time, the station referred to itself as "The Real Channel 7" (this was a result of WZVN billing itself as "ABC 7" after their cable channel placement; WEVU-LP was on cable channel 8 on the Fort Myers cable system). Cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.167.154 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This could be because WFLA-TV is on Digital Channel 7 because WWSB Is part of a "sub"-market (as I like to call them) WFLA's signal reaches well into Manatee and Sarasota Counties. Tapeisback —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In WFLA's case, it's a moot point, as they use "8" as its PSIP channel. But then again, are there any receivers or sets that allow you to tune into a channel either with PSIP or actual channel number? If so, then there may be a problem there. -- azumanga (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories for Digital Channels

I've noticed that carlb has now set up categories specific to digital channels per channel number -- for an example, see Category:Channel 7 digital TV stations in the United States. With analog sunset coming in February, and all full powered channels in the US being digital, are categories like this necessary? -- azumanga (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord, no, they're redundant (ugh). Will he ever get the point that these category and template changes are clearly against the consenus? Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his creation of a brand-new infobox strictly for DTV, {{Infobox DTV}}. I'm not sure what he wants to prove, but he's gonna learn one way or the other. As I write this, I'm reverting ALL of his changes over the past 24 hours or so. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WLH for Infobox DTV. Plenty switched over without any discussion. Could this be block-worthy since he went around us to institute these changes? Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- since the regular TV template has been blocked, he decided to roll his own. He apparently refuses to take "no" for an answer. One more thing I should add -- earlier, he accused me of being crystal for saying that a new station run by Gainesville's WGFL will be on digital channel 9 and analog 29, in which I added that it's unlikely that 29 will be lit; the new station's FCC records and the closeness of the analog sunset confirms it all. I say he should be blocked for acting too "high and mighty". -- azumanga (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, he labeled me a vandal for labelling him as a sockpuppet. Last time I checked, he's earned that accurately. I second a motion for a block, and I was thinking about drafting an RfC against him, but I'll hold off on that unless he tries to force-feed his stuff on us again. I'm also considering slapping his DTV Infobox with a Templates for Deletion tag. What do you think about that?

BTW, I could use some help reverting his changes. Damn, there's so many. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: I'm also considering slapping his DTV Infobox with a Templates for Deletion tag. What do you think about that? -- Good idea. Same for his categories. We are already too close to analog sunset for this. -- azumanga (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll get to it sometime later today. I'm gonna shut it down in the next 15 mins. or so. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on reversions tomorrow afternoon, I'm off too. I got the Wisconsin stations covered for tonight. Nate • (chatter) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All templates (beyond a userpage experiment page unrelated to Carlb) have been reverted to Infobox Broadcast. Nate • (chatter) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes WP:ANI notice

Carlb has served Rollo with a WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rollosmokes. -- azumanga (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Rollosmokes (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Mendte

We're going to have to keep a close eye on this article for the next couple weeks now that he's under FBI investigation about the Alycia Lane fiasco involving access to an email account or other things. This might be something that could bring Spotteddogsdotorg or impersonators of his style out of hiding. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New Dingbat sock

This time it's Word35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and he's left quite the mess to clean up. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First report on AIV declined by Doczilla on the technicality that I didn't link to the SSP report. Anyone with the sense to look at Dingbat's suspected sockpuppet category can see that Word## is his naming pattern. Reporting should not be this full of bureaucracy. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Second attempt resulted in indef. Nate • (chatter) 06:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the remainder of the socks to the SSP so that the pattern among usernames can be quickly scanned. I'm really getting tired of this; battling vandals was bad enough; now we have to battle administrators on power trips as well. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Him again? I thought he'd gotten the hint he wasn't welcome. Anyways, drop me a line on my talk page the next time he shows up ... he's banned as far as I'm concerned. Blueboy96 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He's back, as Word70. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just tagged him as such. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone also tell him about channels 14 and higher being UHF? In all the new article he created, EVERY station is VHF. At least he's not pulling that "Disney Channel on free OTA TV" stuff, but nevertheless, he's still giving me a headache. -- azumanga (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he did add at least one Disney Channel affiliation. [6] -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He never left. Most of his edits recently have actually been accurate and helpful, but lately, he's been adding some of the information that Wtvg1 had been adding, leaving me to wonder if they're the same person, or if Dingbat has just found new material with which to vandalize. I think school's out in the Dallas, Texas are by now, so I'm sure he's bored already. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another IP: [7]; see especially his edits to KVHP. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. -- azumanga (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Infobox Broadcast template issue...

...I'll reprint a comment I made on the template's talk page:

"Recent changes made by Carlb and his suspected IP socks, 66.46.167.154 (talk) and 72.140.46.227 (talk) have been reverted. At issue is the inclusion of post-transition digital information, such as virtual channels and effective radiated power.

"Some of us, myself included, have argued that including some of this information isn't yet necessary, as there is still eight months to go before the transition deadline. That leaves us with enough time to tweak the current infobox format and, if necessary, create a new infobox. While a notable concession is made on the inclusion of subchannels, the other issues are still being discussed. This user has been making the changes without engaging in dialogue with other users, or waiting for a consensus on how to approach them. Should this continue, I suggest requesting some form of protection for the template."

Azumanga1 and myself have been doing the reverting. All other concerned editors should be on the lookout. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted the post-transition channels hidden, the version that was there *before* you started vandalising the template by going on a revert spree does exactly that. The version that you keep posting and reposting does not. It is quite clear that you do not understand the operation of the fields which you keep changing. Stop doing this. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: The template has once again been reverted, and has been reported to WP:RFPP, with a request for full protection. Carlb and his IP socks have been reported to WP:AIV. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further update: It was an ugly process, but the template is now protected indefintely, thanks to Rudget. Rollosmokes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wtvg1

User:Wtvg1 has been adding news music information to articles. I believe it was a consensus that this was trivial information that doesn't need to be included in articles. Can someone do something about it? Ntropolis (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed some of that crap from WCVB-TV, WRAL-TV, and WIS-TV, but he's got more. Let's keep an eye on him. Rollosmokes (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I advised the user specifically that news music is considered trivial. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

His overall body of edits suggest something that can be more of a problem, at least to me: He seems to be contributing nothing more than (mostly) unsourced and trivial fancruft. All you have to do is read his user page to see what I mean. And he didn't listen to us on adding news music to articles, because I cleaned up WSFL-TV earlier this morning. We should keep him in our cypher. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this just another incarnation of Dingbat2007? Or has Wtvg1 just provided Dingbat with another way to make mischief? Tonight, a user from Dingbat's ISP and editing articles that Dingbat usually edits, began adding the Newscast titles to articles. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another IP vandal to watch...

"24.207.239.71" (talk • contribs) has been hitting up WNBC, WCBS-TV, KSNT, KUSA-TV, and WXIA-TV with lots of poop. Rollosmokes (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another instance of the St. Louis vandal. Is there an "original" ip/username this person had so that we can point there and start sockpuppet reports against this goon? --Mhking (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that he's ahead of the game by not registering; this way, a track record would be difficult to create, unlike some who had "graduated" from IPs to full Wiki accounts, for socking purposes (<cough>Elladog</cough>). -- azumanga (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he hasn't registered, so we can't start a sockpuppet report due to no puppetmaster account, but I have been keeping track of this vandal, with lots of help from others. See User:Dhett/IPVandals/St. Louis signer. I just added him. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After the IP laid a few more eggs this morning, I've reported it to WP:AIV. Lradrama has blocked it for a full 24. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmbabies rampage killed aborning

70.132.142.185's first edit was to blank my userpage. Happened to do a whois--and wouldn't you know, it's AT&T in Houston, stomping grounds of Mmbabies. Blocked 31 hours--I think I stopped another Mmbabies rampage. I'm still laughing at how dumb it was--if you want to vandalize, the last place you want to go is an admin's page. Blueboy96 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was mmbabies, it was just as I thought -- he only bided his time until he found another opportunity to attack. And as we already experienced in recent days, we already have our hands full with other socks and troublemakers as it is. -- azumanga (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Carlb @ ANI

Carlb started a topic heading at ANI/User:Rollosmokes accusing Rollo of having an 'axe to grind' and that he keeps reverting his changes because of single-handed consensus from him. I've tried reasoning with him that this is not the case, it is project consensus, and that his rounding of consensus with the DTV box is against guidelines, but he won't listen to me. I'm ready to abstain from this one because his incommunication has gone beyond frustrating. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just love when people attempt to hide their mistakes by making someone else look bad. What a loser. Rollosmokes (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox DTV

Template:Infobox DTV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rollosmokes (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

KXAN-TV

Can someone take a look at KXAN-TV, specifically the structure of the on-air talent section (but the whole article might need a review)? There's been some long-term editing conflicts going on; it'd be nice for someone with experience editing tv-station articles to clean it up. Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I hope that I helped. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More non-consenus template changes

This time SpanishReligion broke out the ION Television stations from the Other Stations templates in each state into their own without a word. I have to disagree with this one; my state for instance only has two stations so it's much more appropriate for an entry on Other than an intrastate ION template. California, Texas and Florida might be justified, but I just don't see it for other states. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can some states have their own ion templates while other states have them listed as "other television stations"? I don't see the need for the templates when you only have 1 or 2 stations in a state (or in the case where i live Maine, none). At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts taking out the TBN stations and giving them their own template, and then the Daystar stations, etc. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 01:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely not contest a state where more than four stations exist for the network, but like in a case where he created an ION template for North Dakota, with one station, that's a bit much. I've asked him to explain here and hopefully we can get some input on this. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's definitely no need for a one or two station template. But I'd also like to note that Wikipedia now has the capability to create templates which can hide sections that aren't relevant to a particular article, which means the option now exists of merging individual network-affiliates-in-state templates into single by-state templates with hideable sections for each network. I'd strongly suggest that approach here, even if only to minimize the need to have this kind of discussion again in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

DZRH-TV was listed as a hoax and PRODed. I determined that it looks genuine, but the station is inactive. What guidelines generally apply for TV stations? Anyone aware of other situations re articles on inactive stations? I'm tempted to put this up for an A7, but wanted a second opinion or three first. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We have been using the broadcast media notability essay as guidance; however, that standard uses classifications such as full-service, low power, translator, etc., that are mostly US-centric, or at least North American-centric. DZRH-TV was a TV Natin station in the Philippines, and TV Natin redirects to Manila Broadcasting Company, Inc., where all of the other TV Natin stations are listed, none of which have individual articles. The article for DZRH doesn't have much info, so rather that deleting the article, it should be merged into Manila Broadcasting Company and replaced by a redirect. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Newscasts titles - do we want these?

We've already agreed that newscast music is of interest to too few people to be encyclopedic, and now I think it's time for a consensus on newscast titles in articles. Do we really want these? Here's why I think we don't: lack of reliable sources, especially for historical newscast titles. I know of one website devoted to historical newscast titles, but it doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. Current newscast titles can usually be found on a station's website, and articles already link to those. I also believe that as with news music, newscast titles are trivial in nature and are of interest to too few readers to be encyclopedic. Agree or disagree - and why? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all points. I'll add this: the inclusion of newscast titles wasn't really an issue until Wtvg1 came along. It proves the old adage "All it takes is one bad apple..." to be correct. One editor more interested in fancruft than contributing constructively has led us to this. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks, two opinions does not make consensus. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or do I drop the issue altogether? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree; there is no definitive source (or set of sources) available to confirm the newscast titles. (on a peripheral note, I think the newscast music is probably more encyclopedic, especially since there are more sources available to confirm and establish notability) --Mhking (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing userpages

Whatever your differences with Wtvg1, edits like this one are not appropriate. Do not use the User:Wtvg1 page to push your own agenda; that's not what it's there for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, WP:NOT does not apply to Wtvg1, true or false? What you want is to ignore all offences and just grin and bear it, correct? We have a set of rules to follow, and if it does not go by these rules, it must be corrected. -- azumanga (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on his page violated WP:NOT. Leave the userpages alone - it's not our place to be editing them for content, unless it contains a personal attack. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Two editors we need to watch...

• 1: Lantana11, both directly and through a sockpuppet IP, "67.180.135.133" (talk • contribs), has a singular desire to make a point about flagship stations, and has chosen the KCBS-TV entry as his test. He is also intent on overexpanding introductory paragraphs. He has been seeking mediation from several editors but has not even attempted to come here for an opinion -- wait, he did ([8]), but he deleted his comment before anyone could respond. Just putting that out here for the sake of full-disclosure.

• 2: Carlb, possibly through the use of IP sock "66.102.80.212" (talk • contribs) continues to push his point on the post-transition DTV information by inserting himself into the conflict between Lantana11 and myself.

It should be noted that both of these users are blaming myself and a "group of editors who rule Television Stations very strongly" (in the words of SilkTork, from a comment written on Lantana11's talk page) for wielding control and ownership of articles within our realm. I have argued in favor of respecting and following consensus already decided upon, and any noteworthy changes should be discussed first. If changes were unnecessary or inappropriate, I have focused my comments on the content. Neither of these users have done so, apparently can't accept criticism, and are aiming their guns primarily at me for calling them out. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More Elladog

Keep an eye out for Coolskateboarding, who's now a 30-year old skateboarder. Please. -- azumanga (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolskateboarding has been blocked; Coolskateboarding requests to be blocked; request denied. I bet a million dollars that this will be repeated again, until he gets community-banned. -- azumanga (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Now he's resorting to death threats, since he's been blocked: (Coolskateboarding's history). I want Elladog community-banned ASAP. -- azumanga (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WTVC

This article has been subjected to edit warring over the past few months, but has gotten worse and more personal within the past week or so. Since the edits deal with style associated with this wikiproject, could a couple of editors help out on the article and keep it on their watch lists? I've not been online during the recent edit activity, and I'm not sure if this is part of other reported vandalism or specific to this market's articles. There's also a discussion on my talk page. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Un-protect Infobox Broadcast template?

Now that {{Infobox DTV}} has finally been deleted, and the Carlb-initiated conflicts have died down, is it now the right time to lift the protection for Template:Infobox Broadcast? Rollosmokes (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:HD channels

Someone called Hacker2000 has been adding this onto station articles. Is this even necessary? Rollosmokes (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted all broadcast addtions with HotCat, warned him and added a more explicit disclaimer to the category header. It's meant for HD-only channels and cable/sat networks with HD simulcasts, not broadcast stations. Nate • (chatter) 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. This time creating Category:Cable HD channels and moving cable channels there. A little too over categorized with no consulting the project if you ask me. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he, by chance, related to Carlb? It seems that, like Carlb, Hacker2000 is taking too much liberty on these articles. -- azumanga (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hacker is North Dakota-based going from his contribs. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another BenH sighting

216.41.250.143 this time. I don't get why he even bothers anymore ... the guy is laughably easy to spot. Softblocked 3 months to make it easier to smoke him out next time--he hasn't created an account yet. Blueboy96 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another maverick editor...

InTheHouse88 created some statewide TV market templates, which he uses in the individual market templates, for example, see Template:Louisville TV. Not only don't I like it (especially since Louisville is also an Indiana market), but it was also done without consulting us. Also, he created a special template for Northern Arizona stations, which he erroneously said it was unranked (most of it is part of Phoenix). Comment? -- azumanga (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

These are edits I could live with (with some minor changes), it's similar to what we do over on WP:WPRS with the market templates so it's easier to move around within a state. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the rules that says any user has to consult us before making a major change. It would be nice, but it's not necessary. If it's incorrect, revert it, but if it's just that you don't like it, that's not a valid reason to revert. In either case, the user needs to be invited here for a discussion. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also oppose the Northern Arizona template. Although I had proposed such a template two years ago, since then, I've seen that one template for the entire DMA is the better way to go. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it's a good idea (US radio templates already have something similar); it's that the editor that introduced them went around it wrong -- the phrase "See also" is funny if the template for that market is listed; it also omitted out-of state markets covered in a particular state (for example, all of Northern Virginia (Washington market) -- the Virginia template only mentioned markets of cities in Virginia). I've taken the liberty of rewriting the templates, not only so they are more aesthetic, but also more inclusive. -- azumanga (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Diann Burns

This article about the Chicago anchor was brought to my attention via a column by Robert Feder of the Chicago Sun-Times. I really don't know what to do with this; it definitely reads like a resume and has harsh backhands towards management at WBBM for her dismissal. I've been working to weed out the promotional stuff from the Larry Mendte article as the month has gone on with very little interference beyond welcomed copy-editing, but I'm afraid to on this one. Do I want to take this to WP:COIN before I jump in with a neutral copyedit? Looking for a second opinion on this. Nate • (chatter) 09:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think speedy deletion for blatant advertising is the best course personally, or even failure to assert significance. Or if you want to be safe, AfD it. I'll support it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have put an excellent dent in it over the last week and filtered out all the PR, plus a COIN post really helped bring attention to it. I think I can go in and neutralize it further now without a problem. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WGAL-TV

I've just looked at WGAL-TV's page & in the station's history part of the page, it has a IP adress. Can you guys fix this? Roland Ortega (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. It looked like the user who added that was testing; this resulted in the deletion of some of the content. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat, again

75.62.206.181 this time. Apparently a month-long block didn't make any impression at all ... after I saw he didn't get the hint from Dhett's 4im warning, I anonblocked him for six months. I'm still cleaning up his poop now--my clicker-finger is getting tired even with rollback. Somebody really does need a girlfriend. Blueboy96 19:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also a new account from Dingbat as well - Word91. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Killed it ... geez, does he have to make it that easy for us to catch him? Blueboy96 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and anyone who's got Twinkle or rollback permissions--I could use some help cleaning up after his latest rampage. Blueboy96 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I got beat to the cleanup. In the future though, if anyone needs some help with sprees, I recieved rollback rights a couple weeks ago so let me know on my talk page if you need it. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back as Word 39. contribs MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Word39 has stopped posting (immediately after I reported him -- mind you, I'm being taken to task -- AGAIN -- for posting him to WP:AIV instead of WP:SSP), and has resumed with User talk:76.199.87.47...I could use a little help here.... --Mhking (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back his contributions under the username; on to the IP. Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reported this new IP to AIV; a warning didn't seem to help at all. Rolled back all of his contribs after 1:30am last night. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

IP now has a month block, no need for a re-report. Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking neutral third opinion with a content dispute

User:98.145.14.56 and I have been involved in a content dispute in the KSWT article. He added information about the Harry Pappas bankruptcy to the article. I contend that while Pappas is the owner of KSWT, only thirteen stations were included in the bankruptcy, and KSWT was not one of them. Therefore, the bankruptcy is not relevant to the article. I seek a neutral third opinion in this dispute. Is the bankruptcy content relevant or no? I will abide by whatever consensus opinion is reached here. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have done with WWAZ, I think if we put in a line like that's in that article, this could work;

