Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 10

template:TVF

{{TVF}} has been nominated for deletion. This is an external link template to a site that provides a TV station signal strength map -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York

FYI. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Current on-air staff lists redux

I've had issues with the application of these lists, as I'm sure have many other editors. As it stands, these lists mainly exist right now at the level of article filler. In the market I'm in, the stations generally see turnover in their on-air staff which exceeds the willingness of anyone to actually keep the article updated. I certainly don't care enough to spend that much time watching every newscast just to keep track of every single person who winds up staying long enough for a cup of coffee. Arguably, the top station in the state is KTUU-TV, and as such should be my top priority amongst television station articles. The most recent edit changed the morning weather guy, yet kept Daniel Fiorucci in the article, in spite of this, this, this and this, all of which took next to no effort to search for. In March of this year, a "respected editor" removed the name of Steve MacDonald from the article, declaring him to be non-notable or possibly some other excuse (boilerplate edit summary). Two things regarding that. Last I checked, notability guidelines state that someone can be mentioned in an article if they are notable within the context of the article's subject. Steve MacDonald has worked in television news in Anchorage for over thirty years. You're telling me that he's not notable within the context of the stations he's worked for? Yes, I am calling bullshit. Second, there is currently no mention of him at all in the article, despite the fact that he's listed on the news team roster page. Even though his name was removed from the article in March for supposedly not being relevant to the topic of the station, I took a bunch of photos of him at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center in late August conducting airchecks or on-air interviews. Many of these photos rather prominently show him with a KTUU microphone in his hand. This causes me to ask "What exactly is the purpose of these lists?" It reminds me all too well of that famous quote from Casey Kasem: "Just a lot of wasted names that don't mean diddly-shit." RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these list are article fillers, one of the factors in the subchannels not looking like the permastubs that they currently are. I think it makes the article seem complete to those editors that add them, after all a TV station with news programming is original programming and are the face of the station. Also, the fact that general a TV Station's articles are consider reliable source, but fail to note that using the TV Station's station information is self source which should seldom be used. Those that should be listed are those that get cover by other media outlets. RE: Steve MacDonald, more than a bunch of photos at some con. center is needed for notability of station staff. Just find a reliable source about him by another media outlet and use ref./cite. I got ripped up one side and down the other (by an IP editor no less) for removing a bunch of stuff that was either self-sourced or wasn't sourced in a station article dispite finding some general sources for most of the article and left cite needed for other events that seemed likely to have accured. I think that we should edit the TVS page to indicate more clearly that the staff listed should be notable, ie. cover by other media outlets. I guess we could compromise with just listing the prime time news anchors (including sports and weather) plus all other notables, not the full reporter list. Spshu (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with such lists (just as it is with radio) is that the names generally don't mean diddly-squat to anyone who isn't already a viewer of the station. Since I don't live in Anchorage, for instance, the name "Steve MacDonald" means absolutely nothing to me, with the result that simply listing his name as a staff member of the station, with no further information about him, simply isn't telling me anything useful. The list thus serves no purpose besides being (a) filler and (b) localized marketing, neither of which is the role of an encyclopedia.

On radio stations, the formal rule is that it's okay to add content to an article that describes the station's programming in more depth, but not to just add a contextless list of hosts' names -- however, in actual practice, people constantly try to readd the staff lists and it takes constant vigilance (often more than it's actually worth) to keep the articles consistent with the rules. Some people, for instance, interpret the rule as being that formatting the names as a bulleted list is the only thing that's verboten, whereas reformatting the list in sentence format instead is just fine and dandy -- except that such a paragraph is still just a meaningless pile of names that mean nothing to anyone who isn't already a fan of the station, and such paragraphs almost invariably strike a "From 9 a.m. to noon it's Jackie Jackson bringing you the latest hits" marketing tone that has absolutely no business being anywhere near a properly written encyclopedia.

The problem on TV stations, of course, is that it's a lot more difficult to describe the programming in any particularly meaningful way, as newscasts just don't tend to vary all that dramatically in their format -- so there's really no viable territory in between "contextless list of names" and "no names at all". In principle, I agree that TV station articles generally should only list past or present staff members who actually have sufficient notability to qualify for their own separate Wikipedia articles; however, given that we have a hard enough time keeping radio stations clean even with a third option in place, I don't know how we could actually enforce that on TV stations with any degree of success. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WPSG Infobox_Broadcast call_letters changed to official FCC call sign WPSG-TV 22:33, 25 October 2012 69.171.163.215 (diff)

Should now Wikipedia article WPSG (diff) be rename/moved to official FCC call sign WPSG-TV (per article Naming conventions (broadcasting) use the official call sign)? There are some other WPSG text references that also should probably be changed to WPSG-TV. Bob08033 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing changed as far as I see; it still is just WPSG on the FCC site. All the FCC did was change their page format for call queries into the modern age. So no changes should be rendered. Nate • (chatter) 23:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see why you could've been misdirected; one of those nagging IP socks, 69.171.163.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), decided to change a bunch of things without consensus or the research to back it up and this time their target was CBS's CW stations. All have been rolled back to previous versions with the errors removed. Next time you see something like that, especially from an IP, go back and check previous edits; if they're a bunch of stations edited within a period of hours, it's usually a safe call that it's one of our usual IP sockpuppet friends trying to make a mess of things. Remember also; always go by the official FCC page for the station for calls. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The station's call sign hasn't changed; viz., CDBS. 121a0012 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Notability of TV station subchannel articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am starting this RFC as suggested by User:Nyttend in there closing comment of a discussion above about this. User:Spshu, a few other editors, and I believe that TV station subchannel articles that do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore do not meet WP:Notability#General notability guideline, and in some cases are unsourced, such as WHSV-DT2, therefore not meeting WP:Verifiability as well, should not have articles and should be covered in main station article. User:Neutralhomer believes that those TV station subchannels should have articles because they "airs programming that is unique to just that station, along with newscasts and other local programming," and meet WP:Notability because "if the main channel is notable, then the subchannel enjoys the same notability." This Request for Comment is to get outside input on which is correct. Powergate92Talk 05:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(notice post at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television & Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard --Spshu (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

There are other editors who believe that they are notable as well, not just me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention that I will NOT be participating in this little RFC outside of this:

Subchannels of ThisTV, AntennaTV, MeTV, The Cool TV, or other "simulcaster" networks are not notable unless they are also affiliated with a larger network like FOX or CBS. An example of this would be WBBJ-DT3, which has a primary affiliation with CBS and a secondary affiliation with MeTV, while also carrying syndicated programming.

Subchannels affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the CW (NOT counting The CW Plus as it is a satellite version of the network and a pure simulcast across different markets), and MyNetworkTV are notable. The reason is that TV subchannels are a separate entity of the main station, but operate on the main station's signal. The main station already enjoys inherent notability (it's established by consensus from AfDs and WP:BROADCAST) so the subchannel would also be notable since it operates on that main station's signal (ie: WXXX-DT2 is part of the signal of main station WXXX).

Subchannels that have programming and affiliations that are unique to that station and that station alone, that broadcast market exclusive programming (ie: newscasts, syndicated programming, sports games, locally-produced shows, etc.) are notable.

As I discribed above: A different way of putting all this would be the same as the rules for radio stations (under WP:BROADCAST) that cover translator stations. Subchannels that carry Antenna TV, MeTV and the like would be the same as translator radio stations or stations that simulcast networks like K-LOVE with no local involvement. K-LOVE affiliate stations (or other networks like that) aren't notable if they don't have any local involvement, local programming. So, in TV, think of subchannels with MeTV as radio stations with K-LOVE programming. Think of subchannels with local involvement, local programming, market exclusive programming, like stations such as KIIS-FM in LA. Local programming, local involvement, it's notable.