The KSWT license, operations and facilities are not covered under the May 10, 2008 filing by Pappas Telecasting for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Harry's personal filing has nothing to do with the operations of the stations themselves and need not be mentioned in any articles beyond the main Pappas article. Nate • (chatter) 22:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nate's phrasing could work; however, is there really a need to mention a bankruptcy that really has nothing to do with the station? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted with a detailed explanation in my edit summary and warning to the IP. It doesn't need to be there because it affects the man, not his stations. Nate • (chatter) 06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request for checkuser on him, as the two IP accounts and Broadcastingandcable1 have been exhibiting eerily similar behavior, including four incidents of vandalism against my talk page. If it's proven that these are the same user, I will seek to have him blocked for violation of 3RR on the 15th, reverting twice with each IP account after having been warned. Until the result comes back, I'm going to stop reverting - I'm getting close to 3RR territory myself. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed this morning--all blocked. I probably would have blocked the user and one of those IPs even without a Checkuser, though--seems pretty odd that the named account disappeared after July 11, then the IPs went at it on the very same page. Blueboy96 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, everyone! dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we got another head case. Came back from block, and started up with KSWT again. Also decided to vandalize my user page - again. When reverted by otherwise uninvolved editor, reverted the revert. Has been blocked for one month as User:64.183.169.138, but has started editing as User:98.145.5.72. I've reported all to WP:SSP. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Moron Who Needs To Find A Girlfriend

User:72.94.71.209 is someone else who needs to find a girlfriend -- he continually and constantly changes channel names and order on the DirecTV articles... --Mhking (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WJHG-Flagship of Gray Television

Is WJHG a flagship station of Gray Telvision, Inc after they have sold off WALB to Raycom? John (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No -- Gray, based in Atlanta with offices in Albany GA, technically has no flagship, as neither city has a Gray station. Also, the closet Gray station to Albany is WCTV in Tallahassee, which is the default CBS affiliate for Albany (technically, WSWG, a satellite of WCTV, is, but its signal barely reaches Albany). -- azumanga (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DFW stations being vandalised

Recently, several Dallas-Fort Worth TV station articles were being vandalised by several IP accounts -- many of them had their channel number changed in the article to reflect that they are digital only (which is not the case). Also, the vandals have called the analog switchoff "temporary", and stations that use PSIP are guilty of fraud. This is despite the fact that PSIP use is mandatory. Keep an eye out for them. -- azumanga (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Back at 76.186.133.175. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Dingbat2007 sockpuppet Rebafan11 has been hitting some of the stations in DFW and other Texas markets. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Back again as Rebafan12. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back 12 and 11, and both of them have been indef'ed. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to clean up that cr@p, but my job got in the way.  :( dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Was the person who vandalised the DFW TV articles a Dingbat sock? -- azumanga (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful. It seemed like a good-faith user who didn't understand the workings of PSIP and thought that they were lying about their channels when it was just common policy. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1871 articles are assigned to this project, of which 229, or 12.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New archive

All discussions with no activity since August 1 2008 have been archived to Archive 8. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wtvg1 again

This guy keeps making disruptive edits to TV station articles (inc. changing "and" to "&", changing "11:00" to "11", etc.). Can someone stop him? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been a few of these to Virginia stations. I left them be, then I see this thread. Should I revert his edits (for the "and" to "&" and "11:00" to "11" edits)? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. -- azumanga (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it to him on his talk page over a week ago, so if he's still doing it, it's intentional. I think I'm going to have to do a checkuser on him pretty soon - he acts like a real Dingbat sometimes. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I will revert those edits right quick and if I see anymore (along these lines) I will revert those too. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still reverting, but I seen this edit and I don't think it is Dingbat. The user changed "The CW" to "CW" (lower case "the"), that sounds like Rollosmokes to me. I could be wrong, but I wanted to throw that out there. Still reverting the "and" to "&" and "11:00" to "11" edits. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the "CW" point, but Rollosmokes would never replace an "and" with an "&" - that would be totally out of character for him. Nor would I believe he would ever vandalize Wikipedia - again, completely out of character. His methods may have been overly strong at times, but his heart was always toward the improvement of Wikipedia, not its destruction. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree; not the work of Rollo. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was wrong on that one, but I just wanted to make sure. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the standard "and" = "&", "at" = "@", "p.m." = "PM" (or PM at all) edits from Wtvg1 from 16:19 to 19:56 on the 4th. His edits have gone over into radio stations, so I left a little not on the talk page of WP:WPRS, to let them know. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^talk|edits 05:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that Wtvg1 has been indefinitely-banned, as of 8/6. -- azumanga (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project but...

For the geographical problem, how about renaming this project North American Television Stations?--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A Template Question

In Maryland, the Interstate Template for My Network TV does not exsist. Maryland has only one MNT affiliate (WUTB in Baltimore), while the rest of the state is served by WDCA. Could a template be made to feature the one Maryland MNT affiliate and WDCA or would that be "crossing interstate lines"? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wtvg1 and WYOU

Wtvg1 has made several edits back to back to back with the same "at to @" changes as above. I can't undo them all (no multiple edit revert software). If someone could revert his changes, I would appreciate it. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to KXAS-TV, WSYR-TV, WTXF-TV and KITV are buried under an intermediate edits. I can't revert these either. If someone could, I would appreciate it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Got 'em all. Nate • (chatter) 03:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The WYOU page appears to still be on the Wtvg1 version. Just a heads-up. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore... I've reverted it. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dude :) I appreciate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

BenH strikes again

76.7.114.72 this time. He didn't do too much damage this time around. Anonblocked 6 months ... when will he get the hint? Blueboy96 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the changes he made to the Television Schedule pages. I couldn't revert those multiple edits. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^talk|edits 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wtvg1 back...

...using the IP route -- many of the TV station edits done by 71.225.158.69 are very similar to that of Wtvg1. Add it to your watch lists, everyone. -- azumanga (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Logos...again

Sigh. Just when we thought the logo issue is settled, I see this: Wikipedia_talk:NFC#Historic logos. Be on the lookout...again. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we can't include classic logos, then we should ban ALL logos (including the Wikipedia logo), as well as ban any description or discussion of them, ban any mention of brandings, and ban anything that has to do with the logo. ("Where's that article about the white-tailed fox? It's been deleted, because it has the word "Fox", identifying the network!") It makes my blood boil everytime a person has a desire to be "king" of Wikipedia. -- azumanga (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a cautionary note to the discussion. I hope that a word to the wise is sufficient. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PTEN (again) and DuMont

User:Ken Arromdee has been editing on DuMont Television Network, adding in the "fact" that the Prime Time Entertainment Network was a major television network. "For 40 years, DuMont was the only major broadcast television network to go off the air, until PTEN shut down in 1997." He inserted this new material in front of the footnote, making it appear as though the footnote verified this information. It does not.

There have been comparisons between the WB and UPN shut-downs and DuMont's shut-down fifty years earlier "The WB will sign off the air forever on Sunday, Sept. 17 [... Such a farewell is unprecedented: When one-time fourth network DuMont signed off the air for the last time in 1956, it did so with little fanfare -- and with very little coverage."] As far as I am aware, there has been no such comparison between DuMont and PTEN. Although some sources (such as the B&C article) state that PTEN was a network, every other source I have lists it as "syndicator", and a syndication service from 1993 has little to do with a broadcast network from 1950. Further, because a comparison has been made between the WB/UPN shut-downs and the DuMont shut-down in major media outlets, I believe such a reference is appropriate, while a comparison with PTEN is inappropriate (no source, original research).

Ken "compromised" with this edit ("For many years, DuMont was the only major broadcast television network to go off the air. Exactly how many years this is depends on the definition of a "major" network. PTEN had, at its peak, 177 stations covering 93% of the USA; if this is enough to make a network "major", then the next one was PTEN, approximately 40 years later depending on what it means to "go off the air". If not, then the next one was 50 years later in 2006". This edit is much worse, as it introduces more original research: no one has claimed PTEN was a major network (in fact, the Prime Time Access Rule means PTEN was considered only a syndication service: the one or two nights a week that PTEN was airing programs disqualify it from "major network" status.) And the edit degrades the quality of the article, with a random discussion of what a major network is and a "factoid" about PTEN's television reach inserted into the article on... DuMont. Thi is how articles degrade over time, with editors adding in random "factoids" that have nothing to do with the actual subject of the article, making the article disjointed and unclear to readers.

I have tried to discuss his edits with Ken, letting him know WT:TVS has already had this discussion, but he insists that "There was discussion about whether it counts as a network at all, but none of that discussion came to any conclusion about major versus minor status. You may claim that since it barely counted as one at all, it must be minor, but that would be your own conclusion not supported by consensus," ignoring the fact that many sources list small "networks" as syndicators. I have requested a source for PTEN being a major television network, but Ken has not provided a reference, despite this edit. Since Ken continues to protest, I bring the discussion here. Does anyone here believe that PTEN was a major television network? How many editors had even heard of PTEN before these discussions? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not PTEN again. From what I have read on many websites, it appears PTEN was more of a syndicator than a network. I think they just sent the programming to the stations much like Tribune, CBS/Paramount, or NBC/Universal of today. I personally wouldn't call it a network, but a syndicator. That is just one editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So to be clear, you are stating that PTEN was not a major network, yes? I ask because Ken requires a very clear statement. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think PTEN was ever a major (or minor) network. - NeutralHomer • Talk 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PTEN was never a network. The only time it was ever mentioned on the air was at the opening of the block which showed the logo, and the station it was on in my area put the PTEN programming under its own unique branding which only mentioned the night, not the programming service. It was no different from the Universal Action Pack at all and was pretty much the equivalent of that service, which was not a network. Nate • (chatter) 09:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And even if it was an actual network, it couldn't been major -- FCC rules define a major network as one with over 15 hours of programming each week. Even if it had 100% nationwide clearance, PTEN was never major, with only two hours a week. -- azumanga (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy if you decided that it's not a network. Of course, that also means you'd have to take all references to it being one out of the PTEN article.

On the other hand, if you're willing to call it a network, then you shouldn't be leveraging all your "not a network" references and discussion in order to say "it is a network, but not a major one". The FCC reference says that if it doesn't have 15 hours it's not a network at all. It lays out a rule for network/non-network status, not minor/major status.

I also pointed out that "major network" is no more subjective or OR-based than terms that are already accepted in the article without references, such as "few stations" and "important place in history". Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I participated in the earlier PTEN discussion, and I was in the "PTEN is a network" camp, and still am, because I concluded, from the evidence presented, that it met the technical standards of programming and distribution to be a network. That being said, I never considered it a major network, and I can understand why people consider it to be just a distributor, because it lacked the brand identity, and therefore, the public awareness found with major networks. As Firsfron aptly pointed out, I never even heard of PTEN until the discussions about it in this forum. But even if we're going on technical aspects alone, PTEN still doesn't belong in the article, because you'd have to include the United Network in 1967 instead. One thing I've learned since the last discussion is that public perception is the best barometer to use when the facts are in dispute and both sides have legitimate arguments. There is no public perception of PTEN or United as networks, and therefore, neither network should be included in the DuMont article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations are added to material that is "likely to be challenged." No one is debating the fact that DuMont's role in connecting the East and Midwest chain was important: they built the station that completed the link, as referenced. You are free to reword the article however you like (as long as the content remains factual), but I don't believe anyone will agree with you that DuMont's role in connecting the chain was unimportant, or that the partial phrase "important place in history" needs a citation. I will be glad to provide a citation for the sentence "Few stations carried the full DuMont program line-up," if you're really challenging that. But if you're challenging the material only because your incorrect and off-topic PTEN network range was removed from the article, please remember that the goal here is to improve articles and not to create adversarial editing conditions by demanding superfluous citations (the article is already one of the top five most heavily-referenced articles under the purview of this project). If your interest is in improving the article, that's great.

Getting back to the PTEN stuff: Nate, azumanga, Neutralhomer, Dhett and I all agree that PTEN was never a major network. I'm with Dhett in thinking that PTEN might, under some instances, be considered a network, albeit one which only offered an incomplete schedule, never had many shows, didn't really promote itself on-air, lacked the resources of the majors, and which quickly evolved into a regular syndication service when the Chris-Craft stations pulled out of the agreement, as supported by reliable sources. The economic situation faced by small start-up networks prevented PTEN from becoming a major force in television, and few people ever knew it existed. Finally, Ken has missed the point that (and this is important) minor networks are almost always listed as "syndicators" in reference works. Mutual, McNeil, page 184; Paramount Television Network, McNeil, page 840; Metromedia, McNeil page 765, PTEN, McNeil page 70. We have reference works which call them networks (or attempts at networks), and we also have reference works which call them syndicators. We do not have references which call them major television networks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Original discussion accurred in Archive 5 and Archive 6. While PTEN is a network during the beginning by no streach of the imagination could it beconsider a Major TV Network. As far as perception goes in judging PTEN status the fact than many affiliates were only 2nd affiliates, so did not show PTEN programs as scheduled, it was run by the syndication arm of Warners Bros. & the stations does not help. Of course based on previous research WB, UPN, My Network TV under some standards would not qualify as a network even Fox for a while purposely advoid that standard. Spshu (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow - thanks for linking those discussions. :-) I'd forgotten they'd gotten so heated. I guess if anything good came out of it, I've gained respect for an opinion with which I disagreed. Oh, and to NeutralHomer and Rollo-Smokes (assuming you're still reading): I guess I got on you both a bit strongly then - my apologies. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had it with the staff cruft in TV station articles

The project's articles have become a dumping ground for mostly unsourced lists of current and former TV station staff, which seems to include every Tom, Dick and Harriet that has ever darkened the door of a TV station. Most of it is OR and non-notable. Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, starting next month, I'm going to begin going through station articles and remove this cruft. Although I'm not crazy about them, I'll keep current staff lists, but unless the alumni are notable enough for an article, they're gone. And I'm going to check the bio articles too - if I don't think they're notable, I'm going to nominate them for deletion. That goes for you, Aaron Brillhart. OK, TVS members - you have two weeks to talk me out of it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope! Go ahead. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the station is in a top-50 market or the former staffer made it really big somewhere else, shred 'em. Blueboy96 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do, is if I can find where they went, then I add them...if it is "Bob Frank (19XX - 19XX)", then I delete them. That cuts down on the "alumni" sections ALOT. - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree...Top 50, most of it can stay. After that, I don't care and I scroll right past the list. I really am also hating editors who post lists of news branding and slogans from like thirty years ago; I keep deleting it as cruft, they readd them. Very aggravating. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the news branding or slogans from years gone by in a section by itself. That information could be merged into the page's history section. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

More and more, I'm beginning to think we actually need a policy statement that specifically prohibits cruft of that type. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and this should also include radio stations. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In WP:WPRS, most, if not all, schedules are deleted per WP:NOR#DIR, while only stations like WCBS or WJR have alumni lists (as they are large market stations). It is very rare to find an alumni list on a radio page, but I agree, if they haven't gone on to something big alumni lists on radio pages need to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Clearly WP:NOR#DIR should apply here and given how often these change, how encyclopedic is the material in these sections? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For radio stations, most information isn't encyclopedic. In the case of the larger stations, like WJR for example, they have listed J. P. McCarthy, Mitch Albom, and Ernie Harwell who have all been long-time WJR hosts. Those, I think are encyclopedic, but "Bob Frank" working for WXXX in Pisgah isn't.

TV stations, I still say if there is information of where that person currently is, they should be included. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I say keep former on-air personalities that were there for a long time (approx. 8-10+ years), were main anchors/chief meteorologists/sports anchors, or went national. I see them as worth keeping in the articles more than Bob Reporter that was with a station for 3 years but gets to stay in the article because he's still a reporter in another market. Ntropolis (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is that any station should be allowed to list current or former employees who are notable enough for their own articles, but no station — not even one in a Top 10 market — should contain a list of all its on-air employees, past or present, without regard to notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. If they're notable enough for a bio article, they can be included. Most of your national or former national personalities should meet that criterion anyway. I plan to keep Lou Dobbs and Fred Roggin in the KSWT article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis Vandal

He's back, this time as User Talk:24.207.237.63. --Mhking (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion for broadcast infoboxes

The merge of {{Infobox TV channel}}, {{Infobox Radio station}}, {{Infobox Broadcast}} and {{Infobox Broadcasting network}} is suggested. Click here to discuss. -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to project page RE: personality lists

Currently, the article structure paragraph on the project page allows for information on personalities, past and present. The bullet point reads, "information on its personalities, past and present." I suggest to change the text to "information on its notable on-air personalities, past and present." Thoughts? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assume all "current" personalities are notable by default. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that is why I wikilinked "notable", to emphasize that only those having a legitimate Wikipedia bio article would be mentioned. I'm willing to be more flexible with current personalities, though, so let's try this instead:

• information on current on-air personalities.
• information on notable former on-air personalities.

Better? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

An old friend returns

Yes, it's Dingbat2007, as User:Fran39 and User:Fran59, in which he claims to be born in 1994. It's Labor Day weekend, and school's out for those where the year has already started (I believe that includes Texas), so I don't expect to hear the last from him this weekend. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The way he vandalises and the way he backtalks, Dingbat is WAY beyond redemption. ANYTHING he does shalt (not shall, "shalt") be reverted or deleted regardless of merit. Even if it's a minor correction, if it has his name on it, it's just like full-blown vandalism. -- azumanga (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That has been allowed since he was banned. The trick is proving that it's Dingbat, since User:FranXX or User:WordXX isn't strong enough evidence. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, he's also using the format RebafanXX these days... I've been playing whack-a-sock with those the past few days... --Mhking (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?

Current discussion about the TBN logo being used within the infoboxes of the articles about the stations owned affiliated with the network. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that Gonzo fan2007 removing the TBN logos from any and all TBN affiliate pages. The reason he sites for the removal is: "image fails WP:NFCC#8, does not significantly increase the readers understanding of the article". What to do about that? - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The logos do serve a purpose in identifying the channel, even though many TBN stations have no logos of their own. Considering that many stations affiliated with Telemundo, America One, Telefutura, ION, etc. are the same way, I see a bad precedent here, apparently set by an editor trying to force Wikipedia into becoming a text-only service. -- azumanga (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

....and with Fut.Perf. saying that, essentially, that a page didn't need a logo and also saying that some pages needed a certain amount of information first before a logo could be added (he didn't back up what any of this with any links to rules stating such), I am waiting for the precedent he just set to be used to remove pretty much all logos from all TV and Radio Station pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well now, that one got rammed through pretty quickly. I'm sorry I wasn't able to contribute, but I'm not sure I could have changed the outcome anyway; it looks like it was predetermined. Especially considering the weak reasoning, which basically amounted to an alleged violation of WP:NFCC#8, which is an entirely subjective criterion for judging images.

We need to address a larger issue though, specifically with the numerous TBN station articles. Most of them are stubs about non-notable, full-time translator stations. They never should have had articles which used the TBN Crest Logo anyway. If the station isn't broadcasting original programming as the full-service stations do, have no unique history, which is the case with most TBN stations, and broadcast the full TBN schedule, which most stations do, they should be replaced with redirects to the main KTBN-TV article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ya, the W##AA and K##AA pages should be redirected to KTBN. The full power (ie: WWWW-TV) stations shouldn't if they have a large history section, former affiliations with another network....stuff that would be lost if redirected to the KTBN article. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, unless they actually do repeat KTBN, I rather have them redirected to the article for the main TBN network, as many of those stations outside Southern California take the programming straight off the bird, instead of KTBN itself. Better yet, maybe just a central list of TBN repeaters might do. -- azumanga (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "the bird" KTBN's broadcast? That is the flagship station. Dingbat's favorite TBN station, K25GI in Amarillo, takes its programming from KTBN, according to its latest license renewal. Nevertheless, if you prefer the TBN network article, that's fine. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, yes it is. Bismarck, Tampa, Chattanooga, Syracuse...all refer back to KTBN on the TBN website, some through translators which are listed as repeating KTBN, and others referring directly to KTBN, I assume through a local, unnamed translator. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to appeal I have appealed to have the TBN logo unprotected. That just reeked of bad faith, IMO, and Seicer's comments on his talk page underscores that feeling of bad faith. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The only problem you'll run into with TV translators is they (unlike radio translators) can originate their own programming. But I agree, if their owned and operated translators, chances are they'll forever take the feed from TBN, unless TBN decides to change some of the translators to one of their digital subchannels. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

TV translators are supposed to operate under the same rules that radio translators do: only rebroadcast programming of another station. I think you're thinking of the LPTV class, where a low-power station can originate programming. TBN's stations are classic translators and always will be, even after going digital. However, not all translators repeat KTBN. The translators in Flagstaff, Cottonwood, Tucson and Globe, Arizona are repeaters of full-service KPAZ-TV in Phoenix. KPAZ does originate programming, albeit a very small amount, and uses a local call-in number in addition to the national number. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE - the discussion, which had been force-closed, has now been reopened. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Copypasta from elsewhere:

Suggestion Seeing that some have argued that the useage of a non-free image is begin used for "insignificant" repeater stations, howabout we just combine the other non-24 "powerful" stations into one article or list like List of TBN repeater stations? I'm willing to suggest that many of the low-power stations doesn't meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability and any notable events can be listed in a broadcast history of sorts. That way, you have an image that isn't being "violated" over a wide derth of articles.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC) --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the issue isn't the number of uses, according to User:Gonzo fan2007. Nobody said the image needs to be deleted because there are 100+ uses, says he. Because the image was never violated in the first place, and thank you ever so much for bringing that up. I don't have a problem with lists of translators, but I'm seeking consensus on what I know to be a sensitive topic before I go making significant changes to articles germane to the project. As for the 24 "powerful" stations, as you put it, they still will have their image links deleted because some administrators think they violate policy, and seek to save Wikipedia from itself. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you just bitter, or am I missing something in your words? You claim that I am pro-deletion/removal/whatever in the RFUP when it fact I merely reported something that I had a query about and referred it to people more "competent" in Wikipedia Policy, and when I offer a suggestion to at least combine the more non-notable stations, you pull this malarkey. One now has to ask what sort of vested interest you have with the subject at hand.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated, not bitter, but my remarks were ill-advised and misdirected, so I have struck them and apologize for them. My quarrel isn't with you; it's with the heavy-handed administrators. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll see why. If you read the AN/I again, you'll see that while you're OK with the image on the handful of full-power stations, those who took up the cause aren't. They will remove any image that isn't on the main article. But that has nothing to do with you, so again, please accept my apologies for my intemperate remarks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of cruft...

How about that big long useless table at the end of city of license. I hope nobody has designs on adding every station whose city of license is not the same as the largest city in its market. 121a0012 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that stems from the legal ID's mentioning every single city (there's a radio station nearby that does this, atleast 6 cities every hour). It's not needed. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 03:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably reasonable for that article to cite a few particularly notable or prominent examples, but a table listing practically every station that was ever popularly associated with an area other than its actual legal city of license would definitely be unmaintainable cruft. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cable channel carriage in articles

If memory serves, we are NOT putting cable channel information on the individual station articles; is this correct? The reason I ask is tied, in particular, to the Detroit area stations (take a look at WDIV-TV for an example), where someone is posting elaborate tables with cable channel information. Personally, I vote against that, as it takes up too much space, plus potentially runs afoul of WP:NOT in terms of WP not being a TV Guide. But I will bow to the consensus of the grou--Mhking (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one editing WDIV-TV. But I didn't start the table on it, I was editing it down because there was alot of blank space on it that was taking up too much room.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To dig out from the archives: [9]. I could see it on some of the lower VHF channels (because most Ch 2's are on Ch 2 on cable, or the most watched stations are on the same channel by agreement with a cable company, if that company owns most of the systems in a market) but other than that, lets leave them out all together. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

VHF channels are not always on the same channel on cable. For example WNEM-TV channel 5 is on cable channel 7 on Charter in its own market. Another example is WJRT channel 12 being on cable channel 7 its the biggest system (Comcast) in its market. I could go on and on.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think they should be included in all articles. This could help someone who just moved to a new area and is unfamiliar with the cable systems's lineup. It could also help long time residents, because the cable companies (especially Comcast) can and do add, move, (or even delete) channels without telling subscribers. Comcast is also especially bad about updating their channel listings on their website. It could also help people that want to watch particular channels and were unaware its on their system and tried to pick it up (unsuccessfully) with an antenna. (User talk:TomCat4680) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

TomCat, I have to disagree with you also; as I mentioned above, this -- at least in my estimation -- violates WP:NOT. Plain and simple, Wikipedia is NOT a TV Guide. There are television guide sites on the web that fulfill that function. Wikipedia is not one of them. Plain and simple. If I had my druthers, I'd remove them. --Mhking (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, I've found that TVGuide.com and other tv listings sites (tv.yahoo.com, Comcast TV Planner, etc.) are usually missing channels or have them in the wrong place and therefore can't be trusted for good information. I could name several examples but that'd take all day.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That still does not supercede WP:NOT; it still (IMO) violates that guideline, and should be removed. --Mhking (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Exactly what "rule" is it breaking? By that I mean list the complete rule then prove how it applies to this discussion. I'm not listing times and channels for particular shows. I see you're on the NFL project. Under your theory we should go to the current season page for every team and delete the tv and radio information. We could do it for college football too. And every other sport while we're at it. But why stop there? Heck we should do it for every tv show ever produced (or future shows for that matter) and remove anything about what network or channel it was, is, or ever will be on, as well as the times and dates.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:NOT -- "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." Based on that guideline alone; along with the previously established consensus here, I'd say that there are grounds to remove the cable listings -- yes? --Mhking (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That proves absoultely nothing. It doesn't say anything about cable channels and its not advertising a product or service. Also you're an American MH dont spell it "programme".TomCat4680 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a directory of cable channels that a station is available on. It just adds to the cruft of an article. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "cruft" either. Cruft says it means its only of interest to certain people. If that was the case I'd only list 1 system or 1 county. But I didn't. I STARTED a chart for as many systems and counties as I could and also put that the list is incomplete and needs to be expanded, i.e. if another wikipedian knows what channels its on in certain systems they could add it.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way how is making a chart of over the air networks for "crufts". Are you trying to say only a small niche group of people watch NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, The CW, MNT, and PBS? TomCat4680 (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we put cable channel information for large regional digital cable and direct-broadcast satellite providers. The reason for that is they use virtual "channels", and they can declare channel 456 to be a particular network systemwide. We definitely do not list all analog cable channels because those can vary even from town to town depending on the needs of the system, and we'd need a huge grid that would conflict with WP:NOT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the large cable grids that have been placed on most of the Detroit market stations, noting that its presence violates WP:NOT. --Mhking (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand a mention of the cable channel if all of the following conditions apply: 1) there is one or two dominant cable providers in the market or all of the dominant providers use the same channel number, 2) it is different than the station's over-the-air channel, 3) the station doesn't brand by its channel number. In any case, the argument doesn't hold water that a new cable subscriber won't know where to find the channel, because cable companies supply new subscribers with channel guides, and if they don't, a new subscriber can find the channel guide on the cable provider's website. Bottom line is, a comprehensive list of cable channels is unnecessary. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is reached to include the charts, the edits can be undone. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If thats the group consensus, I'll go with it. I still don't agree with it though.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way Mhking the stations' articles you edited (WNEM-TV, WJRT, WBSF, WEYI, WSMH, WAQP, WFUM-TV and WDCQ), are in the FLINT market (DMA 66), and NOT the Detroit market (DMA 11).

Which DMA the stations/articles are in is immaterial; I first noticed the tables on the Detroit stations (WDIV, et.al.), and those were the initial ones I was referring to. In my estimation, cable references of that sort that fall outside of limited circumstances (see Dhett's comment above; I agree with it completely) should be removed from station articles. This, simply, is not a TV Guide (which is where that information would be included). The information is too arbitrary, circumspect and yes, cruft-like to be included in a broad-based encyclopedia. --Mhking (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cruft isn't even a word. And like I said TVGuide.com and similar sites are full of misinformation (wrong channel positions, mislabelled channels, etc. etc. etc.). I could name hundreds of examples. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TomCat, please stop re-adding the tables to the television station articles in question; if you continue to persist, I will make note to WP admins. --mhking (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: TomCat4680 has re-added the cable data (but without the large table) to the WDIV-TV article. I won't remove it at this juncture, as that would constitute an edit war, and potentially run me afoul of WP:3RR, but I would ask someone else (preferably a moderator) to address this. TomCat seems to think that he is above the guidelines of Wikipedia, and has childishly indicated that any post on his talk page amounts to harassment. --Mhking (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are harrassing me mhking. ever time I edit a page you go and unedit it 5 minutes later with no explanation that actually makes sense, then send me a message saying I'm vandalising pages and threatening to get me blocked. you've sent me 5 harrasssing messages this week. are you in love with me or something? stop following me around. and why do you hate WDIV so much? did they fire you or something? why do you even care about a Detroit station when you live in Georgia? how about you stick to editing Georgia stations and I'll stick to Michigan stations. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about you calm down? I have no beef with you. I have no beef with WDIV, as you suggest. And how about you not presume to tell me what articles I can and cannot edit. We disagree. That's fine. However, my edits to the article are based upon the guidelines both here and at WP:NOT. I am not going to get into a fight with you; I am not going to get into an edit war with you. However, I will pursue maintaining the proper guidelines and decorum here as best I can. Period. If that provides you with any difficulty, then I will happily request and proceed with third party negotiation and mediation. --Mhking (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a fight or an edit war either. But don't remove stuff that has nothing to do with the cable charts without an explanation (even sourced statements, clearly proving they're significant). And don't accuse me of vandalism and then leave threats to get me blocked on my page. I joined this group to help improve articles and certainly not make enemies. If I have to follow the rules so do you.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Noting what cable systems a particular channel is on IS related to the cable charts. In addition, whether the station has a place on a cable system outside of its DMA (which one of the paragraphs in question is tied to), is also both immaterial and non-germane to the article itself. Both are trivial information, and both violate WP:NOT. And yes, willful violations (as those are; and likewise the PBS station on which you replaced the cable chart) do constitute warn-able offenses. The continued replacement of such also comes close to running afoul of WP:3RR. I would suggest you take a step back and look at this entire situation objectively as opposed to flying off the handle and making demands like "sticking with Georgia articles" or similarly inciteful statements. There are a lot of articles involved here -- not just the Michigan articles that you are upset about. The posters here -- myself included -- are simply trying to make sense of it all within the established guidelines. --Mhking (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding perfectly good and sourced information is not a perfectly warnable offense, but removing it without an explanation is. Why do you talk like Frasier Crane? Put away your thesaurus and talk like a normal person, you're not impressing anyone.

Azumanga rewrote the WDCQ article to my liking, I won't touch it any more as long as no one else does. Agreed? TomCat4680 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just it, your "perfectly good and sourced information" (as you put it), regarding the cable situation in an entirely different DMA is not something that belongs in the article. It's trivial at best. Secondly, there is no need to make personal insults regarding my manner or speech (or the way I type). I'm not trying to "impress" anyone. Lose the nasty attitude. It is not becoming, nor is it helping the situation. --Mhking (talk)

Well thats your opinion. Let's all take a vote: who thinks the "Controversy in Flint section on WDIV is relevant?". Here's my argument: After WEYI claimed syndex, so did the other Flint channels (WJRT, WBSF, and WSMH) over their Detroit "sister stations" (WXYZ, WKBD and WJBK respectively). So if you ask people around here, WEYI started the whole thing (ever hear of ruining it for everbody). Also people in Flint chose WDIV over WEYI because WDIV's signal quality was (and still is) much higher. It's not about markets, its about the government controlling what we can and can't watch on cable. Call it cruft, I don't care (its not a real word anyway)TomCat4680 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. What do the Flint channels or cable systems (in a different market) have to do with WDIV? If anything, that would go in a story about the Flint stations or cable systems themselves. Not in the WDIV article. But as I said, for now, at least, I will leave it alone. I'm not going to get into an edit war. But as I also indicated, if there is continued dissention from you, I'll happily go to third party mediation. --Mhking (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TomCat4680 WP:NOT doesn't say anything about cable channels Powergate92 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT does discuss the fact that Wikipedia is NOT a TV Guide. The inclusion of the cable television information -- as the discussion above notes, falls within that category. --Mhking (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cable television information does not falls within the TV Guide category as not all TV Guides list cable television information Powergate92 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all TV Guides list OTA television stations. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mhking, you had your say several times, and you keep repeating the same thing. Let's hear what everyone else thinks. Stop arguing with people. So Powergate92 agrees with me. Anyone else?TomCat4680 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Side effects

I'd like to bring everybody's attention to another side effect of the deletion of television market templates: it's also resulted in the total or near-total depopulation of any "Television stations by city" category that was using the market template to populate the categories instead of manually applying the category to each individual station. As a result, a considerable number of the "Television stations by city" categories (Philadelphia, frex) now have to be manually repopulated.

However this situation is dealt with going forward, this is a very important point to keep in mind from now on: NEVER use templates to apply categories to articles in lieu of actually placing those categories directly on the articles themselves. Doing that has had a constant series of unintended and unwanted effects which invariably require massive cleanup: it instantly depopulates the categories when something like this happens. It adds user pages to the categories when media geeks add their local television templates to their user page, or to a sandbox page they're using to prepare article revisions. It adds "template catalogue" pages to the categories when somebody creates a sandbox page that transcludes all of the market templates. It results in duplicate categorization (such as a station being filed in both Category:Television stations in Philadelphia via the Philly market template and Category:Television stations in Pennsylvania via the Pennsylvania network stations template). And on and so forth.

A template should never have any categories on it that aren't nested inside "noinclude" tags. Any categories that you want an article to appear in need to be applied directly to that article itself, not backdoored by a template. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Any objections to turning on auto archiving? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. -- azumanga (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New Nielsen DMA rankings out

Time to change the templates when someone has time. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the List of television stations in North America by media market. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the direct link to the DMA rankings due to concerns based on AC Nielsen's DMCA action against WMF. Nate • (chatter) 09:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What is WMF anyway?. Mythdon (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

New Idea

Dravecky‎ suggested it and while it isn't great, it does take away all the previous look of the old templates and still keep the information.

{{User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox3}}

What do you think? - NeutralHomer • Talk 20:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it sucks the old templates look better. Powergate92 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it sucks too, personally. But if we have to do the templates in a completely different fashion so Nielsen doesn't have another DMCA hissy-fit, it's a start. - NeutralHomer • Talk 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A flaw I see in this is when there are going to be more than one station with the same affiliation in a marketcity and that would just be confusing. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying it is perfect, but it could be something people could start with and work with, revise, update, and make better. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the old way better -- listings such as TV Guide never grouped stations like that. Calls, channel and affiliation should always go together -- the above example is too cumbersome and defeats the purpose of easy reference. Besides, some person down the road may end up bringing the template back into its original format, with or without the Neilsen rankings. -- azumanga (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the old way better too, I am just throwing out some ideas. - NeutralHomer • Talk 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that RingtailedFox has started rebuilding the templates. he has rebuilt the following.

Powergate92 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather subjective groupings. They include stations and networks interchangeably. Also, the contents are rather subjective. Who determines if the signal is viewable? This is a function of the electronics as much as the signal strength. My old HD receiver box does not get channels that my newer TV does, and they both are fed by the same antenna. While an effort, I'm not sure that they are usable in their current form. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we axed this idea a few months ago (or maybe it was over at WP:WPRS). I think the argument was: Okay, so whats a good distance to settle on. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are FCC definitions for coverage areas of TV stations. There's the area over which a station officially has legal protection from interference from other licensed stations, there are also contours for city-grade (basically rabbit ears) "A-grade" (enough for a snow-free image with a good antenna) and "B-grade" (marginal but still watchable. The FCC's TV query does link to census maps in which the station's nominal coverage area is indicated - usually a circle with the actual transmitter in or near the centre. All public record. Leaving this as 100km radius is fine, using the FCC data would also be valid. No need to ask "Who determines if the signal is viewable?" as "who" can be the FCC without raising any proprietary issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I613 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Emarsee/Sandbox5}} How about the above? Based on the idea of the Canadian templates. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good. I think the Phoenix tv template should look like the following.