Beyond that, this is just going to be a rehashing of the same crap over and over and over and over ad naseum and my psychologist warned me about the whole rehashing the past and he said it is a bad thing. Folks who rehash the past will be stuck at that point and one should move on from that point...as should we. We should move on from this constant rehashing of the same thing, the same "is this notable?", accept the consensus from two different discussions (one at ANI and one at Talk:WNEM-DT2) and move on. That it is why I choose not to participate in this. If anyone needs any clarification of what I have said above in the green or in previous threads or has a question, please see my talk page as I will be de-watchlist'ing this page after I post this. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You're now saying that there is consensus at ANI, can you provide a link this ANI thread you're talking about as I can't find an ANI thread where there is a consensus that TV station subchannel articles that do not meet WP:Notability#General notability guideline should have articles. As for the discussion at Talk:WNEM-DT2/Archive 1#Nomination for deletion and merge with WNEM-TV, User:Drmies said in their closing comment "there clearly is no consensus." The only consensus is the weak consensus against you above per User:Nyttend closing comment "I have to say that there's a weak consensus here against the notability of subchannels that aren't demonstrated to have substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other." As well, consensus can change. Powergate92Talk 17:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My views remain the same as I expressed before (in the big long purple bit above). Subchannels may or may not be notable, depending on what sort of evidence is available for claims about them specifically, independent of the station as a whole; as U.S. licensees are free to operate as many subchannels as they wish, subject only to technical limits, with whatever programming they want, and no approval from any regulator is required, it cannot be presumed that subchannels are automatically notable, regardless of their programming or their parent station. 121a0012 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Responding to the RfC, I think basing this on technical notability is irrelevant; not everything notable enough by the rules to justify a separate article ought to have one, and the WP:N page is pretty clear about that. Combining articles is a matter of style, and the emphasis should be on the readability and usefulness to the reader, and secondarily to some extent on our ability to maintain them. I know the people working on these articles aren't writing promotionally, and trying to get as many articles possible for commercial reasons. But I just don't seethe usefulness. Each article has an associated overhead of listing in categories and boxes, and maintaining links,, and the less of it we do, the more we can do on improving article content. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. While this isn't so much a problem with this project, with other projects I'm more involved in, we seem to have a real problem with editors who desire to create as many articles as they possibly can (like it's a contest or something?) without regard for usefulness to the reader, often to the point of producing articles which are nothing more than parroted database entries (from GNIS, Political Graveyard, on and on ad nauseum). The other main problem seems to be lack of regard for whether or not these articles languish for so long that they epitomize WP:PERMASTUB. These editors are a lot quicker to defend their useless creations than they are to make any effort to improve them. The occasional discussion comes across my watchlist about how these same editors become blocked or banned or retire because other editors attempt to make it clear that they can't have it their way all the time.

As for this project? The main problem I seem to have pertaining to various station articles I follow is with recent successive edits turning the article further in the direction of being a commercial for the current owner, often at the expense of properly representing the station's history. KTUU-TV is particularly troublesome, as it is the top television station in my state. Schurz Communications has little relevance to the station's overall picture beyond being the current owner. I'm waiting with baited breath for someone to tell me that we can't mention Al Bramstedt in that article "because he's not notable." I really hope not. If someone is that unfamiliar with the television industry, they really have no business editing television station articles.

This may represent a tangent, but I already made plenty of previous comments on the subject at hand. I've seen state public affairs networks covered as a separate topic before, possibly by C-SPAN but I forget exactly. I haven't researched how 360 North could be or not be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, but common sense tells me that with the extent of original and unique programming they regularly carry, including and particularly in covering notable events, how the hell could it not be.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"The reason is that TV subchannels are a seperate entity of the main station, but operate on the main station's signal." But so is the accounting department but we don't do an article about them. Notability is not inherited. If these are so important entities then why are there any blank subchannels (not currently carrying any programming)?

Neutralhomer's so call "simulcaster" networks are so simulcast as I get in two Living Well Networks and they don't have the same advertisers particularly the infomercial and they advertise programming on their main channel and their other subchannel.

RadioKAOS, while the subchannel articles are PERMASTUB, editors pad the article with information from the main article or from the stations webpage like news and weather staff. They end up as content forks of the main article to make it look like it isn't a Permstub. All a subchannel adds to the station article is what programming was and/or is on that subchannel. The subchannel articles read like this: "KXXX-D2 is a TV station owned by XXX Station Group. KXXX-D2 is subchannel of KXXX." This is clearly contridicatory. If it at all involves UPN, WB, CW or MyNetworkTV then the article's history section gets a full paragraph resummarizing the UPN/WB merger when a wikilink with in a sentence to 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment would do. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think subchannels that cannot independently pass the WP:GNG requirements should be merged to the main channels' articles. It's a straightforward guideline that should be followed in these cases. I'd said this a few months ago and see others saying it: notability is not inherited; splitting subchannels off complicates things organizationally as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

One other point, in response to the uniqueness of the subchannels: that is not a valid argument for notability; it seems like such an argument could be used to say that the various editions of a book should have separate articles, for example, if there have been minor changes between them, as each has unique text, or that different album releases should have separate articles if that have different track lists. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I glanced at a couple of subchannel articles, and it doesn't seem like a "one size fits all" rule would be a good idea. Any "mandatory" rule would be problematic: articles are always okay; or are never okay. Each should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If there are few or no sources devoted to the subchannel, then the article would probably be better merged into a parent article. But I can imagine a particular subchannel that does meet the WP notability articles (although I haven't seen one yet). On the other hand, it is a good idea for the project participants to establish guidelines that can be followed in the future, to minimize repeats of the same discussions over and over. Regarding the one article that is named and has no sources, WP:BURDEN says that such articles can be deleted, although it is considered good form to try to find sources before doing so. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

While no one is stated a "one size fits all" rule in their argument, the pro-subchannel side has edit warred just over the addition of notability tags to allow editors to make the case (sourcing) for that article to continue. They want some special rule that changes the general procedure from must prove notability to automatic notability for most subchannels. This has been discussed nine times just on the TVS talk page, however this has not been enough for the pro-subchannel side and their primary spokesperson in his haste to hound me he got the last discussion closed by an administrator. This forced this discussion and with the lack of responses, I suppect we will be here again in a few months (as he will declare no consensus, stale discussion, or what ever). --Spshu (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I see seven editors basically agreeing that subchannels have to meet WP:GNG on their own, and are not automatically notable. DGG's view is that even if they are notable, they might still not warrant a separate article. Seems like a decent-sized consensus to me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There were total 7 editors (5 for GNG, 2 for major network subch. auto notability) in the previous discussion and that was marked as "weak consensus" by an administrator. Any ideas on how to increase the number of editors responding with out seeming to canvass incorrectly? --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one person disagrees in this discussion, which seems like strong consensus to me. Perhaps post a note at WP:ANRFC and see what happens. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I might try to get more editors to weigh in on the subject.

While Neutralhomer has included NBC Nonstop's local articles (NBC California Nonstop, NBC Chicago Nonstop, NBC DFW Nonstop, NBC New York Nonstop, NBC Philadelphia Nonstop) in the edit warring over subchannels, I would like to know whether I can safely consider the Nonstop discuss to be fully covered by this discussion. These articles did not meet GNG so I attempted to role all those article into one article about the channel format so they could meet GNG and others for other reasons wanted to merger, which he objected to. --Spshu (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• We don't need a separate topic-specific notability guideline; that means we would have two rules on notability (the GNG plus the topic-specific one), leading to much drama later on. Either a subject passes the GNG or it doesn't; assess each subject against the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advisory to WP:TVS members

I'm currently working on 1994 United States broadcast TV realignment with hopes it can get G or FA status. I need help with fixing the organization of the article and adding more info and references. Feel free to edit there anytime. I would also appreciate a peer review being set up for these purposes. Thank you, Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, Fairly, at bringing several articles up to snuff. And thanks for your work on this article (and the peer review) as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fairlyoddparents1234 for bringing this up here, as I didn't know that article existed. Anyway, I added 6 references to the article, and I will add more as I find them. Powergate92Talk 06:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Need to get it up to B status first as it is at C class now. And you should not be able to get it to FA status based on the current NFCC as you will not be allowed to have any images in it. --Spshu (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on O&Os

A day ago, I was involved with an edit war on KNSD with User:Spshu. This has let me to ask this WikiProject to clarify a point here: What constitutes an owned-and-operated station? Does it have to be entirely owned by an organization affiliated with the network itself? Because Spshu deleted the fact that KNSD is an NBC O&O. On WP, should we display any station that is owned more than 50% by the network as an O&O, and anything less than that as an affiliate? We need rules that determine if a station is an afffil. or an O&O. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That was not what the problem on KNSD was about. It was about you duplicating the Station Venture Holdings (SVH) subarticle with in KNSD. The SVH subarticle makes it clear that they are O&O stations but we have no proper source there. We need no "rule" in such a special case except for a independent reliable source. Spshu (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe User:Neutralhomer could post his views on O&O identification. Even though I do agree partly with you, I think it is better to tell users at the article directly that KNSD is an O&O, for clarification purposes. And at KXAS-TV, please say that NBCUniversal and LIN Media participate in a joint venture. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe Fairlyoddparents1234 is correct here. The source Fairlyoddparents1234 cited [1] (page 4) clearly says "own and operate." Yes, that is a primary source, but, per the primary sources policy, can still be used as long as it's "been reliably published" and is used with "only with care." As well, I agree with Fairlyoddparents1234 that it should be noted in the station articles that Station Venture Holdings is a a joint venture between NBCUniversal and LIN Media. Powergate92Talk 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct about what? He and I were talking past each other but he wished to turn the matter into a dust up with reporting me and all. I did not see a reason to duplicate the Station Venture Holdings subarticle while he was concerted with noting O&O status. Also, Fairlyoddparents1234 is naming Station Venture Operations, LP as the owning joint venture (not Station Venture Holdings) when it is the licensee and operator not owner. So I don't see his claim of an LMA exists at [[2] his source (atleast on page 4]. Guess I general try to stay away from primary sources give the potential issues, but I did request a page number from him give that it is 239 pages long. I could see a statement at the stations articles like this: "... is a NBC O&O station is owned by Station Venture Holdings, a NBCU JV..." Thus the reader can click through to see the details of the JV (ownership % and JV partner there) but still justify the O&O tag with the article. Of course the placement of the stations into the JV would be covered in the station history too. Spshu (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

He is correct in saying that they are "owned-and-operated station of the NBC television network," and that it should be said in the article that Station Venture Holdings is a a joint venture between NBCUniversal and LIN Media. Also, none of the sources cited say that Station Venture Holdings owns the stations, just that Station Venture Operations is a subsidiary of Station Venture Holdings. How about we say this in the articles "... is an owned-and-operated station of the NBC television network held through Station Venture Operations, L.P., a subsidiary of Station Venture Holdings, LLC (a joint venture between NBCUniversal and LIN Media)." Powergate92Talk 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking clarification. Partial ownership of a station has been considered an O&O relationship by the FCC, as early as the 1950s (see the Paramount/ABC/DuMont dispute for details. Television today would be very different if partial owners weren't considered owners and operators. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am very pleased to announce that with the current revisions of the articles in question, their O&O status have been left intact. Remember folks, the FCC can slap O&O status on any station owned in snippets by the network (Tribune held a minority stake in The WB, yet their stations were considered O&Os), so have a discussion here on whether or not we should call it an O&O or an Affiliate. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured List Candidate

I intend to send List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States to Featured List Candidates in the next week or so. Any last-minute observations? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal names for those typographical symbols you use are "dagger" and "double dagger", at least in my experience, not "cross" and "diesis". Also, you might want to repeat the key at the bottom of the table, which is where I expected to find it. 121a0012 (talk)

Thanks for taking a look, 121. Per your good suggestions, I've moved the key to the bottom of the table and changed the wording from "cross" to "dagger". However, Wikipedia's article on dagger (typography) indicates 'diesis' is a legitimate name for ‡. I've never heard 'double dagger' used, myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We should also discuss how the articles are linked. For accuracy purposes, I propose to see all stations with an "ancient" callsign get their current calls mentioned in a new "now" section like in the DuMont list. Should fix all problems that could arouse from anyone who doesn't recognize a sign (it be better to mention WPVI-TV alongside WFIL-TV; the latter redirects to the former anyway). Also, what about the Crosley stations? While I do understand the need to place a hyphen between WLW and the last letter (that's what Crosley did), I best think that for accuracy purposes that the FCC-official callsign without a hyphen (WLWT vs WLW-T) best illustrates the stations. As for the FLC listing, do it soon. I failed on a peer review. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 03:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Station slogans

I'm bringing this up because it could be a potential problem: on the WVIT article, a user called Radiodj1520 added a slew of unreferenced, supposed station slogans. From what I have witnessed here, station slogans have been considered to be fancruft and non-notable. I deleted the section added by Radiodj1520. Two weeks later, Cowbert readded the section. When I deleted the information again, Arctic Kangaroo intervened, reversed the edit, and suggested it goes to the talk page. Fine, I'm good with that -- except he tagged me for "edit warring." Aside from the fact that there is no edit war involved here, I have been trying to get both sides to see that this information is not useful in these articles.

I don't know if anyone wants to contribute to this thread, but comments are welcome. Other Side One (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting them all. It's probably one of the three or four socks that always loves adding these 'network default' slogans (as I've said in the past, these were only used in the past to fill a minute of dead airtime, which now gets fitted with a Hydroxytone ad or its ilk). I will state it clearly that they deserve reversion by placing a notice on AK's page; we don't need the network default slogans (and the only sourcing for them in the first place is YouTube or station advertising in TV guides). Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Television Stations in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Television Stations for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Phoenix TV

It seems like the Template:Phoenix TV navbox is extremely cluttered. I'm thinking on separating the English and Spanish stations within the Metro Phoenix into separate sections in the navbox. (Template:NYC TV looks similar to my reorganization result, minus the outliers. Would you let me go ahead? Drop your comments and further suggestions below this message. P.S.: Congrats on the Signpost interview! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 22:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cripes, that template is a MESS. Do whatever it takes, dude. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Station slogans... again

Hello everyone. I am calling out to all folks who edit TV station articles on this project. In the articles, usually one of the subjects is "Station Slogans". Often times one will see "localized version of CBS/NBC/ABC/CW/FOX/whatever network ad campaign" with dates. As far as I know, the consensus reached on this previously was that these "localized" slogans aren't notable, as they are network wide. If you spot them, please remove them while keeping the other slogans intact. I have gone through over a dozen articles today doing this. Is this the correct procedure, or did I just do a lot of work for nothing? Input is requested, thanks! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work for sure. I definitely want every example of that gone. Unless they went whole-hog and embraced it into their own deeply custom version, it's not a notable use at all. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