Powergate92 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the areas outside metro Phoenix, but within the market -- will they be getting their own template? Someone here earlier tried to spin off the Northern AZ stations by giving them their own template, but that didn't fly very well around here. -- azumanga (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the Western Washington template -- what about significantly-viewed stations? I noticed that CBUT was missing. -- azumanga (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, none of the Canadian templates list significantly viewed out of market stations. I'm just basing the template on the Canadian ones. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Television templates aren't supposed to list "significantly-viewed" stations from outside the market in question. They're only supposed to list television stations based in the market, and then use text links to the templates for adjacent markets that might have some signal and audience overlap. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the stations in the areas outside metro Phoenix are. Powergate92 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a white courtesy phone? I would like to page Dhett to one. -- azumanga (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Full-power stations outside metro Phoenix that are counted in the Phoenix "market" are: KAZT-TV 7 Prescott; KDTP 11 Holbrook; KNAZ-TV 2 Flagstaff, KCFG 9 Flagstaff, KFPH-TV 13 Flagstaff, and KMOH 6 Kingman. Of those, KAZT, KDTP, KNAZ and KFPH are actually operated out of Phoenix and are essentially full-power translators, KMOH operates out of and has a repeater in Phoenix, and KCFG has a petition to throw a rim shot signal into northern Phoenix. Furthermore, the Phoenix stations have translators that serve major and minor towns throughout western, northern and eastern Arizona, plus cable and satellite coverage in towns not served by over-the-air broadcast TV. I don't need the Nielsen company to tell me that those areas' economies are linked with Phoenix.

I've added these, low-power stations and defunct stations to the latest Phoenix template above. Feel free to tweak as desired. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of things, maybe it would be best to leave things as they were, other than to change the titles and leave out the rankings and links so Nielsen won't get on our case. -- azumanga (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I rebuilt the Phoenix tv template here's what it look like.

Powergate92 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially rebuilt the Puerto Rico template, deleted as well even though it's not a Neilsen market... It's based on the Phoenix one above.

Kimmykun (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just take the old "other television stations in (state here)" templates and fill in any missing stations? For example I've already filled in the missing DMA 66 stations in Template:Other_Michigan_Stations

What I've noticed is that nearly all of the reconstructed templates so far have been based on the assumption that we can keep the exact same market area definitions that Nielsen uses, as long as we find an alternative title that encompasses the same region without actually invoking the dreaded name of Nielsen. Is there a particular reason why people are focusing all their efforts into that approach and none into the idea of actually thinking about a different way to organize the replacement templates?

I honestly think there's a bit of "can't see the forest for the trees" going on here — as media geeks, we're so totally immersed in thinking about television stations by their Nielsen markets that we think we're compelled to reconstruct the exact same groupings somehow because it's the only possible way to group television stations. But we're not, and it isn't. What we're missing is the fact that the 99-point-something per cent of Wikipedia users who aren't media geeks don't think of TV stations in those terms, and would be far better served by a new system entirely. Why do we have to reverse engineer the Nielsen markets as precisely as possible? Why can't we do a single template for each state, or regional groupings such as "Southeast Michigan", or some other system that's completely different from the Nielsen markets? Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because defining geographic areas ourselves would lead to arguments amongst us. Nielsen already did it for us. What's considered Southeast Michigan? Is it just Metro Detroit? And what exactly is officially considered Metro Detroit? Does the Flint area count too? Its still technically in the Southeastern part of the state. This is just an example, it could happen in the entire country.

Also some high powered stations can be viewed in multiple geographic areas, and less powerful ones can still be received with a good enough antenna and across huge areas, especially for serious DXers. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that you can't immunize yourself against copyright issues just by slapping a different title on the same content. If you reverse engineer the Nielsen market but then call it something different, you're still violating Nielsen's copyright because it is still representing the Nielsen market. And the templates don't need to list stations that originate outside of whatever areas we define as the template parameters; the only reason they would ever need to do that is if we kept getting stuck on precisely reconstructing the Nielsen markets. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what law we're breaking by using "DMA". If it were really "copyright infringement" to use trademarked material in Wiki, we'd have to remove every product who's name is trademarked (i.e. Coca Cola, Cheerios, Tivo, HD Radio, Jet Ski, etc. etc. etc.). Where does it end?TomCat4680 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really the same thing at all. Those other things are articles about trademarked products, not attempts to use trademarked data as a classification system. Nielsen obviously can't hold a copyright over the mere fact that a particular station is licensed to a particular city, but they most certainly can hold a copyright over where the boundaries of any particular DMA are located. They most certainly can hold a copyright over the idea that two television stations licensed to different cities, or even different states in some cases, are necessarily part of the same television market, and we are violating their copyright by simply using their classification system as our own. Writing about a trademarked product isn't at all the same thing as using a trademarked set of data without authorization — DMA boundaries are a proprietary classification system, not an inherent geographic fact that can't possibly be copyrightable. Using DMAs in this way is akin to republishing the entire text of Gone with the Wind and calling it our own article, not to writing an article about Gone with the Wind — and to continue the analogy, reverse engineering the DMAs while calling them something different is equivalent to thinking you could keep the entire text of Gone with the Wind on Wikipedia if you simply retitled the article Carried Away by a Strong Gust. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing I asked about earlier is this: Are the market names listed in an FCC document, or any other document published by a federal agency? If so, then it is part of data compiled by the federal government, which, per law, is not copyrighted. (Practically, only material related to currency or the USPS (such as stamps) carry a copyright, and carry restrictions on their reproduction.) And if we really want to get carried away, why don't we only mention the city of license of the station, and not the area it serves, since doing so would be violation of "proprietary" material? (See my XETV example above.) -- azumanga (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary data doesn't enter the public domain just because the FCC has been given permission to use it. The FCC doesn't own the data; it just has Nielsen's permission to use it for convenience. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was proprietary data, it wouldn't appear in official documents if Neilsen realises the nature as such. I have a feeling that there will be VERY MASSIVE editing soon to remove the market's names from each and every TV station article, and just say that that station serves the City of License only. Going back to XETV, it would even be a crime to mention "San Diego 6", or display its logo or URL; for Wikipedia purposes, thanks to Nielsen, that station serves the United States -- for all practical purposes, XETV serves as far north as Barrow, Alaska and as far east as Calais, Maine, because it would be against Nielsen policy to mention its true service area. -- azumanga (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding on to the above -- if the federal documents mentioned Neilsen and credits them for usage and permission of the material, that's one thing, and that would be understandable. If they merely name the markets (and maybe even give the rankings) with no credit whatsoever, that's very different. -- azumanga (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing -- I suggest placing the market names in this list in alphabetical order, instead of the order they are in now -- even without the numbers, it would still give a hint of the order. And we don't want to have that section deleted, don't we? -- azumanga (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... I alphabetized that list. See what you think. Thanks. --DelayedBrick (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree; if not alphabetically, then by state -- that would eliminate any rub against/row with Nielsen, and along with it, limit any opportunity to have the lists deleted yet again. --Mhking (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the article Nielsen Media Research all they own a copyright on is the phrase "Designated Market Area / DMA" and the numbers. Can't we just remove "DMA "#" and put the geographic area instead? - TomCat4680 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, why not just bring back the old (deleted) templates, remove all Nielsen information from them (DMA #'s, etc.) and be done with it? - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, this entire situation is beyond asinine -- we'll respect the ranking data and the phrase "Designated Market Area / DMA", but are we really scared that Nielsen will once again summon the copyright bogeymen, just for listing stations within a legally-defined, by FCC, area? All of us here have reasonable solutions, but it seems some of us here are a little too paranoid. -- azumanga (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just waiting for an idea, be it one of the new templates or bring back the old ones minus the Nielsen info, that everyone likes. Once that was found then I was going to remake the VA, WV, MD, and PA templates. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The FCC does not legally define the market areas. It may use Nielsen's data by permission of Nielsen, but it doesn't legally define what they are. Just because an otherwise public domain source has been authorized to make use of a prominent media measurement company's proprietary method of data organization doesn't make that method itself public domain. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet the FCC has a say in whether what county goes in what market -- according to the TV3 Winchester article, parent station WHSV asked the FCC to have the Winchester area move from the Washington DC market to the Harrisonburg market, which the FCC honored. Nielsen does not hold exclusive right to decide the geography of market areas -- that's the FCC's problem, at least in part. -- azumanga (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, stations in DC were not happy about that move and it is on appeal at the moment (Winchester is still in the DC "DMA"®. So, Nielsen doesn't control the "DMA"® "lines", they just control....the information used? What do they control exactly? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally off tangent... what about merging TV and radio templates so that they are neither Nielsen nor Arbitron... They probably cannot touch templates that have both because they cross both borders, but we can still have the regional templates --DelayedBrick (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know -- there are more radio markets than TV markets, as well as many more areas unserved by a market. For example: in the Tampa Bay TV market, there are five radio markets -- Tampa Bay, Sararasota, Polk County, Sebring and Ocala/Gainesville (which Citrus County is a part of). I don't think this will work, in the same sense as using MSAs. -- azumanga (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta new idea, which personally I think everyone will like...I hope. - NeutralHomer • Talk 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the WP:CRYSTAL defense is out, though it looks like they're warming up to the name changes, with no rankings, "DMA", or "Nielsen". Here's hoping. -- azumanga (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a shot in the dark on the CRYSTAL thing. Worth a shot, but with SwatJester not telling (and almost refusing to tell) us what is in the OTRS ticket, I thought it was a shot worth taking.

I am glad more and more people are warming up to the "minus DMA/Nielsen" changes. I think if we could revert the deletions and remove the Nielsen information (so we don't have to remake 210 templates...and rename those if we have to) it would be the easiest way of getting back on track. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Syracuse TV

Is Template:Syracuse TV categorized as a template that should have been deleted alongside the television market templates?. This template sure looks like a television market template. Mythdon (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are trying to recreate these templates, using radii from the central city in the area, instead of market lines. Also, as you can see, no reference to Nielsen and proprietary data is mentioned in the new templates, in hopes that they'll pass muster with the parties responsible for launcing the complaint against us in the first place. -- azumanga (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So your saying they were just temporary deletions due to copyright violations?. Mythdon (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope they're temporary. If you read everything above, you'll know the story. -- azumanga (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates can probably be undeleted if edited immediately

See [10] from one of the people who was in charge of the original deletion. --NE2 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

TV region templates have been deleted

Just discovered that all TV regional templates have been deleted as a result of a DMCA takedown from Nielsen Media Research. This is highly questionable, to say the least--you can't copyright facts. Gonna try to find out more ... Blueboy96 01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Asinine, at the least. I bet that copyright ruling would also apply to the names and coverage areas of the markets as well; if so, EACH AND EVERY television article would have to be edited to show the city of license ONLY, as mentioning the coverage area also mentions the market area, as well as the cities' pages, removing stations not licensed in that particular city. If you want to remove the rankings, so be it, but you do NOT remove the templates wholesale. This is yet another attempt to kill Wikipedia, especially as this is done with no discussion whatsoever. -- azumanga (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (P.S. -- My user name's copyrighted -- sue me for 1000 times what I'm worth, plus my soul. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Adding to my comment above, to be honest, you HAVE to mention the market the station's in in order for the article to be useful, for instance, imagine this entry for XETV: XETV, channel 6, is a television station licensed to Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, serving as the CW Television Network affiliate for American audiences across the international border in the United States. XETV's studios and offices are located in the United States, and its transmitter is based on Mount San Antonio in Tijuana. Mention the markets and keep the templates, or we might as well scuttle all TV station articles, as I think the person initiating the whole thing is very anal about it. -- azumanga (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I was wondering was how they can be upset over wikipedia posting it when everybody and their brother posts the same rankings around the Internet? It's information they make freely available on their website and we did cite them for it, so what's the problem? The most they could demand that Wikipedia do is remove the rankings. They can't tell us not to list, for example, Glendive, Montana tv stations. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is the use of Neilsen terminology, why can't we just rework the templates? For example, for Seattle:

{{User:Ckatz/US_TV_templates_test}}

Would that be sufficient? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but who knows what the suits would say? Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if you leave "Nielsen" (that's the correct spelling) and "DMA" out of it, it should pass muster. Just hope the suits don't take too close a look and start accusing us of "plagiarism" of proprietary data (which, in that case, would go much too far). As for "Template:Washington TV" (and similar), restore those, too -- again, leaving out the critical material. -- azumanga (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree -- logically, you can't copyright intellectual property; especially since this is information that is available in a myriad of locations around the 'net. The only realistic claim that Nielsen would have is if we were to post the actual ratings themselves. If they want to nitpick over the posting of DMA sizes (though I always thought those were okay under fair use, and given that most advertising companies and media-based vehicles and texts use and reference them), that's their business. But to go off on a tangent over just listing individual stations in each market (oop, city), is (IMO) over the top. --Mhking (talk)

I agree as well, but their argument against that might be: If you take all the Ford logos off your Explorer, it's still a Ford, no matter what you call it. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What do we do....I just logged in and my watchlist is all kinds of crazy. Can someone give me the short version? OK, I think I have the bare bones version of what is going on. What's the game plan? Do we redo all the templates minus the Nielsen information or what? - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the backups, we can do just that, but until this all blows over, maybe it would be best to omit the rankings -- otherwise, they may all be deleted again. As for the ranking numbers themselves -- personally, just saying that they're number so-and-so out of 210 is a mere fact, as everyone uses them; it's the numbers and data that back the rankings that's proprietary. -- azumanga (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

According to MBisanz from an WP:AN thread on this subject....

"The WMF Office was consulted on this matter and per an OTRS ticket indicating a DMCA takedown notice, the content was deleted. The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license. SWATjester or Mike Godwin can probably clarify as they were the ones who handled the matter, but the material should NOT be restore by anyone prior to contacting them. By their nature OTRS tickets are private and cannot be released, but it has been confirmed by WMF staff that the ticket number in question is valid."

Doesn't give us a next step, but let's you know why. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked a follow up about the template above and this is what I got....

"Erm, I don't think so, Nielsen owns the actually way of categorizing the data into markets and categories, your template seems to have the same headings and categories. Best to consult with Mike Godwin before doing anything. I don't know the details of the notice, but it looks too similar."

So, that's a no-go too. Anyone want to call/message/email Mike and ask his wisdom? - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Nielson_DMCA_Takedown. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Before we go nuts and start "rebuilding" all these templates, we need to "rename" all 211 Nielsen Markets with the MSAs (looks like we are listing Markets by "Metropolitan Statistical Area") and go from there. Do a couple test templates, get Mike in here to "yea" or "nay" them and then go nuts. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that there are more MSAs that Neilsen markets -- the Seattle television market alone has ten MSAs, according to the Washington census statistical areas article. While most of the Seattle stations are within one MSA, KVOS and KBCB in Bellingham and the LPTVs in Wenatchee are in their own MSAs. (Little Glendive, Montana, by the way, is not within any MSA.) -- azumanga (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My idea is go with the same 211 areas they do. Just don't call them markets. Call them MSAs, even if Glendive isn't one, let's go with it. Same areas we previously worked with, just call 'em MSAs. I think that would get around it, but then again I ain't Mike Godwin :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. As long as we leave Neilsen and its rankings out of it, we should be alright. -- azumanga (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that. A copyright violation doesn't disappear just because you call your version by a different name. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. How can you copyright geographical data like this? All we're listing is a city a station serves, nothing more. If the issue is just the number listed, then that should suffice ACN. But they go about it in this way and it just makes it seem like they're being copyright bullies. I always thought it was a grey area to list the DMA number, but didn't say anything because so many other sites, like those who show the maps of DMAs for Dish Network coverage, demographic data based on DMA's, Backchannel, and the weekly NFL/college football coverage maps, seem to never have an issue with listing the market number and the area served. At least for now; I'm afraid those sites are up next. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI...I run the weekly NFL coverage map site, and I do not use any DMA boundaries as-is....I started with a Rand McNally basic trade area file and merged/added/removed areas to account for TV signal and cable coverage. Some of the resulting regions are the exact same as DMAs, but that would just be a coincidence. I've never had any legal issues in the 4 years I've done it. 156.34.217.27 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I thought mere ranking numbers and boundaries on a map are rather minor details, and that Neilsen care more about the hard demographical data attached to them. Apparently, because of the Copyright Police and their "one bad apple" approach, we're proven wrong. -- azumanga (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that

was not deleted. I think it was because it doesn't have a DMA number or a Neilsen link. Powergate92 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they're concentrating more on the market templates themselves (with the offensive data), rather than statewide network templates. But still, I'd rather have the more-familiar general grouping of stations by metro area. -- azumanga (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I list the stations that I get on my antenna in a template? Or do I run afoul of the WP:OR? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OR, plagiarism and copyright, all rolled into one. -- azumanga (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen can't copyright the simple fact of what city a television station is licensed to. But they most certainly can copyright the idea that television stations in different cities are necessarily part of the same media market as each other. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let WP:WPRS know about this also; they've got radio station templates with Arbitron rankings and I don't want them knocked off. Nate • (chatter) 09:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Canadian templates weren't deleted. My only guess is that these lists are based off the CRTC database, and if it's public domain like American government documents and Websites are public domain there's no issue here. Looks like the way to go for now is this:

• Cull a list of stations that serve a particular metro from the FCC list. This shouldn't be too much of a problem, as between all of us here we known what markets go where.
• Use them to make new, non-copyvio tables along the lines of the Canadian station lists.
• Bounce them off Mike to make sure there's something we don't know about, and we're in business. Blueboy96 12:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of a few of the very largest metropolitan markets, the Canadian templates are organized by province, with geographic subheadings that don't necessarily correspond precisely to "official" ratings markets. They're done this way, for the record, because the Canadian system doesn't support separate market templates as effectively: many more stations cross into multiple market areas at once, meaning that some stations were ending up with six or seven or eight market templates on them at once, a total WP:TCREEP violation, and the overall number of distinct stations doesn't really warrant being subdivided that narrowly.

I think, unfortunately, that we may be treading on very thin ice if we assume that we need only reverse-engineer the original Nielsen markets from a different source, but we could almost certainly do more general regional groupings.

One suggestion I'd like to make is that Wikipedia now has the capability to hide sections of a template. As an example of what I mean, the "Administrative divisions of Outaouais" template at the bottom of Gatineau and the "Administrative divisions of Estrie" template at the bottom of Sherbrooke are actually the same template; it's coded in such a way that in any given article, you manually specify the region you want displayed, and the template then displays that one region and hides the other 16. So that might be an option here: instead of creating separate templates for each market/region, create a single one per state and then use hidden sections to subdivide the larger ones. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Phoenix tv template should look like this

when it is remade Powergate92 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any of these demands by Nielsen are even legal. My brother is a copyright and patent attorney. Should I ask him to research what laws, if any, the templates break?TomCat4680 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the FCC (or any other federal government agency) have lists of TV stations by market? If so, that could be valuable ammunition to prove that the market areas themselves are public domain, especially since federal data is always public domain. -- azumanga (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal isn't the only issue to deal with here, as we have found out with logos. Above the issue of copyright, there is still that of Wikipedia policy, and policy often goes beyond the bounds of what is legal, believing that it's much better to err on the side of caution. If the Wikipedia legal eagles shot the rankings down, then they don't come back in any form that Nielsen could even construe to be copyright infringement, not because they violate any copyright statute, but because they violate Wikipedia policy.

I don't know how much work this is, and right now, I cannot devote any time to it myself, but the FCC maintains a list of significantly viewed stations for each county. We may be able to construct templates based on significantly viewed areas rather than Nielsen DMAs.

Also, Nielsen's concept of DMA is not unique. There must be some measurement of area of economic influence that each major city holds. Using Phoenix again as an example, the Census Bureau recognizes Phoenix as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is Maricopa and Pinal Counties, but its area of economic influence also encompasses the Prescott MSA (Yavapai County), the Lake Havasu-Kingman MSA (Mohave County), the Flagstaff MSA (Coconino County), the Payson Micropolitan Statistical Area (μSA) (Gila County), and the Safford μSA, plus Navajo, and La Paz Counties, and the southern half of Apache County, all of which are not part of any core-based statistical area. All of these areas make up what Nielsen calls the Phoenix DMA, but is actually just the generic area of economic influence. Anyway, just a thought. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how their demands hold any legal grounds - except for the actual rankings. The markets are used by the Federal Communications Commission in their own internal decision processes. They are not "inventions of Neilsen." While DMA's may be defined by Neilsen, they are used to enforce federal law. Thus, the acknowledgment of their existence is not, and cannot be, a violation of copyright. See this. The FCC uses the markets for enforcement of federal law relating to how many stations may be owned by a single corporation. See this.

It's the rankings that are proprietary. Neilsen gathers the data. Their ranking methodology and the data it produces is proprietary. Instead of completely removing the templates, all that really needed to be done was to remove the mention of the rankings. In this, all that needed to be removed was the "(Neilsen DMA #36) mention. In fact, the link could likely have stayed as long as the #36 was removed. Also, any copy of the list or other mentions of the actual rankings themselves on Wikipedia would need to be removed. That's it.

Lastly, the stations themselves often refer to their own market on air. For instance, when announcing the federally mandated "station identification," WLOS in Asheville, North Carolina says: "You are watching 13 WLOS, Asheville, Greenville, Spartanburg, Anderson," which is the name of the market. Does this mean the stations are also violating some type of proprietary information? No...they are simply identifying their FCC regulated television market.

++Arx Fortis (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially thats their legal ID (Calls and city of license), beyond that they could list any cities they wanted. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The takedown has made Radio-Info's boards: http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,109778.0.html And they're just as hot and bothered as we are. I know a couple of other people from here (including Dhett) who post at Radio-Info. -- azumanga (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I started the thread, and I'm worried about the implications on my own website. I try to contribute what knowledge I have to Wikipedia, and knowing that Nielsen might come after me makes me really nervous. I'm going to be following this very closely. TripEricson (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

One option is to just go by distance, if it's an hour or less down the road it gets included. Using the stations' "A-grade" coverage area (list them in any city to which they deliver a good, relatively snow-free analogue OTA signal) would be another option, as that information would be FCC and not proprietary to the marketers. FCC provides this census map, for example (WKTV Utica) to indicate coverage to Syracuse and almost to Albany. (FCC lookup is based on CDBS Application ID No. and is linked from the TVQ results as "Area: Service Contour Map (47 dBu)" - it's all there, analysed to death, except that foreign territory is missing from the census maps) Note that results based on distance or actual microvolts of signal won't match Nielsen as this will move Rome, New York back into Utica where it belongs (for instance) instead of misfiling them with Sorrycuse. --I613 (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Distance will be a problem -- Los Angeles, Salt Lake City and Denver, for instance, have the largest markets in the nation by area. If we go by distance, many stations would end up being disenfranchised. -- azumanga (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I like the template idea, though, and I don't think we should run into any trouble just for mentioning the stations in a city. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An incredibly busy weekend has kept me pretty much out of the effort, but here are my thoughts:

• We might want to leave the templates undone until we learn whether or not we can use the markets, as long as we don't give the Nielsen DMA rank;
• The 60 mi/100 km radius works well in the east and midwest, but badly in the west, for the reasons Azumanga1 stated above;
• There's no reason why we cannot used city-based templates, especially since we're already prone to use multiple templates for areas where multiple cities are nearby (eg., Baltimore/Washington);
• The cities are easily identifiable and logical. The spectrum of network affiliates defines the basis. Seldom do you find multiple network affiliates within what Nielsen defines as a market, Tampa/St. Pete FL and Birmingham AL being notable examples. That also covers us when we separate West Palm Beach from Miami; WPB has its own affiliates;
• We're then free to use groupings that more accurately reflect reality. If we appropriately group Rome with Utica instead of Syracuse, as Nielsen does, they can't really accuse us of using their markets, can they?

If we can't use the current market breakdowns, we can start with the largest metropolitan areas as bases. New York/Northern New Jersey is covered, as is the entire LA Basin/Inland Empire, and so is the Bay Area. Palm Springs and Santa Barbara areas have their own affiliates, so they get separate templates. Rankings aren't necessary, so why use them? Then for areas like Salt Lake City or Phoenix, with extended outlying areas, some of which with their own originating stations, we can include them in the main city's template under the "Outlying areas" heading. What relates these outlying areas to the main city is that, although they have some full-power stations, the network affiliates are still translators of the main city's stations. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personalities

I'm inclined to assume that a list of personalities should in general include only those which have their own article, especially if it is called "Notable personalities" as this is in line what is done elsewhere for lists of persons, but maybe this has already been discussed here?--Tikiwont (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See [11] from not too long ago. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Was a reality check since what i come across is often actually very different. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Debacle: Does this make sense?

Template:Spokane TV

I don't think so. While some of us are trying our best to recreate the templates (until someone else restores them), some, like Emarsee, are being a little too cavalier in making changes. Do you think merging two markets (ahem, "regions") is a good idea? -- azumanga (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me, but to be honest anything is better than nothing at this point. - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just a temporary solution to the problem and will later only include the Spokane market once all this is sorted out. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just create one per MSA seems to be the safest for now. There is a list at List of television stations in North America by media market but I suspect that it is not complete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Nielsen if there are any conditions under which they'd let us use their geographic designations? You'd've thought that citing them and having a link was good enough before....Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

MSAs may not always make sense. Some "Nielsen" TV markets encompass more than one MSA. For example, Johnstown/Altoona/State College is actually at least 3 MSAs. I think it may make more sense to go with Intrastate regions because they are not as arbitrary and they are not defined by Nielsen.

Side note: I felt that the "60 miles from" does not always make sense because it makes the template look like someone arbitrarily picked a number (i.e. why not 90 miles or 120). Just my 2 cents :-) --DelayedBrick (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

After the mass delete, a category question

To avoid another problem, would it make sense to rename the associated categories? Since we are now using the MSA or CSA for the templates should the categories be labeled as such? This would create categories like Category:Television stations in the Foo statistical area. A little long perhaps, but it clearly and unambiguously defines what the category contains. Leaving them at Category:Television stations in Foo does not make the actual inclusion criteria clear and where it matches a Neilsen market name could be viewed as a future violation. At best one could say that the current names are ambiguous give how large some of the MSAs are. I believe that the Vegas one covers two counties. SLC covers three counties and so on. Then we also have the primary census statistical areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe something like Category:Television stations serving the Foo metropolitan area. ViperSnake151 18:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see that work. However can we say that the articles on the various metro areas actually cover the area included in the MSA or CSA? I suspect that there would be several cases where this is not the case. If we went with your suggestion how would we deal with the Detroit metropolitan area? It is part of the Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA that includes the smaller Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI MSA. Flint/Saginaw/Bay City had a template before and is likely to have one again. It is in the CSA but not the MSA. Using the simple metro area name leaves a naming problem for areas like this. I suppose the solution here would be to have 4 MSA templates and then maybe one for the CSA to pull these together or to simply list all of the MSA templates for the CSA as a part of the MSA in the below section of the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could just call Flint/Saginaw/Bay City as "Mid-Michigan" (when in doubt, see how a CW affiliate brands the area :) ). ViperSnake151 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the use of an MSA will pose a problem, as they outnumber TV markets -- as I mentioned before, Seattle, for example, has ten. Best to go by geography, or the most major city in the market. -- azumanga (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Geographically is ambiguous. Now, if we define Seattle in a way that covers those other areas, then that would work. However it was made very clear this month that Seattle clearly only refers to the city and nothing around it. So naming would be interesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My programmer built a new rank system for my site in order to avoid a DMCA takedown notice like the one Wikipedia received. Once he and I hammer the bugs out of it, Wikipedia is welcome to use it. I split markets up differently than Nielsen does and the markets themselves are based on census data and station coverage areas. Just tossing it out there, if anyone's interested. TripEricson (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A good start, but with one major flaw: using census data to rank means your "markets" will only change positions once every ten years. Looking at Phoenix, you used 2000 Census data, which are the latest figures available, but you're at least a million short in 2008. I'd wager that Las Vegas and other fast-growing areas have the same issue. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the census bureau does publish estimates every year. If those were used, you could do yearly updates. One problem would be dealing with changes in the census areas. New areas get created and old ones are sliced and diced all the time. If the templates are based on defined statistical areas, it should be possible to simply roll with the new numbers. One question, if we have a template {{Foo TV}} that includes several SAs, would the ranking for that one be the sum of the population for all of the included areas? How would that work for the current {{Phoenix TV}}? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My ranking system is based on Census data (it might be outdated but I doubt it makes that much difference) but breaks up boundaries differently. It largely goes by distance, plus I've got some markets split up more. When you note that it's a million short, does that factor in that Flagstaff is split into its own "market"? TripEricson (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the immediate Phoenix metro area has grown about 30-35% over the past 8 years. It is the immediate metro area that is about a million (or more) short. Phoenix has jumped from around #17 or #18 to #12 in the Nielsen DMA rankings since 2000, IIRC. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing new templates without explanation

Is there any reason that NuclearWarfare is removing the all of new templates? Did I miss anything? --Mhking (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I might have completely missed this discussion, as my knowledge of this event was solely limited to a reading of the WP:ANI thread. But these templates that I removed were blank. In any case, I'm working this out with User:NeutralHomer on my talk page; just give me a little bit please before reverting my reverts. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Please see [12] for this situation. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All changes reverted. No worries Nuc :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Washington TV, Template:Baltimore TV

Considering that they are very close to each other (about 25 miles apart, at least), maybe we should merge these templates together, especially since each other markets' stations have significant overlap. Comment? -- azumanga (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The first inclination is to say no because they are separate market areas (and not in the Nielsen sense, but in the standard marketing definition). But after thinking about it, the notion of a single template for the two isn't a bad one... --Mhking (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Normally to this I would say yes, but since the Washington "market" goes from DC allll the way out to Cumberland (some 100 miles) and some 70 miles to just north of Charlottesville and into parts of PA, it would be a HUGE template. If there is a way to include all the Baltimore and Washington information in one template, then that would be great. - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, both templates list each other's channels, plus Hagerstown, MPT channels and cable networks -- all you have left in the Baltimore template after removing the duplicates are WGAL and WPMT from York, plus the Baltimore LPTVs. -- azumanga (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If it can include the Balto LPs and WGAL/WPMT (which are seen ALOT in Northeastern Maryland) and the template isn't huge, I am all for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should merge the templates. Powergate92Talk 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Along the same lines, being 20 miles away but two seperate "markets", Template:Charlottesville TV and Template:Harrisonburg TV are two more that could be merged together. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not merge them. The two cities have a history as separate entities. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone Please Stop User:FMBlogger

Resolved

 – Read below, please. - User:Neutralhomer 06:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:FMBlogger is modifying tv pages without discussion. can someone block his account? --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may wish to talk to the user first, if that fails try dispute resolution or if the editor has been disruptive, log a report on the incidents noticeboard for administrators. I know about this editor because they moved Channel 4 which annoyed some other editors, and I might raise an issue tomorrow with all the AM and FM pages the user has created and whether they are needed or redundant to categories. --tgheretford (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that User:FMBlogger and User:RoomDownUnitStage were one and the same as found by a checkuser request. "RoomDownUnitStage" has been blocked, "FMBlogger" has not (the rest of his sockpuppets have been blocked). Right now, what to do with the TFD for Template:RadioByFrequency is being hammered out on ANI as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where should digital only stations be on the TV templates

I think the digital only stations should be with the other stations like this

Emarsee thinks the digital only stations should be seperate from the other stations like this

Krocheck's box idea

what do you think? Powergate92Talk 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's the way they were before, right now I see no reason to change that (Of course, that all changes Feb. 2009). User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 01:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Since the switch is only 4+ months away, what would be wrong with using the first format and then separating out the analog only stations instead of digital only. Come February, all of the majors will be digital and most are already. As I understand it, some low power analog stations may still exist after the cut over. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer the first one. It is less clunky and easier to update in February. To the above post ... LP analog transmitters do not have to be shut down until 2012, but I can't remember where I read that. Main transmitters (the ones whose call letters define the stations) are the ones being shut down in Feb., which I believe you already knew. Krocheck (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• To be honest, I don't care for either, as I think it's time we stop segregating digital-only stations. I have two suggestions: 1) that we refer to the stations by their PSIP channel designations, not RF, as that will match the perceptions of the non-technical user, and b) that the digital-only stations are incorporated into the main list using the PSIP designation. So, using the Seattle/Tacoma model, KWDK should be listed as 56.1 and listed with the others. The .1 will differentiate digital-only stations from analog. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Dhett the digital only stations should be listed with the other stations using the PSIP designation not the RF. Powergate92Talk 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What about the DT2, DT3 series of entries in the templates? Should they be replaced with nn.2, nn.3 and so on? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Personal opinion follows ... I'd say get rid of all the substation stuff from these templates. For broadcast stations, stick to the main affiliate and let the user navigate to the station's page to find out about that extra stuff. There is too much clutter in something that is supposed to be simple. Until all these substations get their own pages (which is not going to happen), leave them out. Also, please change the name of the title to something other than "Broadcast television in ..." if you plan to include non-broadcast (cable) channels ... that is simply not accurate. I also back having the stations listed with their PSIP ## ... but not with the .1 since that'll be covered in the page. Thanks, Krocheck (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree about not including cable and Internet stuff in what should be broadcast television templates. However some other editors don't share that view. Since we are cleaning up the templates now, maybe that point should be made clear, assuming there is consensus. As to all of the substations not having articles, are you sure that there are many still missing? From the few templates I looked at, they mostly exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I did some digging and it looks like the main one missing is PBS-DT2.
          • What I meant was each of the individual broadcast stations. I certainly understand that the networks have the appropriate pages, but until I see WKYC-TV AND WKYC-DT2 (where they are paged out individually) I don't personally want to see all the clutter in parentheses with all the networks for the digital substations. Stick to the basics and let the page tell the rest. Krocheck (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Comments on 'Broadcast television available on cable only:' in {{Abilene/Sweetwater TV}}. Seems like an oxymoron. This seems to be out of market stations on cable. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree the name of the title should be change to something other than "Broadcast television in" but i think the .1 should not be remove as Dhett said above the .1 will differentiate digital-only stations from analog. Powergate92Talk 22:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Please see above box for how I would approach this. Again,my opinion is to leave out all substation data and affiliations and stick to the basics. The primary information to give out for NAVIGATION purposes is the call letters and main affiliation. Notice also that Digital-only has gone away per comments above. Krocheck (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that 'Regional Television channels servicing Western Washington' is not right. This mislabels stations as channels and by definition includes every cable channel available in the area (but maybe that's why the regional is needed at the beginning). 'Television stations in the Western Washington region' seems to be better for me. I moved region since I'm not sure what a regional station is, however these are stations serving the Western Washington region. I still think it needs to be clear if there is a difference based on when the station is located or when its signal reaches. In the radio arena, there is one AZ station that has a LP retransmitter in the LV area where there studio is located. What does the article need to say and what is listed in the templates? Makes a mess without clear guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Regional meaning area-based or originating content (not national) ... this covers the FSN affiliates that usually highlight a couple close metropolitan regions or a state. Also covers state-wide news and education channels. The other point about mislabeling the stations as channels ... if you go to the page for Television channel you will notice that it differentiates between broadcast stations and cable-only and links to Television station. It is either that (or something similar) or switch back to broadcast and show only broadcast stations. I'd prefer to have the cable-only stations as well ... Chicago's CLTV comes to mind. Krocheck (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the substation data and affiliations should be included. Also i think only the digital-only stations should have the .1 like this

Powergate92Talk 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • That is a lot better with regards to the subchannels, but there's still more work to be done to get my stamp of approval on it (not that my approval is needed or anything). If you restrict all the subchannel names to, say, 12 characters, the longer names like "Annenberg Media" "Church Channel" "Smile of a Child" need to be slimmed down to an acronym or a single word. Some areas have a lot of stations and all that data compounds into a mess if not succinct and clear. You might to do something so the reader can pick out the parentheses better. I was thinking bolding them, but that may look ugly. I get lost in the ones that have 3+ subchannels. Krocheck (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fix. Annenberg Media is now AM, Church Channel is now TCC and Smile of a Child is now Smile. Powergate92Talk 02:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thanks ... looks much better. Now, building from that I have made another for comparison. The added box above is exactly the same but I have added the ##.1 after the affiliation like all the subchannels. I was a little torn for ind. stations, so have a look at the couple in there because a tried a couple things. If there's no affiliation I understand putting the Ind listing after it, but wouldn't the absence of an affiliation also indicate that? Probably best to leave it in, but something to think about. My recommendation would be to remove the channels numbers in the station links after Feb 19, leaving the digital only PSIP/subchannels in next to the affiliations (please reference the digital-only channels in the box as examples). Krocheck (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • While we're at it, how about dumping "The" from "The CW" and just going with "CW"? And at the risk of confusion with MyNetwork TV (MNTV), shouldn't Multimedios Television be MMTV? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Multimedios Television should be Multimedios and My Network TV should be MyTV. The abbreviations MN and TV already have a meaning - which would match Minnesota Channel more closely than the others. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Way do the analog only channels have the ##.1 Powergate92Talk 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The way to distinguish would be to do "KWCC-LP 47 (FamilyNet)" if analog only, "KWCC-LP (FamilyNet 47.1)" for digital only, and "KWCC-LP 47 (FamilyNet 47.1)" if both. I did not do my research for the above box, so I don't know who in there is analog only, but that's the way I'd approach it. Ironically, though, the LP station I used as my example isn't required to be digital and probably will remain analog-only. Krocheck (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually, what I had in mind is that any station with an analog signal would display only the major channel number, and the only stations displaying the ".1" would be the digital-only stations - until February, that is. So KWCC-LP 47 (FN) if analog-only, KCBS 2 (CBS) for full-service analog/digital combos, and KWDK 56.1 (DS) for digital-only. Once the transition is done and all full-service stations are digital-only, we can drop the ".1" designation.