I would like to apologize for placing Template:Inc-video on all U.S. television network affiliate lists. I did so as I am worried that the listings may not show all affiliates at a certain time. If you feel this is not necessary, please feel free to remove it at your will. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Former station affiliation categorization

Hey there, I am thinking on making categories for former station affiliations (i.e. WJZ—ABC, WCAU—CBS, WKBD—Fox, and KCNC—NBC). Do you have any possible issues affecting these categories — such as notability — before I go ahead with the categories? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Announcement: category rename

On May 12, I nominated the category "Fox Television Stations Group" for a rename to simply "Fox Television Stations". The CFD entry can be viewed here. I'm letting you guys know about this since there has not been any response to the request at the time of writing. Thanks, Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States

Some British guy offered suggestions on the above list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States/archive1. I have already complied to one of the suggestions on the "laundry list" (1st sentence changed). Let's discuss the following:

• Don't start lists with "This is a list...". (done)
• Avoid bold links.
• Explain abbreviations before you use them, like NTA (perhaps that needs a page move), NBC, CBS, etc etc.
• Six-para lead is over the top. Perhaps consider a "history" section or something to enhance the article. (agreed)
• " the 1961–1962 television" see WP:YEAR.
• What does "channel number" really mean? In the UK we have channel numbers that differ between Freeview, Sky, Virgin etc. (change to TV/RF
• Programs Aired -< aired.
• "now on 19" etc, WP:ASOF. (change "now" to "current" or remove channel numbers entirely)
• Not one single of the programs aired has an article? Really? Is this list even notable? (We can call for an exception)

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Third bullet (explain abbreviations before you use them) is covered by MOS:ACRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Some British guy" here, please address these issues at the FLC itself, not here, it makes no sense to maintain two parallel lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, the original post implied to discuss here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted it here in order to bring attention to the FLC nom comments there. I want all TVS members involved... Please direct all comments to the FLC discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Current on-air staff list discussion

It looks like we have a disagreed at Talk:KCAL-TV about whether on air station staff listings are notable. Apart from the editor not assuming good faith and insulting me, we need to come to a consensus that is more than just three people posting... And that whatever decision is made, it is implemented project wide, much like how the list of newscast titles was eradicated project wide a while back. Even though it is just one person objecting I'm not going to revert again, but would like additional opinions here. Calwatch (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, if they are sourced, as they seem to be for KCAL, keep them. They may or may not be notable enough for standalone articles, but as widely-recognizable figures (at least w/i their communities), the on-air staff are at least as notable within the article as any other fact (e.g. "facility id", "transmitter height") about the station. IMHO. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The understanding I'd always had was that on-air staff was considered notable, while non-air staff (photographers, editors, news directors, et.al.) in general, were not. Of course notable exceptions do exist on a station-by-station basis. --mhking (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the rule has always been that only staff members (on or off air) who are actually notable enough to qualify for their own separate articles should be listed in a television station's article. The problem is that if the people aren't notable enough to qualify for a separate article (and the further information about them that is thus provided), then just listing their names doesn't mean anything to anyone who lives outside the station's broadcast range — and if you live inside the station's broadcast range, then the list still isn't serving a genuinely useful purpose because you already know who they are anyway. Additionally, the station's own website is a primary source, and thus does not count toward demonstrating a person's notability — and because stations' staff rosters are always changing (new people being hired, old people retiring or quitting, etc.), the lists rapidly approach unmaintainability. For those reasons, a comprehensive staff list serves no genuinely useful or properly encyclopedic purpose beyond a staff directory, which is a "what Wikipedia is not" violation. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that no, they weren't properly sourced; the station's own website is a primary source, which does not count toward establishing notability. Proper sources need to be independent of the subject. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

True the news staff may not be "notable" outside of the local viewing area with limited exceptions to that rule. On the other hand, the TV station has managed to meet the notability criteria thus qualifying for a Wikipedia article. It is also true in certain articles we mention lesser notable facts within subject matters in which the subject matter itself is highly notable and nobody seems to have a problem with those articles. From a deletionist standpoint, one can argue for the deletion on the basis it is no more well known than the average Joe sitting at desk broadcasting to a just more than 100,000 population. On an inclusionist level, we will be listing every employee that has ever worked at an employer. This seems to be more complicated than that. So on a delusionist conclusion, I believe if the TV station is notable enough for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, the news staff can be presented as additional facts to the "News operation" section. It's not like we'd be listing every Joe that has ever worked there, just the current ones. In special circumstances however, we can make a mention of a legend that had worked there for many years (such as Jim King of WQAD-TV or Paul Rhodes of KCCI). —Mythdon ^{(talk contribs)} 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO, virtually everyone misreads policy as banning Primary sources. A close read of WP:PRIMARY says they're fine to use, with care.

One (not I) could make an argument that @Bearcat's pet page, Metrotown, Burnaby, is essentially about a shopping/commercial district, mostly primary-sourced by city of Burnaby and city of Vancouver websites. At the very least, I see all sorts of references to "non-notable" parks, schools, shopping centers and other amenities. One could easily make a case for obeying notability "laws" and eviscerating that article. Yet it's likely pertinent, informative and useful to many people. So what I'm saying is, just don't go off on enforcing infexible "rules" on articles of interest to other people based mainly on personal likes and dislikes. OK? --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

When in hell did Metrotown, Burnaby ever become my "pet page"? I've never edited that page even once in my life. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw it on your Talk page and I didn't read it closely enough...since it's unusual for a post like that not to be placed on some Project page. But the point still stands. Most deletionists seem to operate on the WP:ILIKEIT principle. I'm sure you have your own pets. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not if you're defining "pets" as "pages where people make up their own special rules different than the ones they insist on elsewhere", I don't. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with enough deletionists who do. High-minded rhetoric about the integrity of the encyclopedia flies out the window if "their" page is mentioned. But there are other editors who never create content; to them, policies become abstractions, thus mutating into inflexible laws which trump all else... --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, from Notability:

"Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article ... content. Content coverage within a given article ... is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." (Emphases mine.)

Another common misread of policy. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is not in any conflict with the position that a complete staff list is not warranted, because both WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA mitigate against the inclusion of material that doesn't have a really good reason for being necessary or valuable. Is there any good reason, besides "because we can", why any television station's article genuinely needs a comprehensive staff list? Is there any reason why the information is valuable, and not just trivia or a directory? Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already made my feelings known in the past, so I'll try to be brief. These lists have amounted to little more than article filler because they have been allowed to be. To be fair, Bearcat has it right in that many stations' turnover exceeds the ability/willingness of editors to actually keep such information up-to-date. There is another problem I see. There are obviously a whole lot of notable people out there in the world who lack articles, given various systemic biases which proliferate throughout Wikipedia. Regarding local television personalities, I would envision making a concerted effort to identify and create such articles to be one big tar baby, in that it would invite a flood of "what about my local hero?" inquiries and heaps of eventually unfruitful discussion which follows such a thing. Even so, too many editors appear content to throw out common sense along with the baby and the bath water. To reiterate a previous point: when I first discovered KTVA, there was no mention of Augie Hiebert, who founded the station and owned it for 45 years. His notability aside, he was a constant on-air presence on the station during the majority of those years, mostly through delivering station editorials during newscasts but also for other reasons. Norma Goodman, who was an on-air personality at the station for 53 years, was not mentioned. However, Sarah Palin was mentioned twice. Here's the cold hard facts: Sarah Palin wasn't at KTVA long enough for a cup of coffee, and became famous in another career two-decades-plus later. That right there is confusing notability with celebrity. It's an all too common problem which is not limited strictly to this project. This project's articles have continued to evolve further in the direction of indulging that attitude, however. Here's an even more important item to consider. It's one thing to dismiss these people as little more than "local heroes". It's another thing when someone with firsthand familiarity of the station reads these articles, and instead of seeing any of these names, sees a random, half-assed assortment of names (or, as Casey Kasem once famously described the members of U2, "a bunch of wasted names that don't mean diddly-shit") of people who made little or no contribution to the station's history. It's the same problem which exists en masse with "notable people" lists in community articles, as well as "notable alumni" lists in high school and college articles. "Wikipedia is a joke" is more than just another bullshit meme. To me, it's very reflective of where we're at today versus where we were in 2006 when I created this account. Wikipedia is still very much a go-to site for the real world. Having content which appears to lack a grip on reality isn't going to help convert those "unwashed" to assist in the ongoing need to create and revise said content. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Against. Per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST. It is one thing to fill in a gap here and there by citing their website, but to start duplicating their website with staff lists then what is the point of WP? Spshu (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Television channel lists