Now, while we're at it, we might want to address LPTV companion stations. While the FCC lists full-service analog and companion digital stations under the analog call sign, LPTV digital stations are listed differently. So KPHE-LP 44 is listed as KPHE-LD 16 in the FCC database, while the companion for KSAZ-TV translator K04AI is K39IT-D. I suggest that we treat the LPTVs as we do the full-service: analog and analog/digital combos are listed by the analog major channel number, while digital-only are listed with the ".1" until the LPTV analog shutoff.

Finally, concerning subchannels in templates, I'm in full agreement with Krocheck that they should be removed and that only the primary affiliation should be displayed. Subchannels really clutters up the templates, and the information is freely available in the station articles. Besides, if I wanted to know all the Retro Television Network stations in a given state, we have lists and categories for that. The templates don't need to be exhaustive. One could even convince me that the templates don't need to display network affiliations at all. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there would be consensus to only listing the primary network affiliation? I guess I'm ambivalent on this point. However I do have a concern that there would be opposition to this change. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would never implement such a sweeping change without a clear consensus. But I threw it out to see if one existed. Since we're having to redesign the templates, we may as well improve them. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there appears to be consensus excluding that one issue. I'd say that we list the 'how to' for layout and see if we have a winner. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the subchannels should be included in the templates Powergate92Talk 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my idea.

--Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One question that some of us keep asking over and over is -- should the templates list the channel by its actual channel number, or its PSIP? The channels in the Wilmington and Myrtle Beach Templates (which includes a section on Wilmington channels) had their channels listed by actual channel. I tried renumbering them by PSIP (as it seems it was how it should be done), but another editor insisted on using actual channels, and listing its PSIP only on the sunchannels. How should digitals that were formerly analogs be numbered in the templates? -- azumanga (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If we use PSIP channel numbers, then it might confuse readers into thinking that channels that will switch from analog VHF to digital UHF are actually still watching the same channel that existed from before the switch. Here's how I think the basic layout of a digital-only station should look regarding PSIP channels, for example, with the Wilmington market:

WSFX 30 (26.1 Fox)

By indicating "26.1" before the network affiliation, it is simple for readers to read and understand that they actually broadcast on channel 30, but if they tune in with an antenna they'll be watching 26 on their TV. The analog TV channels that have branded themselves under channels corresponding with their cable channel assignment have always still used their true channel number in the infobox. If we remove the true channel number from the infobox, I don't think they will serve their purpose to convey which channels are used in that market (as in true channels). KansasCity (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has been that the market template is supposed to be a very brief summary of the stations in that market with the links to each station for a fuller description. Regardless of the RF frequency channel, the PSIP channel is what the average reader would tune in to, what most stations still brand by, and what stations are required to use in their legal station IDs; therefore, I believe that it is most appropriate to use in the template. Because the template should be as brief as possible, I believe that only the PSIP channel should be used there, with the RF frequency and additional information given in the article. Our market templates have become much too bloated with an exhaustive list of subchannels, and really need to be slimmed down to the most essential information. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Krocheck (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I've been spending the last couple of months on trying to clean up all the incoming links to the disambiguation pages that include radio and TV call signs. I'm all but done now, and I'm left with 115 or so that I haven't been able to crack. So, I thought I'd present them here and at the radio stations project and see if anyone can help get to the bottom. I've collected them in a list at Call sign disambiguation. Happy hunting! Mlaffs (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bohemia Visual Music history

i found that Bohemia Visual Music full history has been on wikipedia for 2 years. here's where i found it. [13] Should i add this to the article? Powergate92Talk 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if there's an outside source to back it up. Even though a history exists does not necessarilly mean it's real. -- azumanga (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On Bohemia Visual Music's myspace it says that Bohemia Afterdark aired on 22 Network One affiliates and on an old version of Bohemia Afterdark's website it list 22 tv station.[14] Powergate92Talk 04:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

MySpace pages are not considered reliable sources and should not be used. Unfortunately, that was the source for much of the information that was already used in the Bohemia Visual Music article, as well as the KPHE-LP article. The BVM article was created by a fan of the service, with possible input from the owner, who may have been the "fan" in the first place, but it needs serious work. I finally gave up on it myself. The main contributor doesn't seem interested in Wikipedia standards; I think you've already had a run-in with him. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the 22 station that are on Bohemia Afterdark's old website are on the List of Network One affiliates. Powergate92Talk 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but you need a reliable source to link those stations to BVM. The fan had also asserted in the BVM article that KAZT-TV would pick it up on channel 7.3, first on February 1 2008, then on March 1 2008. There was no source to verify that other than the MySpace page. On the contrary, a KAZT staff member assured me that there was absolutely no way that any subchannel could have been launched at that time due to the proximity of the date to their DTV flash cut of KAZT-CA in Phoenix. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On September 28 2007 BVM left a comment on their BVMHardcorePunkTV youtube channel that says that they were going to be on KZTV 7.3 in February 2008.[15] As their is no KZTV on a channel 7 my guess is they meant KAZT 7.3. This was 3 months before KAZT announced that they were going digital. Powergate92Talk 04:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that 123lkik added the info saying March 1 2008 after BVM-TV left a message on 123lkik talk page saying that BVM 7.3 would launch on March 1 2008 Powergate92Talk 05:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that KAZT staff member was wrong as KAZT-CA been broadcasting a simulcast of 7.1 on subchannel 7.2 since they went digital. Powergate92Talk 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How is Bohemia Afterdark's old website not a reliable source? Powergate92Talk 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the MySpace page as not being reliable. As for KAZT, they requested the flash cut to digital in late July 2007; I reported on it at Radio-Info in my August 2007 Arizona TV Station Update. And no, the staff member was not wrong; the same feed airing on 7.1 and 7.2 isn't what I was talking about; I was talking about separate programming. Given his responsibilities at the station, I take him at his word; he knew what he was talking about. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Should i add that Bohemia Afterdark aired on 22 Network One affiliates to the article? Powergate92Talk 00:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sacramento Template

I was working on this

I know it is missing some stations but it is a start. I know I am possibly way off_Griffin5^{Talk/Contributions}

There's already a Sacramento TV template already up on this site

ShawnHill 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market

Looks like the list has been CopyVio'd again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 6, 2008 @ 03:12

For the time-being, the list is on my Sandbox page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 6, 2008 @ 03:26

Effective immediately, it would be forbidden to mention the area it serves in any form whatsoever. Until Nielsen shows any sense, they serve the city of license, and that's all. What does Nielsen want from us? Do they own the copyright on every placename in the United States. For all I'm concerned, I no longer live in the Tampa Bay area of Florida -- I now live in "a place in the far southeastern part of the United States of America" -- no shortcuts allowed, lest if I want to be fined millions of dollars and be forced to sell my soul (and my future generations' souls). -- azumanga (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC) (Oops, my name, usage of date and time's copyrighted by Nielsen as well. And yes, I am steaming mad.)

One additional thing I noticed is that the copyvio now extends to Canadian and latin American markets as well. -- azumanga (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What? That's crazy, Neilsen doesn't even have markets for those areas. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the copyvio applies to the markets in the 50 states and DC, but as the other areas are included, it was all or nothing. -- azumanga (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still welcome to use the markets on my site. They are calculated by me, and based on admittedly older Census data (2000 I think), distance to transmitters, and location of transmitters relative to city-of-license. (That means, the algorithm put Danville in the Greensboro area even though the WDRL-DT transmitter is within the area covered by the Roanoke area, so I moved Danville into the Roanoke area to be consistent with that.) In no way based on Nielsen data. Granted, they still need work, but if a couple of people looked at my markets/market maps and checked for obvious problems, it'd be fixed pretty quick. TripEricson (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the US information from the page (while the copyright violation discussion, or lack there of, continues) so that the copyright "blockade" template can be removed (which I also removed) and the information for Canada, Mexico and other North American areas outside the US and US Territories can be viewed.

I personally believe the whole thing, US information and all, should be viewed and Nielsen has no authority over information on Wikipedia, but that is for another post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 06:26

So what would be the consequences of telling Nielsen to shove it and Wikimedia to grow a pair? Is anybody working on that angle?Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

According to what I have read, Mike Godwin (Wikimedia's legal department) essentially rolled over for Nielsen and did exactly what Nielsen wanted. Personally, I don't see why Wikipedia needs a high priced lawyer to just "roll over" each time an OTRS ticket or DMCA takedown order comes along. Exactly what has Godwin fought for (instead of rolling over) in his time here, I haven't the slightest clue. Personally, I see no consequence in telling Nielsen to "take a hike". - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 13:27

FUR Alert

Whoever's not including Fair Use Rationales with their logos, please do so ASAP -- Project_FMF had recently targeted hundreds of them for deletion, as they have no FUR. I already added FURS to several, but I'm going to need help. -- azumanga (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask and you shall recieve. Done and done :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:16

Looks like BenH's back...

...again: 76.7.101.238 Let's get rid of him. -- azumanga (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sioux City TV and Template:SUX TV

Recently, IP user 66.102.80.212 insisted not only using the unappetising airport code as the name of the template (which already exists under the former name), but he also chose to use the redirect to create a new template, dividing the template up by cities, despite the fact that all stations serve Sioux City. (You can see for yourself here.) Should we be so geographically specific with these templates? -- azumanga (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what the user did is nonsense. I have expressed my thoughts on his talk page. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

75.108.73.219

• 75.108.73.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user is editing the "Digital Television" sections of the television pages, mostly for the east coast. At first, this was beyond helpful, because some of the information was out of date. But after editing the same sections over and over and over going back and forth on the information, it is becoming annoying and seeming like BenH editing to me. If someone would look into it, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 24, 2008 @ 19:57

BTW, the IP address is registed to Suddenlink out of Tyler, TX. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 24, 2008 @ 19:58

User has been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. Should we revert the changes he/she has made or leave them as is? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 31, 2008 @ 21:12

If the edits look like shenannigans, it should be reverted. -- azumanga (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At first they didn't, but now it is the same things over and over and over and over. To me, it looks like shenannigans, but I would like a "fresh pair of eyes" to look over the edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 31, 2008 @ 21:44

Date Vandalism

216.227.87.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looks like this user is doing a little bit of date vandalism, most just changing years like 1994 to 1995. Claims that The WB was started in 1995 (most of the articles say 94, I tend to go with those). I reverted a few, but some help would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 1, 2008 @ 19:46

Actually, it is the 1994 date that is inaccurate... another IP, 208.38.205.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), changed it to that, and that IP's edits look an awful lot like Dingbat2007 to me. Hence, the other IP was actually attempting to restore the correct info. I've re-reverted as a result. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for correcting my mistakes :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 1, 2008 @ 20:17

293.xx.xxx.xx and non free images

293.xx.xxx.xx is removing non free images from tv station articles saying "NFCC edit violation" and "NFCC violation edited out" Powergate92Talk 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A diff or two would be helpful. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 17:22

Here's a link to his contributions [16] Powergate92Talk 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought we were talking about an IP editor :S - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 17:35

As I stated: The article was under a Wikipedia:Non-free content violation; Please note the tag on the top, which highlighted Wikipedia:NFCC#3a, Wikipedia:NFCC#8, and Wikipedia:NFC#Images. A historical retrospect, even if it will add some significance to the article, needs to be justified in another way without the use of an excessive amount of images. Also, I am quite disgusted at not being informed of this discussion, and request more discussion from other editors on this problem.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

...and as I stated on 293.xx.xxx.xx's talk page "NFCC#3a: One image can't convey a history. NFCC#8: Significant history of the station's logo. NFC#Images: Nowhere does it say television logos". - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 22:17

One image can't convey a history. And I don't really need to know every single incarnation of Tony the Tiger thru the ages now when descriptions will suffice now, do I? Significant history of the station's logo. And again, do I really need to know the evolution of one entities logo thru the ages when mere words will suffice? Nowhere does it say television logos" But it's still (a) logo(s), regardless of what words you place before the word "logo."--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about Tony The Tiger, now are we? We are talking about the history of the logo of KTTV-TV in Los Angeles. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 23:18

Don't be overly literal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This previous discussion (and the discussion immediately preceding it on the page) may be helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If Mike thinks it's OK, then leave it alone. AMIB should probably go back and restore all the galleries he deleted in the past (uploading all those logos) as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 23:32

Wikipedia:Civility I consider that comment to be inflammatory and trying to provoke me into personal attacks..--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

293, I have been nothing but civil with you. Show me where I haven't and I will gladly address it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 31, 2008 @ 00:00

Uh, the message just right above the last one I made. I was gonna accept AMIB's linkage and reasoning, and you had to go and personally attack me like that.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is the last I will go on this subject cause you are just wanting an arguement.

• Directed to 293 and only to 293: "If Mike thinks it's OK, then leave it alone."
• Directed to AMIB and only to AMIB: "AMIB should probably go back and restore all the galleries he deleted in the past (uploading all those logos) as well."

Neither of these statements are personal attacks, they were not written as personal attacks, and should not be taken as personal attacks.

This is the last I am speaking on this subject because you are giving me a headache and you are wanting an arguement I ain't gonna give ya.

If you need anything else and wish to go about it without flinging accusations around, please feel free to contact me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 31, 2008 @ 00:39

Are we back on this again?? It's my understanding that the logos have Mike Godwin's acceptance, so where is the issue? Furthermore, the non-free content guidelines you claim are violated are not. Show me where it tells how many images are acceptable and how many are excessive. Quantify one's understanding of the article. It doesn't add to your understanding of the article, but I think it's safe to say that it adds to the understanding of those here who appreciate the history and evolution of the station's marketing, including the logo. You're making a subjective judgment which is, in my opinion and in that of many editors in this project, unreasonable. These logos do not in any way, shape or form, endanger Wikipedia's ability to be freely distributed. And you're disrupting to make a point (see item #6 under link). dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dhett, your quick to damn me for shenanigans, so I expect you to be quick about it and answer the question I am about to pose. AMIB's link has brought up a very interesting question that I would like answered:

Why is such a decision/"policy" by a group buried in a talkpage, and not written into the guidelines itself?

If this info is "well known" by the group, then why did it take AMIB to dig it up and present the info in this little debacle? I have scanned both Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_Stations beforehand and now. And not once have I seen a mention, a link, or even hinting at the info.

It's a legitimate question, no "gaming" as you'd like to claim, and me not being stubborn, because frankly speaking, this could be a simple case of information not properly thrown out for all to see. Because if that info was on the project pages in the first place, perhaps we wouldn't be in the situation right now.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a small project, and most people spend their time fiddling with articles instead of fiddling with project pages. People who actually care about WP:NFCC are relatively rare enough that it's not an issue that comes up often (twice ever, to date).

Kinda surprised you didn't see the on-again off-again brushfire war over episode list images on the TV project, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's important to the function of Wikipedia, it should be included in the guidelines, instead of being hunted down each and every time a problem arises. Otherwise, we would end up looking like lawyers at a law library, crouched over a desk all night long, looking for an important court case. -- azumanga (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point about the info needing to be in the guidelines is well taken, and AMIB is correct that we do spend more time on the actual articles than on the project pages, although not really "fiddling" as he puts it. Myself, I spend a lot of my time cleaning up vandalism, just as I did again this morning. I also try to improve the many sorry articles we have, but doing the proper research for that is extremely time-consuming. Then there's the whole Nielsen DMA takedown cr@p, where no one will tell us what they're claiming violates their copyright so that we can make it compliant. So excuse me if I don't have a lot of patience dealing with phony image concerns again and again and again. Read the NFCC rules - tell me where it specifies how many fair-use images can be used. Tell me where "significantly adds to understanding" is defined. This may come as a surprise to some, but this project's main players are very concerned with copyright issues. We provided fair-use rationales, then we were told that they weren't good enough. So we spent a lot of time making those compliant. Then we were beaten up over historical images, many of which are in the public domain, but our accusers refuse to do their homework and needlessly enforce overly-restrictive rules. And so on and so on. Unlike another poster in this thread, I recognized your handle from a previous discussion in this forum on images, so I expect you know better than a newbie would. It is your responsibility to do your own research, and not just assume that an image violates a rule. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a link to the discussion on the NFCC talk page and on the Logos talk page. If you think a link should be provided elsewhere, add it. If you don't want to add it, send me a message telling me where you want it, and I will add it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And opened up another can of worms in the process - sheesh!! dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's just consider my matter to be closed at the moment and avoid anymore debate on the matter. I also will abstain from the other discussion for the time being as well. Agree?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike another poster in this thread, I recognized your handle from a previous discussion in this forum on images, so I expect you know better than a newbie would. Ah yes, the TBN Logo spread over 150 articles controversy.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have nothing against you personally, and would never limit what you can and cannot comment on. If you wish to abstain from discussion, that's your prerogative, but it's not on account of me. If you're going to be deleting content, then you may want to grow some thicker skin because you're going to be challenged. As I said, your point was well taken, and I took steps to provide the things you requested. The "can of worms" I was referring to was the "discussion" that ensued at WT:NFCC, not anything you were directly involved in. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Having read your comment on WT:NFCC, I guess you fixed that problem. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New section on project page

In response to a prior complaint, I have added a section to the project page that outlines accepted use of images in articles and also links to Mike Godwin's opinion on historical logo galleries. The section is titled "Use of images in articles". Improvements or suggestions for improvement are welcome. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that will prevent future complaints.....hopefully. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 1, 2008 @ 21:04

I have removed the section, as it makes it appear that the use of such galleries is appropriate, and worse, that Mike Godwin took a position on it. All Mike stated is that it wouldn't be illegal. That doesn't mean it's acceptable, there are many cases in which it would be legal under fair use, permission for Wikipedia only, or the like, for us to use nonfree material. However, as a free content project we still do not do so in most cases. Exceptions can be made sometimes, but they are exceptions. We do not use nonfree material just because we wouldn't wind up in legal trouble, that's only one consideration. Mike did not comment on whether the use of such galleries passes the rest of the requirements for use of nonfree images, nor, even if he did, would his opinion on anything but the legal matter carry any more weight than any other editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of galleries is appropriate, as long as they follow guidelines and policy. You're way off base on your "minimal" kick. You could have improved the statement; instead you chose to delete what you didn't like. And that was the only criterion - you didn't like it. I have restored the statement, highlighting the fact that Mike Godwin made a legal judgment, not a policy judgment. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Low-power TBN article stubs

There are a ton of article stubs for low-power TBN stations out there that I propose to change to redirects to KTBN-TV. I wanted to give advance notice here before I make such extensive changes.

I'm looking for four three main criteria before I redirect an article:

• Low power station;
• Article that gives very little information other than location, ERP and subchannels;
• Website is the TBN website; In the unlikely case the station has its own website, it can go in a comment on the proposed list
• According to the FCC CDBS database, the station's last renewal indicates that it retransmits KTBN-TV;

If anyone has a good reason to keep these articles, as Ross Perot once said, I'm all ears. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless they air something other than TBN, I would redirect them. But, I would add a list (probably a really, really, REALLY long list) on the KTBN page or on the TBN page of the affiliates. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 05:57

Or I would put them all in an article titled List of Trinity Broadcasting Network low-power translator stations, along with shorter title redirects like List of TBN translators, TBN translators and List of TBN translators, while putting a see also note on KTBN's lede. Nate • (chatter) 10:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a better idea, as there are so many of them. And considering the need of being as complete as possible, it wouln't be prudent to leave them out. -- azumanga (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Powergate92Talk 16:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking more in terms of a list, giving the calls, city of license, analog channel, digital channel if different from analog (most won't - TBN is generally looking to flash cut LP stations), analog ERP, digital ERP, air date, and notes. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that would be a great idea, for example, CHAN-TV in Vancouver has an exceptionally long translator list and has its own translator list. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for help!

I've been working on making articles for the redlinks at List of television stations in Ohio and I'm down to 4! The last 4 are defunct and I don't have any books on hand so I was wondering if you guys could help me out? All I would need is a stub-framework. Or if you know of any books the red stations might be in, I can use those. I'm completely out of reliable sources on the internet, so I'm hoping you guys can atleast point me in the right direction. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For WKTR, WSWO and WUXA, you could redirect them to their current counterparts, WPTD, WBDT and WQCW, respectively. -- azumanga (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Make that 5, just ran into List of television stations in Ohio (by channel number). That one should have some info online though. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepshep (talk • contribs) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Another Dingbat sock?

Jesse59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just popped up today--making a bunch of blatantly incorrect edits to former WB and UPN station articles, implying those nets started in 1994. Something about this guy makes me think it's Dingbat2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--but I could use a second opinion. In the meantime, I could use some help rolling back his poop. Blueboy96 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like he is a Dingbat sock after all. The usual remedies have been applied. Blueboy96 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesse26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Killed it ... Blueboy96 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesse48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- and he expanded to Australian stations. -- azumanga (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 02:43

Jesse29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- reverted and warned. I expect a nastygram from him when he reads it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 02:43

Jesse49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- reverted and warned. This account was created just 2½ hours ago, so keep an eye on it. I have to be away for most of tonight. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Daniel Case. Is there anyway to permanently block Dingbat2007 and his Sock Drawer or are we doomed to reverting his mess and blocking his socks? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 02:42

Could Jtrekker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be another one of his socks? -- azumanga (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Dingbat always creates articles with infoboxes. He loves infoboxes. However, Dingbat has already vandalized the article twice, once as Jesse49, and once as Word88. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Word88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- reverted and warned. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked by Blueboy96.

Word95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- warned, blocked and reverted. As if we didn't have enough to do already. Thanks for the catch, Mhking!! dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries -- I'm used to playing "Whack-a-sock" these days.... ;) --Mhking (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Word77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Reverted, Warned, Blocked (by Acroterion‎). - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 05:59

Looks like Dingbat has a brand-new bag - meet Trisha. But I gotta prove it first, so a request for checkuser has been logged. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW - It was a confirmed sockpuppet, so be on the lookout for TrishaXX now. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Participants section

I wish to change the list formating of the "participants" section from a bulleted list to a numbered list. This is so the participants are listed by numbers. Is this a good procedure?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained my reason above. The reason is "this is so the participants are listed by numbers". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why is that desirable? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Mythdon. However, I see no benefit to listing participants by number, as not all new participants add their names to the bottom of the list as directed. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you show me some diffs of users who do not list themselves at the bottom?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I cannot; I will not. There is no reason for what you are requesting. Kindly put it to rest. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

As a side note, have you thought of doing something similar to:

• Ad84
• AAARanger5
• Seregelly ^talk
• Midwest Roads
• csneed
• aido2002 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Baldster
• Intergeek
• Arbiteroftruth
• Wisconsineditor
• Kevmicester2000
• Rdash
• TheCustomOfLife
• Blue80
• Corey.spring
• RaccoonFox now RingtailedFox - Canadian and Great Lakes television stations, particularly the Detroit/Toledo/Toronto/Cleveland/Buffalo areas
• Strafidlo - focus on New England, Southwest Florida, and Traverse City-Cadillac DMAs
• Firsfron
• CFIF
• TrackerTV
• A
• Kimmykun
• Guy-Smiley
• DHowell
• Time1
• Kirjtc2
• Myselfalso
• HappyApple
• Gatorman
• capsgm2002
• Wootking
• Lego872
• Xstryker
• Jalabi99
• AlexDW
• Bearcat 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Robert Moore
• Mhking
• - Mike Beckham
• Dhett
• Smartguy1306
• Dakd
• rickabbo
• Abreuzinho
• JStalk (KEZI)
• Jimj wpg 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• ShawnHill
• Whomp
• stickguy
• Calwatch
• Mr mark taylor 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• John
• Cleryvever 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Travis
• Emarsee
• Ntropolis
• Patricknoddy
• Nate
• Trodaikid1983
• EKlapper
• WAVY 10
• Amnewsboy 09:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Open poppyseed
• Trodaikid1983
• gtbecbp
• AmericanAtl
• Jaxfl (covers stations in the Jacksonville, FL market)
• jeremybelpois
• NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Stations in VA, WV, and MD (DC, Balto, and Pittsburgh DMAs)
• NYYankee2684Only stations in Western New York
• Bill Huston Generally, stations in Central New York and NE PA
• CaptainObvious85
• ViperSnake151 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• 69.141.79.71 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Erik16
• Boris Lee, tv stations in Indonesia
• Write On 1983, Generally TV stations in Pittsburgh and Erie
• Magioladitis
• Tcardone05 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:cash082 Cash082
• Bdj95 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC) - Louisiana and Mississippi TV stations
• AP 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Blueboy96
• CaptainObvious85
• Wcquidditch
• Mbrstooge 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC) - Mainly DFW area television stations, but can expand to other US stations.
• Jjc104
• Kd lvr
• Sean90
• --Fightingirish 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Creativity-II
• GETONERD84
• Vince220
• Spyke1077
• New World Man
• Weathermandan
• Tae04gu
• Rblaster 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) - New York and Philadelphia DMAs
• Danaimband
• PastorMatt
• Melbrooksfan101
• Entertainment Reporter 19:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC) - WRBL located in Columbus, Georgia
• Dramaticaddict18923
• Tmore3
• Robinsegg
• Xde 13
• Thomprod
• Wtvg1
• (Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC))
• Tiim456
• Tapeisback-Tampa Bay Tv Stations
• benscripps - Cadillac/Traverse City, Grand Rapids
• Erik16 (talk)
• Powergate92Talk
• TomCat4680 (talk)
• Krocheck (talk) - infoboxes primarily
• StephenWeinstein
• Joeloliv8 (Talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) located in El Paso, TX. Have access to the Ciudad Juarez Channels. Mostly interested in Mexican DTV, Especially Mexican HDTV.
• Mythdon

that way your member's sction doesn't take up so much of the page? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems good, but there is a better procedure. Why not make a subpage of this WikiProject page specifically listing participants? In the participants section, why not just provide a link to the participants subpage?. That would save more space on the page than your procedure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mythdon we should make it a subpage Powergate92Talk 02:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes appears to have gone rogue

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat, it looks like Rollosmokes has gone rogue. He was revealed to be running two sock accounts--one of whom was a sleeper. Deeply disturbing--he was once a very good contributor, especially for our project. Blueboy96 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This just floored me. I remember him being a solid contributor from some of the TV station articles. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A shame too -- I think Rollo switched from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde, following the edit war with TV9 over The CW at the WGN-TV article. -- azumanga (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Smokes was editing disruptively long before the CW The CW the CW - related nonsense and engaging in many revert wars. He was given the benefit of the doubt a few times too many because he has some previous edit history which appears legit, but the WGN9 edit war was not his first. He got worse after he was indef-blocked, repeatedly asking admins for unblocks and then returning to the same abusive pattern; he also discovered the joy of sockpuppetry around that time. However, WGN wasn't the first of this - it was just the one case where he managed to annoy enough users, who eventually had the sense to bring in outsiders instead of trying to deal with the matter themselves or bring it to Rollo's few remaining allies here. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the WikiProject

I have a suggestion. The current name of this WikiProject, although it is straight to the point, I have thought of a better name for this WikiProject. How about we rename this WikiProject to WikiProject Local Television? I think WikiProject Local Television is a better name as this WikiProject does indeed cover local television. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a better name would be WikiProject US Television Stations, as we tend to focus more on US television stations then any other country. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 21, 2008 @ 09:32

WikiProject North American Television Stations would be even better, as Canadian television is occasionally discussed here as well. -- azumanga (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about WikiProject North American Television as we also have tv network discussions here. Powergate92Talk 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for changing the project name myself, but if we just have to, then WikiProject North American Television most closely describes the project. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Canada nor Mexico should be being lumped in with the US; the local conditions for broadcasters are significantly different in these countries. It's not just a later timetable for digital; there are huge differences in terms of concentration of ownership and in the number of actual originating stations vs. repeaters. For instance, it's possible to go through a hundred stations without finding one that is anything other than a rebroadcaster of XEW-TV. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree -- even though Canada and Mexico may have different legal standards, they should be included in this group, not only because they are frequently talked about here, but they are viewed along the border as well. And in the case of San Diego and Brownsville, they have stations focused on those cities that are based in Mexico, especially, of course, XETV. -- azumanga (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That editors on this project seem to consider XETV and XHRIO-TV to be the sum total of all Mexicano broadcasting is exactly why the non-US stations shouldn't be being lumped in with the US group. The majority of Mexico stations rebroadcast Spanish-language content from Mexico City or other large domestic sources, not Entravision content. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I stick with my recommendations -- we realise that there is more to Mexican TV than what's along the border, regardless of how many times it is discussed here. -- azumanga (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Galleries, yet again

Although this is rather a cable television station, not a OTA television station, User:Betacommand has removed a gallery of logos, citing WP:NFCC from The Movie Network. The logos aren't historical as some of the previous arguements have been about, but rather logos for seperate feeds of the television channel. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta needs to let the whole NFCC thing go. Godwin has already said galleries are OK under Fair Use, something Beta is trying to go against. Revert and warn. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 03:38

I can't warn Beta (past instance, I am not allowed), but I did revert to previous on the The Movie Network page per Godwin's "OK" of galleries. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 03:41

(Unindent) Beta has yet again removed galleries from several articles like KDKA-TV. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just galleries, all images he doesn't like, using a claim that they violate WP:NFCC#8, then if you disagree, he threatens blocking, hiding behind WP:3RR. He then insists you discuss on the station's talk page, but when he tires of the conversation, he just quits, knowing that his edits are the last on the page, and that he will have you blocked if you revert again. Actions like that make it very hard to assume good faith. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that Betacommand has been blocked several times for misinterpreting WP:NFCC. Blueboy96 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I'm trying to maintain an assumption of your good faith here, but this is seeming to be deliberately missing the point. Mike Godwin said that the images are likely legal. That is not in dispute, and I would have likely said the same thing, though of course Mike has legal credentials and experience behind his determination. However, they are not acceptable unless, in addition to being legal, they also pass all nonfree content guidelines. In the case of the galleries, they generally fail #1 and #8 at least (they are replaceable by a current logo for identification purposes, and are not otherwise essential). In the case of The Movie Network, they clearly fail #8 in that a list of stations is easily accomplished in plain text without the need for any nonfree images. This is a free content project. We require that nonfree content be kept to a minimum. "Is it legal?" is the first question we ask when determining whether to use an image, but far from the last. Mike Godwin saying the images were legal does not, in any case, make their use acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Happened to come across this after noticing some drastic changes made by betacommand to a series of station articles. There seems to be more than one place where this discussion is taking place right now and already posted a response elsewhere but thought it was worth adding my two cents where the discussion should be housed.

To clarify, Mike Godwin's response was not to answer the question of whether these logos were "legal" but how these logos are used to document historical progression over time within an article. In fairness I feel it's necessary to note that Godwin's input was specifically in response to the usage of historical logos for individual local television stations and not some broad foundation edict or general "OK for image galleries" across the project but simply an opinion from a very definitive source on the subject. I would also take issue with any one who would claim his opinion "irrelevant" to matters concerning NFCC as well as the premise stated here that "legality" and NFCC are two separate animals. Much of the NFCC itself was derived from U.S. copyright case law and was set up in such a way to simplify the vetting process for non-free images so it encompasses both legal and content objectives but is more fair-use oriented than anything else. While I can't speak for the current debate surrounding The Movie Network as this seems to revolve around logo usage for sub channels of a cable network, I wholeheartedly would be ready to debate and defend any broad NFCC challenge to the use of television station logos in a historical context as was already hashed out on this board earlier in the year. Tmore3 (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ion TV stations and Urban Television

I was on the fcc website and notice this application[17] so i added "sale to Urban Television pending" to the KPPX article but then i notice a news article on Broadcasting & Cable that says "Urban Television is seeking permission to buy share-time licenses from Ion allowing it to broadcast 24/7 on Ion's digital channels while Ion also broadcasts its existing digital station signals in the 42 TV markets where the channel will run"[18] so with should we add to the 42 ion TV stations articles about this? Powergate92Talk 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No need yet, for now it's jut a proposal by Bob Johnson to invest in Ion to get the channel space. Something in the main Ion Television article might be justified, but not in the station articles, and even then, just a mention of the subchannel it will end up on. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a really bizarre application -- completely unprecedented. I would advise against changing any articles until the Commission gives some sort of indication as to how it will proceed. (They could well decide that, since ion will own 49% of the Urban TV, and there's no filing window open for apps for new television stations, that the whole thing is a sham and reject it.) 121a0012 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The normal definition of "share-time" is directly incompatible with that of "broadcast 24/7". A share-time allocation is one where one station can transmit only during dayparts that the other is normally silent, so not 24/7 at all. If anything, this application looks like just an attempt to buy digital subchannel space, but to call it something else because additional digital subchannels don't qualify for must-carry. I wouldn't submit this to Uncyclopedia (let alone Wikipedia) as either would ordinarily expect a better quality of patented nonsense. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would this possibly be equivalent to say, the infamous time-share stations (e.g. WBAP (AM) sharing with WFAA's radio operation before the 1970's), only they keep the same call letters and have digital-ready legislation? I really don't understand what Ion and Urban Broadcasting are after here exactly, but it sounds extremely convoluted. All I know is that if this is added to the main Ion Television article, this text is going to have to be heavily sourced and highly concise, and even then the industry doesn't know what they're doing with this. Nate • (chatter) 05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet that the model being used is more that for the new television station approved for channel 43 in Sacramento. It is to be a shared-time station. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like that S-class crap they were discussing some months ago. We'll see if anything comes of it--hopefully not. I'd much rather just see leased time or something. TripEricson (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new disambiguation category

(Posted concurrently at WT:WPRS and WT:TVS)

I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to call sign disambiguation pages, and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward, particularly in uncovering when new disambiguation pages are created.

In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'm proposing to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template could be used on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs in place of {{disambig}}, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles, then the same approach as is used for other dab templates would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category.