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested to comment in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Television channel lists concerning several pages that point to television channel categories. Cnilep (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WMBB TV 13.2 now a Me TV affiliate

Please correct the WMBB tv article - it is no longer a This TV affiliate on their 13.2 subchannel but they are now a Me TV affiliate

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.90.67 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not protected, and thus you could have fixed this yourself without needing to come ask anybody to do it for you. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox merger proposal

I have proposed the merger of two infoboxes heavily used on TV station articles around the world, see the discussion for further details. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for input: Western Reserve Public Media

Requested move 28 September 2013. Please help generate discussion. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

TVQ during the government shutdown

Should we place a small notice within the TVQ template warning readers that the FCC info is unavailable until the shutdown ends? Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: WTHR assistance / advice needed.

Hello! There appears to be a major edit war the past two weeks or so between User:Aoidh and a variety of anon. IP users (or perhaps one with a rotating IP) over the issue of including current on-air staff in the article. I've tried to stay out of it for the most part since my primary goal is just to monitor the article for vandalism. Both sides seem rather headstrong, especially Aoidh, who insists under Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE and Wikipedia:UNDUE that current staff lists have no business in the article. This despite the fact that practically every other TV station article I've checked -- even major market stations -- has such a list. My hope is that someone from the TV WikiProject can offer an informed opinion and/or policy that both sides will accept and stop their warring. If someone from the TV group were to tell Aoidh for example "yes, this is the way our tv articles are usually done" they might finally listen. Any assistance much appreciated! Best regards, Sector001 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add WLAJ to the list. The edits to remove the allegedly "illegal" prose are sloppily performed, breaking non-controversial material as well. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Argentina confusing naming

While I've been giving a bunch of Argentina-related articles cleanup, I've been running into a very confusing situation with the names of Argentina television stations.

Some locations make sense, particularly for the big five Buenos Aires stations: América 2 (which should be moved to América TV over a redirect), TV Pública Digital (Argentina) (not sure if that one needs a parenthetical), Canal 9 (Argentina), Telefe and El Trece. Where it gets muddy is when you go to Argentina's interior.

Aside from two articles, LW 83 TV and Canal 8 de Tucumán, all the remaining article titles are formatted like Channel 10 – Córdoba with channel number and position. In es.wiki, where there are more of these articles, they're all formatted as Canal 10 (Córdoba).

It's a naming scheme that's clunky, probably doesn't meet the Manual of Style, etc. So what sort of naming should these articles have: call sign (which may be odd considering the vast majority of stations no longer use it regularly), the current English format, or the current Spanish format? Raymie (t • c) 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Callsign suffixes

On Template:Major U.S. TV O-O Stations, myself and another user, User:Spshu have been going back & forth about the inclusion of callsign suffixes. I say they are required because they are part of the F.C.C.-issued callsigns even if there is no station using the base callsign (e.g.: KCNC-TV and WBZ-TV vs. listing KCNC & WBZ) and he disagrees. We need a ruling on this.Stereorock (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not needed as the navbox title clearly indicates that the stations in question are TV stations. He claim the article naming convention effects navbox when it clearly effect only the article name. The truncation doesn't effect the title of the article. He just doesn't want to accept that or understand. Spshu (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They ARE needed as they are part of the callsign! It doesn't matter that all stations shown are TV stations-some stations have a suffix. That's what I don't understand why it's so hard to get? Why not just call it by its on-air moniker then "CBS 2", "NBC4" etc.? The truncation does add useless bytes to the article page however (e.g.: KCNC-TV being 7 bytes versus KCNC-TV|KCNC being 12). In any event, for the T.V. market pages, the stations' callsigns are listed in full. In radio, all of the callsigns are listed in full in markets and in lists of stations owned by companies (WPRO is in the A.M. section of Cumulus and WPRO-FM is in the F.M. section, not 2 WPROs). There is a uniformity, or attempt at uniformity which will be upset. The stations, in all cases of lists, article naming, etc., should include their full callsigns. So, in this list, WABC-TV should be listed as such and NOT WABC! WABC is a radio station. WABC-TV is the T.V. station. It doesn't matter that this is a list of only T.V. stations as some stations do not have suffixes and they are listed along side those that do. For truncation, why not leave out the initial first letter (K/W) too while we're at it?!Stereorock (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Note that this problem was created with this edit which lacked an edit comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? That comment has nothing to do with my comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop responding to my comments? Your replies have nothing what so ever to do with my replies. Also please stop making it sound like I am making statements that I'm not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

←Vegaswikian, if we stop responding to the topic because you mistake our continued discussion of the matter as direct responses to your comments that would end the discussion. As the next post follows the last post no matter who they are responding to. You made an informative comment for those not currently involved, so why do you think those involved would make be a comment about it? If you follow the discussion, you would know that I am responding to Stereorock. Note that I continued to use the discussion's indent level which was up to the third indent instead of following your 1 indent with a level 2 indent. Spshu (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are not responding to my comments, it is your responsibility to correctly place your comment so that the reply follows the point you are responding to. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, but cause that fragments the discussion. Latest posts go to the bottom. I have very rarely seen that happen only a couple of time on WP. Such a post is most likely to over looked in a long discussion particularily if post up earlier. How about if you comment in a discussion you actually follow the discussion so then you know what people are responding to. Since, no one address your note of when it started, it is clearly not responding directly to that message. Also, your message of "00:10, 22 November 2013" follows Stereorock comment that clearly follows my comment which is posted after yours. Which per your rule is posted incorrectly since my was next after your first post. So, even you are not following your "rule". Spshu (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the rules you are using are different from the consensus on all talk pages. So whatever since you believe in fragmenting discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