I don't see any policy problem with this, but I wanted to throw it up here for comment to see if a) members of the project see some value in this approach or, possibly more importantly, b) anyone has a violent opposition to the idea. If a=yes/b=no, then c) I'll take the idea to the folks at WP:DAB to make sure there are no concerns there either. Mlaffs (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not certain of the reason for a separate disambiguation page (likewise for {{geodis}} and {{schooldis}}), I don't see any harm in creating one either. If you want to put the work in, I say by all means do so. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, one voice of support here, three at the radio project, and not a single comment at the DAB project — it's either overwhelming silent assent or overwhelming apathy. Either way, I'm going to forge ahead. I've created the category, template, and template documentation, and I'll start applying the changes to pages later today. Thanks for the feedback, dhett. Mlaffs (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Images of anchors and meteorologists

Many, if not most, of the television station articles have images in their "News Team" images such as this. So far as I can tell, these are not providing critical commentary for the article, but rather, are simply identifying living people (the anchors or meteorologists). The same thing would be accomplished if you were to add a free photo of that anchor or meteorologist that you took yourself. Is there a reason why each article should have this that meets the fair use standards? either way (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Strafidlo of this discussion since he appears to be the primary uploader of most of these images. either way (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to go either way but I would prefer to continue this practice. For the images that I add, there are taken directly from a station's website as screen captures, so they are from a reliable primary source. At least for the main weeknight anchors and chief meteorologists, there should be visual references as they are seen on-air frequently. I know that the use of non-free images should be limited, but one would think that including them would add to the overall quality of an article. A few questions: 1) Is there a consensus or talk from others at WikiProject Television Stations that this should change? 2) Could the non-free use rational be changed to better explain the use of this type of image? 3) Particularly in the case of rule 8 in the non-free image policy, "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". In this case, at least fundamentally, having visual references to anchors and meteorologists adds to an article. I will continue to maintain images that I have already uploaded but will refrain from adding any new ones until this issue has been dealt with. Strafidlo (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How is the fair use image, a screenshot of the website you said, accomplishing anything that a free use photo of that meteorologist or anchor wouldn't? either way (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for my own knowledge gathering purpose, what is a free use photo? Strafidlo (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A free use image is anything that someone uploads that is non-copyright, basically. It means that anyone and everyone is free to use it in whatever way they desire. See something like File:Dvtjnhyj.jpg, for example. it is released to the public domain for us to use. either way (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A free use photo is one that is in the public domain, or has been licensed under GFDL. If you take the photo yourself and release it into public domain, or appropriately license it, or if you know the photographer and have him/her do so, then it would be a free use picture. The only other way is that if the photo were so old that the copyright has expired, but that's not relevant for this purpose. Just a friendly word of advice, I wouldn't add any photo you get from a website; chances are, it's copyrighted, and until you familiarize yourself with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, you're better off not adding any images at all unless you've created it yourself. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike logos, it is possible to find a free alternative to the pictures of the anchors, so you're going to have a much, much harder time proving that they meet WP:NFCC standards. In addition to the question of whether or not they pass criterion #8, they clearly fail criterion #1. I would discontinue adding the non-free images. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the photos of the anchors serves no purpose other than decoration. While I challenged the notion of yanking the historical station logo galleries (which in and of itself was a huge issue here), putting anchor photos up for the sake of doing so (IMO) serves no encyclopedic purpose, and only provides inordinate (and non-uniform, as many stations do not include anchor photos) fluff in each of the articles. --Mhking (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's a free image. It's only when it's a non-free image that it's a problem. Like you, I don't see them as any more than decoration, and use of non-free images is inappropriate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to any inclusion of images of local news anchors as local news anchors have insufficient notability, meaning this issue is an excessive use of images. I think using images should depend on notability as well. If notable, not excessive. If not notable, excessive. This is one of the situations where images should be strictly avoided. Just show the station logo on the station article, and you have all the images you need on the station article. Whether the images are free or not, they should be avoided. That is my opinion —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is fine, but it's just that: personal opinion. I was not trying to make any kind of artistic judgment on the inclusion of images, just stating how they stand versus image use policy. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of terrestrial sports team networks

Okay, I need some help here, and concensus from both the Radio and TV Stations WikiProjects on this situation. Please help us out. ViperSnake151 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replied over at WPRS but on the Tv side of things this generally isn't a problem or needed, because most sports teams/leagues have national rights to the games (such as the NFL) or the games appear mostly on one network (i.e. New England Sports Network IS the Red Sox television network). So only mentioning in the station/team articles where the games are televised is needed. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 14:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

COL and Market--Again

I have been away from here for a while so my question is this. Have me now gone back to the original way of displaying COLs and Markets in the infobox of TV stations? For instance WPWR-TV is in Chicago but has a COL of Gary. So in the infobox it is seen as Gary/Chicago. But KCPQ-TV still had its display with market "Seattle" and COL below it on a different line instead of in front of the market. User:Emarsee has stated that this is how the info boxes should be done. What is the correct way? Oak999 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a point of having the COL field if it is not going to be used for stations that are licensed to suburbs of a city like KCPQ being licensed to Tacoma but serving the Seattle metro area. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)}

I believe the COL field was intended more for use by radio stations, who, if I'm not mistaken, are required to have their studios in their COL. As long as I've been a member of the project, television stations have always used the COL in the Location field and not used the COL field at all. We had a major discussion on this (see the archives) and consensus was to keep the COL in the Location field and the market would be identified by the market template at the bottom of the article. If the project feels differently now, we can change all the articles, but consensus was already reached, and IIRC, Oak999 was actually arguing your POV, but agreed to accept consensus. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Radio stations aren't required to have their studios in their COL, just within a certin distance to that COL and have a useable signal to the area. With regards to TV stations, the COL is usually the market name, it's the oddball stations licensed to the suburbs that are in question I tihnk. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually thats not all together true. All markets have stations both radio and TV that have a COL different then the major city. Such is the case with WWOR-TV and WOIO-TV WPWR-TV etc. Although most are licensed to the major city you will find in every market stations that have COL to a neighboring city. Oak999 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the same rules apply to radio and TV. The convention in existing TV station article pages appears to be to use just the location field and a format compatible with the "WWNY-TV 7 Carthage-Watertown" format (if COL is Carthage, for example) of announcements that are called on-air at the top of every hour. So a name as WOIO-TV and a location field of Shaker Heights-Cleveland, Ohio with the COL field unused would be typical. That's how they identify on-air so it looks familiar to viewers. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

State By State Television Templates

Resolved

 – Edits by both User:XPL883 and User:Yay999 were reverted, templates reverted to previous.

Two "new" users have combined the "(Network) Affiliates of (State)" templates by region. Completely unnecessary templates and hard to read in some cases. I have started a thread on WP:ANI about it. Comments would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:14

I agree it is completely unnecessary and should be reverted. Powergate92Talk 04:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Some where done by User:XPL883 (mostly New England stations) and some by User:Yay999 (mostly Rocky Mountain stations). They were all moved, if someone could get User:JPG-GR in on this, since he is good at moving pages and could help move these back where they belong quickly, it would help the process. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:31

Personally, I do sorta agree with these users. I'm not sure that we need a template to navigate two articles in a given state. I think that having a regional system is more efficient (it's easier to maintain several larger templates than numerous smaller templates). The issue I could see with it would be deciding how to split regions (obviously New England is a clear region, but other regions might have to be more arbitrarily chosen). either way (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't....it is extremely hard to read some of the templates. Remember, we are doing this so John Q. Reader can understand it. We don't want something that is easy for some to make, but hard for some to read. The templates are completely unnecessary and were not even brought to WP:TVS for consensus. If there were, I might not be so gung-ho for them immediate revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:44

Best example of the complete worthlessness of the regional templates.....this....

{{Other Mountain States Stations}}

Slapping 5, 6, 7 whatever states together into that mess...completely unnecessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:47

NH, remember your civility. You may not agree with the templates, but calling them "worthless" and "that mess" is unnecessary. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Combining templates like {{ABC Delaware}}, {{NBC Delaware}}, {{CBS Delaware}}, {{PBS Delaware}} to one larger template may make sense - but it depends on the state. Good luck finding any Delaware template that contains even two unique stations licensed in-state. {{NYC TV}} and {{LA TV}} are huge enough that one wouldn't want all those stations in one combined statewide template. One template for *every* station/category in a smaller state (one section per network, one big template) may make sense, though, instead of trying to combine across state lines? I'd suspect {{Ontario TV}} only gets away with being one province-wide box by omitting Ottawa and Toronto. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New FCC Report: Coverage Maps

While I am not a member of WP:TVS, I thought this was interesting: The FCC has issued a new report that has coverage maps for every TV market and compares coverage of analog and digital coverage of each station: Map Book of All Full-Power Digital Television Stations Authorized by the FCC

What are your thoughts of adding an external link to the maps (which are public domain) on each market's template? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support either adding a link to the Map Book page to the respective "market" template or adding a link to each station page mentioned in the Map Book listings (only Full Power stations are listed, of course). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 29, 2008 @ 12:20

After seeing the markets are listed in alphabetical order rather than by market rank, I support this as well. Blueboy96 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Definite support. These are excellent maps, although a disclaimer of (PDF) should be placed after the map link for pre-warning. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also support this. Powergate92Talk 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to correct a misconception: the maps are not in the public domain. Each one clearly bears the copyright notice (not that this is required) of the consultancy (Hammett & Edison) the FCC hired to produce this book. 121a0012 (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Also, it doesn't matter whether or not the maps are in the public domain, as they are not being published in Wikipedia. As long as we're simply linking to a website, then the website owner is responsible for any copyright issues. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The maps seem to show just what is being lost to digital transition (or gained), not the total overall coverage area of a station. Is this any better than linking per-station to resources such as TVfool (WABC WCBS WPBS WNBC) which show the overall coverage area for one station? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ATA TV up for deletion

This appears to be a TV station in Ankara or possibly a Turkish network based in Ankara. On the AFD I pointed out that Lyngsat shows this channel is also available on free-to-air satellite across all of Europe and the Near East. However, am having a hard time convincing the rest of the AFD to keep the article. It is a stub article and most of it is in Turkish; it's been an action item to translate for some time but its been difficult to find someone to translate. If this was an American station no doubt we'd have all kinds of database information about transmitter power and ratings. I don't know if such information is as readily available for Turkey but I feel we should have articles about international news outlets. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, unless it can be translated readily, it needs to be removed from the English language Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just run it through an online machine translator and smooth it out? Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the inherent imperfections of electronic translators, that's not a good idea. A knowledge of the language may also be necessary for the translation to come out perfect, understandable, and, most importantly, correct. -- azumanga (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One could try running it through a broadcast translator but the result would likely still be too unclear to be identifiable. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a new article (created Dec. 15) so I'm in favor of giving it another month or two, then if not translated by then, delete it. It took me quite a while to do the translation on XHRAE-TV from the Spanish Wikipedia, and going through my own sources, again, translating from Spanish to English with the help of an online machine translator. The best case would have been if the author would have translated the article first, but I don't see why there is a rush to remove it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef has come up with a better option IMO: redirect to the Television in Turkey article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Weather Plus

Though NBC's Weather Plus has terminated national operations, there are still some stations that are carrying local weather under that brand -- mostly comprised of local ads and an ongoing radar/satellite loop. Notably, WXIA Atlanta (where I work), and at least the other Gannett stations (NBC stations in Buffalo, Cleveland, Denver, Knoxville, St. Louis, Jacksonville & Minneapolis) are still carrying this form of Weather Plus. They have not announced whether they will go with the Universal Sports product from NBC or with some other product on that digital subchannel yet. User:75.108.73.219 has been blanket removing vestiges of Weather Plus from all NBC articles; I would surmise without knowledge of what is happening in each station's situation. He has a history of just making blanket changes without consultation. A warning from an admin (IMO) would be warranted... --Mhking (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

F.Y.I. WHDH in Boston and Comcast have not removed NBC Weather Plus. The station continues to do local weather updates although they tend to take longer to be updated. Strafidlo (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's just local content that's being carried under the "NBC weather plus" branding, it probably should be removed from "affiliations" in the infoboxes as there is no national entity to which a purely-local weather radar display is affiliated. Sorting out the other references to WX+ is going to be messier - "subchannels" in particular. It may be possible to say "xx.2 had carried NBC Weather Plus; primary national feeds for this service were terminated by the network in December 2008" and leave it at that (remove the other WX+ references unless we know there's anything still active there). Still, that's very much WP:WEASEL unless one can actually determine whether the subchannel itself is gone - and consulting local TV listings for something that's just a subchannel with the same content 24/7 is hit-and-miss at best. If we know an individual station replaced NBC WX+ with local WX, say so, but for most of these we don't even have that. Given that this affects a little over a hundred stations, I don't see an easy quick fix to this mess.

Even with the Gannett stations, a quick look at KPNX 12 (Mesa/Phoenix, Aridzona) indicates "Weather Plus also has local inserts, shown at right, allowing KPNX weather staff to show conditions and forecasts for the Phoenix market". Does it still make sense to talk in terms of "local inserts" if the national feeds into which KPNX was inserting the local segments are, for all intents and purposes, gone? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KPNX 12.2 is now a independent weather channel they are still called 12 News Weather Plus they did show Universal Sports with the 12 News Weather Plus L-Bar on screen from 11:00am - 11:30am, 1:00pm - 1:30pm and 3:00pm - 3:30pm my guess is the national feed of WeatherPlus was replaced by Universal Sports. Powergate92Talk 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've figured out with enough certainty that I stuck it on my website, what all but six of the former WeatherPlus affiliates are doing. (Those six are KTSM, KHNL, WVLA, WLBT, WLIO, and KPLC.) Most are doing local weather, a few killed the subchannel entirely (KRNV, KETK, KVEO), a few added RTN (WJAC, WTOV, WCMH, WFLA was set to launch Monday, we'll see if it does), a few added This TV (KPRC, WDIV, WGAL, WAFF, KCBD, KWWL), a few added Universal Sports (KPVI, KSL, KING, KVBC, KOMU), one added America One (WNWO), one went to an SD simulcast (WHDH), one added Mexicanal (WOAI), one launched a local news channel (WISE) and I think that's it though I could have forgotten something. TripEricson (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So far, no word on Lyngsat as to what is being carried on the C-band [19] and Ku-band [20] NBC feeds in the Weather Plus slot. Terrestrially, I have no idea what's going on as I'm in one of the regions that's losing over-the-air NBC to digital transition. Should be interesting to see what happens to those who are going RTN; RTN is no longer owned by chapter 11 bankrupt Equity Media Holdings but it does still depend on Equity's C.A.S.H. centralcasting facility to uplink the network to Galaxy 18 (123°W, FTA). Equity owes over half a million to Intelsat, last I heard, and was being threatened with disconnection for non-payment - something which could disrupt feeds. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Particpants section

I think the participants section is rather large, and we should split it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations/Participants. I suggest we list them by alphabetical order. That way, you can find participants easier. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Powergate92Talk 04:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not vote, Powergate. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, why do you "support" my decision?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because i also think the participants section should be split into its own page. Powergate92Talk 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain in the first place next time. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How should this be listed in the template

Here in Phoenix K53GF changed its callsigns to K38IZ-D when they began broadcasting on channel 38 digital with special temporary authorization they continue broadcasting on channel 53 analog. So should they be listed as channel 38 or channel 53 in Template:Phoenix TV? Powergate92Talk 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They should be listed as channel 38, as that is their licensed channel. They operate on channel 53 through a Special Temporary Authorization (STA) which typically lass for only 6 months but can be renewed as necessary. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What about PSIP? -- azumanga (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

K38IZ has no PSIP. TripEricson (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: From a technical standpoint, even where a station's digital channel is the same in numbering as the base virtual channel, the station technically must still send *something* as a PSIP table. No PSIP at all would tell the receiver that there are zero digital subchannels - not even a main programme - and that might make for a rather disappointing viewing experience IMHO. K38IZ-D having a PSIP with just the one eponymous virtual channel (38.1) listed is not the same as transmitting with PSIP-absent. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of PSIP is optional for LPTV stations. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of local news anchors

Since local news anchors are not notable enough for mention on Wikipedia, I suggest we phase out the mentioning of them entirely. I have already phased out the related sections for KWQC-TV and WHBF-TV as well as some others. I also suggest that we phase out all the articles about local newscasts.

Lets do this by doing the following:

• If you see a section dedicated to the local news anchors, remove it immediately.
• If you find an article on a local news anchor, nominate it for deletion.
• If you find a list of local news anchors for a station, nominate it for deletion.
• If you find an article about a local newscast, nominate it for deletion.

I strongly encourage all participants of this WikiProject to phase out any mention of the local news anchors or newscasts, because including them is a notability issue. It is one thing to have an article on a television station is another to add non-notable information such as this.

Does anyone object to this proposal?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Object/Support - Object: There are some news anchors who have long histories in certain markets or have "gone national" and deleting their articles would be bad for the project. Support: As for removing anchor sections from TV station pages, I used to be against it, but now I am all for it. In some cases, with big market stations, the sections have gotten waaaay too big and take up waaay too much space. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 00:47
• Object -- for reasons above -- I would keep only the current anchors and reporters, as well as those who were the most-notable. -- azumanga (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to redirect these articles to the station articles, and mention the anchors briefly in context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because people move and those redirects would have to be updated, along with the information on the station pages. It is best to leave the articles as they are. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 00:57

Mm. I'm curious why you'd say that a station's news anchors don't bear brief mention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Because, say the person moves from WXXX-TV to KXXX-TV, you would have to move that little blurb from the WXXX-TV page to the KXXX-TV page. It is easier to just have a page for John Q. Anchor and have the information there and link to it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 01:02

Personally, this strikes me as being very similar to the issue of listing program schedules in a radio station's article: if the reader isn't already familiar with the station, then listing the news anchors and reporters is just trivia about non-notable people they've never heard of which doesn't actually tell them anything that's useful or meaningful to them ("So Rodney Biffmeister is the 6 p.m. news anchor on this station. Great. Who the frack is Rodney Biffmeister and why should I care?") — but if the reader is already familiar with the station, then they already know who the personalities are and consequently don't need a list. Certainly, if an anchor or reporter actually meets the demands of WP:N on their own merits, then it's reasonable for the station they work for to link to them, but I just don't see the value in providing an extensive list of non-notable personalities who don't qualify for their own articles. If they aren't important enough that they'd merit inclusion on List of American journalists, then they aren't important enough to be worth mentioning on the station's article either. YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Lists of Programs

Just a question for the group. I noticed on the WGSR-LP article a rather detailed program list. I also cross-referenced WP:NOTDIR and as I interpret it, lists of programs are discouraged unless there is historical significance. Your thoughts? Nicholasm79 (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fictional TV stations in market templates

Recently in the Twin Cities TV template, someone added an entry for WJM-TV, the fictitious television station in The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Should we allow fake, though notable, stations in the templates? I recall doing the same thing three years ago (in my early Wiki days), but was reverted. -- azumanga (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should. The station does/did not exist, we shouldn't include it. --Mhking (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mhking. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 22, 2009 @ 04:03

I also agree with Mhking. It's pure fiction. That's all you need to really say about it. Nicholasm79 (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, no. No need to elaborate further. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Mhking. Powergate92Talk 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, same here. Yes, WJM is notable, though fictional stations are a dime a dozen, and there's simply too little room for them in the templates. -- azumanga (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that fictional television stations shouldn't be listed in the templates. The templates are for real stations, not fake stations. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely no fake stations. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Nielsen DMAs in Network Affiliate Lists

I just got to thinking about it, multiple pages such as This TV, Universal Sports and CW Plus (and the Mexicanal and Untamed Sports TV pages I put together not too long ago) continue to use the DMA system that we got nailed for not too long ago. Should something be done about this or is that in the clear? TripEricson (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When i added the DMA # to the affiliate list in the Bohemia Visual Music article dhett left a message on my talk page saying "Using the DMA ranking is a no-no, per the conflagration we had recently with the Nielsen Company" Powergate92Talk 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WPXS

I have cited sources for WPXS as I felt the need to source the article. Are the sources I cited reliable?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with them.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are reliable sources! Powergate92Talk 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 13, 2009 @ 17:14

Dingbat's back again

I guess whatever girl he found dumped him - he's back online and making stuff up with a vengeance. He's on today with a set of IP postings, and as Word72, posting an entire set of stations that are supposedly affiliated with ABC Family, WealthTV, and Fuse. I'm not familiar with WealthTV directly, but I know that ABC Family and Fuse don't have broadcast affiliates. Feh. --Mhking (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep - I just double-checked -- WealthTV does not have broadcast affiliates either. I'd love to kick that nut in the teeth. --Mhking (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting some of his edits now. Powergate92Talk 04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I yanked a number of 'em as well. Word72 has been blocked, but it's obvious that his mom has given him access to the computer again. --Mhking (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Wealth TV: they have at least one aerial affiliate, KYES-TV in Anchorage, where it's carried as a digital subchannel. -- azumanga (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I noticed when looking at Dingbat's rap sheet is that Word72 is Dingbat's 100th sock. Does he get a prize? (And yes, I am sarcastic.) -- azumanga (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing -- it appears that Word76 is using his talk page as a "toy", even though he's indefinitely blocked. -- azumanga (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)