How doesn't not seeing the suffix not allow you to click through to the article? We already cover the "on-air moniker" issue at my talk page as there are more than one ABC7 for example and they change more often than the call signs. It doesn't add "useless bytes" as if it wasn't that way then you couldn't get to the article (unless there was a redirect) and makes the navbox easier to look at & there for use full. Not all TV market navboxes are like that and what is or isn't done with them isn't relevent as anyone can edit before you post to become your example. Article rules don't apply to template space, which you are attempting. WABC isn't a radio station in a TV station navbox. An actually WABC is a disambig. page not the radio station (WABC (AM)). The K/W truncation doesn't work in this case, as the navbox doesn't limit it to just the TV stations starting with K or W. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the F.C.C. regards WABC as the radio station on 770. WABC-TV is the television station. The point about the K/W truncation does apply because without it, the callsign is inaccurate, just as it is without its proper suffix. The key here is accuracy: I want the fully accurate callsign listed. If Wikipedia is not about accuracy, then why should anybody use it? KCNC (yes, that's a favorite example) simply is not accurate; KCNC-TV is. The callsigns should be fully accurate. Whether or not there is no base KCNC or WBZ or WABC is irrelevant: the callsigns are the callsigns and anything less is a disservice to all readers of Wikipedia. *That* is what this is all about: retaining an accurate callsign as all articles should, all templates should also reflect the same.Stereorock (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The key here is that you taking accuracy beyond any reason meaning. In a labeled table of "TV Stations", it is accurate in listing "WABC" for WABC-TV. Is or is not WABC-TV the the TV station with WABC as its call sign? YES. There for the table is accurate. No one is truncating the W/K so it doesn't apply it would make the table inaccurate as there would have been 2 ABC, WABC and KABC. The key here is that you are going past accuracy to being redundant. There is no disservice to WP readers as they know these are TV stations based on the Navbox table title. In your bid to be redunate instead you do a disservice to the WP reader by lengthing the navbox. Call signs are fully accurate at the article. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting): "This page sets out guidelines for the names of articles relating to broadcasting."

In the KNBC-TV article, you would never say "the station", "KNBC", "Channel 4" or its former call signs? Well, it should and it does, but according to you, you wouldn't despite this is the natural way of writing an article. No disservice to the reader because they all refer to the now KNBC-TV station. If it was repetive with only using KNBC-TV then the reader would get tired of the repetive nature of using KNBC-TV and stop reading the article. Spshu (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, WABC-TV is the television station's callsign. WABC is solely the radio station on 770. WABC-FM was the F.M. station on 95.5. Those are the proper calls and there is no confusion as to what is being discussed. Similarly, a suffix should not be added where there isn't one and I do delete those (e.g.: any A.M. station with an -AM suffix for a U.S. radio station). Whatever the legal callsign of the station in use at the time in a historical perspective should also be used (so if a station starts out as WAAA and later adds a sister A.M. or the already-sister A.M. follows along, that first WAAA becomes WAAA-FM or WAAA-TV or whatever. However, it is still accurate to call it WAAA if that is what the actual callsign assigned by the F.C.C. was at that time (e.g.: WATD-FM was originally WATD until it added an A.M. station which then became WATD and the original WATD became WATD-FM. However, it was still just WATD (no -FM) in 1977 and in the history, should be addressed as such).

The station is perfectly acceptable. However, KNBC as the callsign, if it is not the full callsign, should be changed to KNBC-TV. However, since the template is the first instance a person may see of the callsign, it should be the full callsign, complete with suffix. The proper call should go first.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

←I didn't ask you what WABC full calls signs were, Stereorock. No one would expect the WABC radio station to be listed in a table of TV stations. The navboxes title also makes it such that "no confusion as to what is being discussed." or this case listed. ←But using a former legal callsign would break your rule of only using the full legal call sign name. And so would be using "the station" or KNBC later in a KNBC-TV. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, WABC-TV is the full legal callsign and should be used as such in the navboxes. The articles aren't what is being discussed here. WABC-TV should be what is listed in the navbox as that is what it is. As for a radio station being there in the navbox, one never knows. So, the only way a reader can be certain and would fulfill "no confusion as to what is being discussed" is the full callsign as it is known by the F.C.C., as that is the article's proper name as well.Stereorock (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

←But the usage during the article shows that always using the full legal callsign isn't all ways used in WP. "One never knows" if a radio station should be listed in a navbox about TV stations? If you found one then you would know it is listed in error. Spshu (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Then that should be fixed too. It only takes a few more keystrokes to add the proper, legal suffix.Stereorock (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But according to your position, I can't use the title of the navbox to determine that it should link to the TV station instead of the radio station since (in your position) the only why to determine what type of station is by the suffix. Spshu (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My position is that there is only 1 WABC and it's the radio station and there is only 1 television station using the related WABC-TV call. They should always be seen as separate stations with their full calls. Nothing hard about that. There is no television station known as WABC. There is no television station known as KCNC but there is one known as KCNC-TV. Simple as that. The legal call is the one that should be in the template.Stereorock (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CECTV-TV 5 (Grand Rapids)

Dear broadcasting experts: This old Afc draft is about to be deleted. Is this a notable station, and should the article be kept? I'm not sure where to look for sources for verification. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. A station affiliated with a new network which doesn't have an article and whose initials were originally chosen to stand for Chuck E. Cheese; original station slogan "Sup, Grand Rapids!"; call sign that begins with a C for a station located in the United States...Yeah, no, I think looking for "sources for verification" would actually be a waste of your valuable time. It should be deleted forthwith, not just as a stale draft but also as a big fat WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted template spam on Template:Grand Rapids TV involving this station in June 2013. Nope, it's an IP hoax; stations in the United States don't start with a "C" call letter, commercial networks don't rival PBS, and any station that greeted viewers with 'Sup, Grand Rapids' during newscasts would be laughed out of the market. Delete away. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

request

I have a question, that I hope you can help me out with. Regarding the article "List of programs previously broadcast by American Broadcasting Company". I was trying to remember the name of a program on ABC...shown in New York, some years past, every Saturday at 12 noon. It was a talk show news philosophical type program. I was wondering why that program (whatever the name was, that I can't recall right now), is not shown or mentioned anywhere in the WP article. It's one of those things that if I SAW the name somewhere, I would recall it. So I don't see it on the article. I was wondering and hoping if you might know what I'm referring to. It was on for YEARS...from what I remember, always on Saturday at 12 noon (at least shown in New York), on ABC...channel 7. I don't remember the name of the program for some reason. It was on in the 1990's, and into past 2000, I believe. And it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere in the article, as there is no "Saturday afternoon" headings anywhere, or anything that I notice for it under "news and talk show" etc. If I were to see the name of the show written somewhere, or mentioned to me, I would recall it immediately, as being the show. But I can't remember it right now off hand, and I don't see it anywhere on the WP article, for "past ABC programs". I hope you have an idea what I'm talking about, or know the program name in question. Please let me know. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because it aired on an ABC station in New York City doesn't necessarily mean it was an ABC network program — it could also have been a locally produced show which aired only on that station, or a syndicated program. The list you're talking about, however, is only for programs which were actually distributed nationally by the ABC network, and not for every individual local or syndicated show that ever aired on any individual ABC station. The program might warrant listing in WABC-TV if it was locally produced, but it wouldn't be expected to appear in a list of network programs. I suppose you might get lucky if an editor from NYC knows and remembers what you're talking about — but most editors here wouldn't be able to help you at all. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Syndicated shows on televison station articles

I have discovered some televison stations articles that include a list of syndicated program that's on the station. And we know that's on hedge TV Guide. When I was reading the revision history for WTAE-TV. I discovered that one user removed the list of syndicated shows that are on the station. I figured out it is not notable or fan cruft. Here is the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WTAE-TV&diff=606023900&oldid=605581248.

Should we use a rule to not include syndicated shows on TV station articles? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Deletion_of_syndicated_programming_from_TV_station.27s_pages

One of my suggestions is to use a four show limit, and use only first run syndicated shows. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well this would work for a television station versus a radio station, but look at what I did with KFAR. Rather than mention Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller, Lars Larson and Alex Jones by name, I mention their respective syndicators. I see this as tricky, as we live in a day and age where a television station can be viewed as having a local identity even when it neither produces nor airs local programming. Some stations are known more for being the local Rachael Ray or Jerry Springer affiliate than for anything they do locally.

As for a solution? I also work on professional wrestling articles. In the pre-cable universe, local airings of syndicated wrestling programs were known to garner ratings as high as 20–25, with shares as high as 65–70. These ratings were in spite of being frequently aired on UHF stations and well outside of prime time. I'm not sure what the equivalent is in today's "57 channels and nothing on" universe.

What I'm getting at here is this: if a program's local airing receives higher than normal ratings or has some other impact on the station, it would most certainly be appropriate to mention the program by name. Otherwise, if such mention is of no value other than stating "This station carries this program in this market", it amounts to free advertising for that program and its producers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Including syndicated programs may serve to educate certain less-informed readers. Some people still seem to believe that because e.g. Rachael Ray airs on their local ABC affiliate, it is an ABC network program. In my community, we had an affiliation swap in 1980, with a swap back in 2004. There were an inordinate number of people both times who got into high-dudgeon about ABC allegedly canceling Jeopardy and the like. Also, while I agree that such prose draws attention to the syndicated programs, doesn't the mere mention of a station's affiliated network amount to a form of free advertising for that network's programming? --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is part of a network is a much more notable trait than non-network programs. However, if the station's airing of a particular program has notable characteristics that can be sourced (i.e. "WIKI-TV was one of the first six stations to carry the syndicated game show Can We Delete This?, where it frequently garnered the highest local ratings among programs in the 7:00 p.m. timeslot, and the highest ratings of the six stations who carried it", or "WIKI-TV previously aired the popular syndicated game show Can We Delete This? from its debut in 1992 to 2013; despite its loyal audience and enduring popularity, the station announced that it would remove the show for the 2013-14 season, citing a need to air more locally-produced programming. However, it later retracted the decision after receiving a heavy backlash from viewers through e-mails and social media, demanding that they keep the show." ViperSnake151  Talk  02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that if something significant, verifiable in reliable sources, happens as a result of the station airing a particular syndicated program, then that's probably worth mentioning in the station's article — but if all you're trying to do is create a prosified version of the station's broadcast schedule by listing every single program that they air, then you're still falling afoul of the rule that Wikipedia is not TV Guide. (The fact that you're not doing it in a table format doesn't change that fact.)

Some excellent examples of how notability might be attained have been noted above — but for another one, if a notable syndicated talk show were to do a special "event" week of shows taped at different stations which carry it, that would probably also merit mention in the articles on the particular stations that actually got to host tapings. But if there isn't a verifiable and reliably sourced reason why the station's carriage of a syndicated show is important to a broad and international readership, then it's not appropriate content in an encyclopedia — if its only substantive purpose is to serve as a schedule listing for the station's local viewers, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

If somebody needs to know what station Ellen DeGeneres or Rachel Ray or Arsenio Hall or Jeopardy! is on in their local TV market, they can get that information from real TV listings without needing us to maintain a comprehensive list of what amounts to WP:TRIVIA. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. They should not look up the station articles as local listings Always use the REAL tv listings. Possible motion to remove the syndicated shows? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; one short line with only four-five shows which air on their station are fine. Telling us Byron Allen airs at 4:30 in the morning isn't. Don't make determinations for the rest of the community and allow us to edit on a case by case basis; I thought this was resolved the last time a deletionist took it upon themselves to remove without consensus a few years back and we agreed that we would make sure they're sourced or limited to popular shows; as a matter of fact you tried to do this two years ago and we disagreed. Please revert your edits until an actual consensus is reached. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of reverting them, but I decided to limit the shows to FIRST RUN programming in place of airing off-network reruns. The limit of up to four [but no more than five] is still enforced. If there are no more "first run" shows available, always end it with "among others." 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally have an issue with limiting to first run, and I generally agree with not listing airtimes for these. However, there shouldn't be an arbitrary limit in prose on the number of such programs. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering how non noteworthy it is to non locals, I honestly don't see the knowledge base in including the syndicated shows list considering how the reader is learning nothing other than which channels these TV shows are showing on in this area and it's not even their area. It is this kind of information that is only relevant to the television viewer who is actually watching that channel and even then people don't really pay attention to what channel is showing that show, only that that show is available on their television. This isn't a case of notability or anything of that sort, more like we shouldn't turn an encyclopedia into a database or schedule list. And we all know how much of a database the television station articles are already compared to other subject areas. —Mythdon ^{(talk contribs)} 21:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

173.81.183.159

A good look into the contributions of this user shows a mass adding of "country = United States" to the infobox television station, as I undid the ones he or she made to the Quad Cities station articles [3] [4] [5] [6]. It would greatly appreciated if someone could help out in reverting the non working syntax this user has been adding to all the television station articles. —Mythdon ^{(talk contribs)} 06:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Television Stations At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New reference templates for Mexico official TV resource

I created {{Mexico-inf|TV}} to allow for instant, constantly updated citations of the IFT infrastructure lists out of Mexico. For an example of an article using this new format, see XEFE-TV.

The lists are important because with the April 2014 update coordinates were added. Now all Mexican station articles can have coordinates for the transmitter direct from the IFT. Raymie (t • c) 06:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WMC-TV

Now I have problem with an editor who even after informed that nonnotable staff lists and reverts note such is now trying to say I am a vandal. I can never seem to get any help from any notice page except to get pages temporary locked. And probable cannot get any action even though he has reverted me 4 times as it was over 4 days. Spshu (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Article structure

I think that a more detailed explanation of how each television station article can be structured should be included in the "article structure" section on the main WikiProject Television Stations page. The problem here is that a subset of users have over the years conflicted as to what is necessary to include in the article, which unintentionally conflicts with how other television articles are structured. For example, there is some issue as to whether on-air staff lists violate WP:NOTDIR (I ran into a user – Aoidh – who also thought a reference to a recent newscast addition at WZTV violated that rule, despite the fact that in regards to schedules, WP:NOTDIR infers that a plainlist schedule of programs with just title and full airtimes usually apply, rather than a descriptive reference intended to illustrate the history of that station's news operation). A detailed explanation of how each station article should be structured (and clarifications as to what doesn't conflict with WP:NOT) could alleviate some of these conflicts as the structure explanation as it is, is somewhat vague. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be clear as I have other editors warring against the removal of non-notable staff. Another issue that we should discuss is "digial TV information" as the information is all over the place and I have been "called out for attempt to own" articles for centralizing them in the infobox as some editors think that a separate table is the standard since most article have them. I recommend instead of the separate section for digital

On the issue of staff list, yes, NOTDIR makes it such these lists are not welcome: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional)." Since, this information is general found easily on the stations' website and changes often, there isn't a need for us to list them as we don't need to make work additional work as we are all volunteers. Now if they become notable then yes they should be listed.

Also, currently I am under fire for removing primary source (thus nonnotable) current staff list at WIBW-TV (Talk:WIBW-TV), when it has been well established that nonnotable staff should not be listed. Spshu (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

OK, with no other comments, I suppose samples of what we wish the standard to be. I will start with the infobox. We have a subchannel field and affiliation field that trips over its self. Currently the subchannel field includes the affiliation (or programming) for each subchannel then the main subchannel .1's affiliation is repeated in the affiliation field. Then many articles have a Digital_channels section & table that list: Channel, Video, Aspect PSIP short name, Programming. It would seem that the digital channel table could be included in the subchannel infobox and the affiliations listed that field like I have done at [7]. Also, I see a small tag being used in () in the infobox with the infobox text already being small it doesn't make sense for us to have even smaller text. I suggest using: identifier and : like "news:". Spshu (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

:American Sports Network

There is a discussion regarding the status of the American Sports Network being a network or syndication. --Spshu (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Syndication package, plain and simple. Doesn't air 24 hours a day, limited to weekends, and doesn't have a subchannel devoted to it. In my eyes it's equal in status (maybe even a replacement for as they're down to the lowest of lower-tier conferences compared to ASN) to ESPN Plus. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please add to the discussion at the exits talk page discussion, [[Talk:American Sports Network. It isn't so simple if you know the history of networks and the discussion here over PTEN (link from the ASN Talk page). --Spshu (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Clear Channel radio stations rename discussion

Please consider providing input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_20#Category:Clear_Channel_radio_stations. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 08:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On-air staff list redux again

Once again, lists of (allegedly unsourced) current and former on-air staff, as well as newscast titles and station slogans, are undergoing an un-recently-discussed mass removal from articles. What discussion there is has been scattered among User talk:Corkythehornetfan#Removal of TV news personalities, Talk:WIBW-TV#News team, User talk:Aoidh#Question, User talk:Spshu/Archive 1#Question and various other user and article talk pages.

I believe these content removals rest on incorrect readings of the relevant guidance:

• 1) that the content is not NOTABLE, while that guidance refers to article topics, NOT to content within articles
• 2) that the content does not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE guidelines, while that guidance refers to stand-alone list articles only
• 3) that the content fails WP:NOTDIR, while that guidance refers to articles which consist nearly totally of exhaustive lists
• 4) that the content mainly comes from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, while that guidance states that "unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care", to guard against editor interpretation of primary source content and against primary source biases; but to allow straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that are verifiable.
• 5) a past argument was that of WP:TRIVIA, which states that "a trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list", which this content is not.
• 6) another past argument was that of WP:UNDUE, which refers to undue "weight", not in the sense of amount of content, but in the sense of how much attention to pay to varying viewpoints, particularly with contentious, hot-button topics.

While it seems (rather unfortunately, IMO) that guidance allows for immediate removal of unsourced content, it would be much more collegial to fully discuss the issue once again and then tag the articles in question so that editors might locate sources for at least some of the content.

There does NOT exist a clear consensus that using information from the TV stations themselves, at least for on-air staff, is not valid sourcing.

As far as the removed content being available elsewhere, as I have stated in past discussions, this particular information is no more or less relevant to understanding the station than is various other prose which does make the cut. And from the lack of obvious citations for much of the TV station prose in most of the articles, I would daresay that a lot of it probably comes from online primary source station histories, or from a synthesis of personal knowledge. And if we aren't to include content we can obtain elsewhere (and Wikipedia is "alleged" to consist of only secondary and tertiary sources), why write any articles at all?

As a practical matter, in their haste to remove "offending" content, users have haphazardly and sloppily broken uncontested portions of articles I watchlist. In their haste to undo these removals, other users have haphazardly and sloppily "restored" the content, also breaking the articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaswmsday (talk • contribs)

Where exactly do you see the assertion that WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to stand-alone articles? Not only is that distinction arbitrary in terms of appropriate content, but if WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to stand-alone articles, you have quite a few administrators to "correct".[8][9][10] Further, every talk page discussion that I am aware of where this issue was discussed that resulted in any kind of consensus was a consensus that if a name did not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, it did not belong on a list of people. That the list of people is a stand-alone article or not is irrelevant to that. Further, your interpretation of primary sources not being undue is arguably inaccurate, as (depending on the article and the lengths involved), a list of people can easily become a large portion of the article, completely disproportional and thus WP:UNDUE to the article itself; if reliable sources do not give that much attention to the station's on-air staff, an encyclopedia article cannot, especially if it fails the very basic criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. There are station articles with quite extensive lists of names that all meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, so the fact that some articles need to be cleaned up with improved references and have the clutter removed (which isn't unique to this WikiProject's articles) just means exactly that; the articles need to be improved. Content is only "no more or less relevant to understanding t5he staion" if reliable sources say so. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The key problem with staff lists on television station articles, even more basic than the sourcing issue, is that the names don't mean anything to anybody who isn't already a viewer of the station. If a person watches the station, then they already know who its reporters and anchors are anyway — and if they don't, then the names don't add anything of informational value to the article.

If I don't live in the station's viewing area, then I don't know who 6 p.m. news anchor John Smith is — and being an anchor on a local television station doesn't automatically make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article that we could link to so I could learn anything about who he is, either. So his name just plain means nothing to me. And if I do live in the station's viewing area, then I do already know who John Smith is and thus don't need Wikipedia to inform me of the fact. So either way, putting his name in the article isn't telling anybody anything important or valuable — it's really just WP:CRUFT that doesn't serve any genuinely substantive purpose.

The consensus has been properly established, accordingly, that television (and radio) stations may only list personalities who already have their own independent articles to link to, and may not contain comprehensive staff directories of mostly non-notable people. You're free, if you wish, to attempt to establish a new consensus that such information should be permissible in a television or radio station's article — and good luck with that — but you're not free to claim that the current consensus doesn't even exist.

And, indeed, Aoidh is entirely correct: WP:LISTPEOPLE does not apply only to standalone lists, but to any list of people in any article whether it has the word "List" in its title or not. (A list of graduates of a particular university, for example, is not a free-for-all where every single alumnus on earth is entitled to add themselves, without regard to their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof. Regardless of whether it's standing alone as an independent "List of X University alumni" or embedded as a subsection of the university's main article, LISTPEOPLE still applies either way.) Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Against staff lists.

• NOTABLE does speak to article content at WP:NLISTITEM: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."
• WP:EMBED which does cover embedded lists indicate that having too much information as a list may contravene WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy, which forces usage of independent sources not primary sources.
• WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA do apply as the use of the primary sources has been used to note all news staff from the prime time anchors to the sports reporters is an "unselective" list" thus is an "exhaustive lists". Spshu (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of having on-air staff that aren't notable because at first I thought they should stay, but as I read more and other users gave more information, then I realized it made since. If the don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, and they aren't notable, why should they be on here? Why do I care who the 6 pm anchor for a station out on the east coast is if I live in the Midwest or vice-versa? Sure, they might notable to a viewer, but their opinion and mine is different. Plus, if they don't have an article on Wikipedia or a third-party source, how are they notable? Just because it is on the station's website doesn't make them notable. If someone wants to know who is an anchor/reporter for that station, then they can go to that station's website as Wikipedia isn't a directory. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 19:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Question...

I have been in a "discussion" with User:Vjmlhds about on-air staff for WJW (TV). He says that on-air staff can stay on Wikipedia "As long as we so it in prose form", meaning paragraph form. However, I disagreed, saying that it didn't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, except a few, which I bulleted. He then informed me that there had been a discussion between him and a few editors, which ends up being him and one other. I asked him on his talk page for the link, and he provided this for me. That is a discussion between him and two other users. Honestly, I don't think the staff belong because what has been mentioned up above, and simply those people that don't have an article here aren't notable. He told me not to remove unsourced material, but that was to the primary source on the news station's website, which has been discussed before. I just want other opinions on this and maybe have someone else go and try to get it through this user's head that it doesn't belong if they aren't notable. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a follow up discussion. Talk:WEWS-TV#New format for on air talent., both discussion actually doesn't support his position just because he had the last post. TVS had to re-argue a 5 to 2 over whether or not subchannel automatic got their own article or not after the discussion was closed. You can remove unsourced and even primary source material if trivial. A discussion involving 3 people on a single article should not trump wikiproject discussions particularly against general guidelines. Spshu (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the reply, and telling him as well. I saw the follow up, as well. I let him know on his talk page as well that 3 people just simply wasn't enough to settle a discussion. Heck, I even gave him the links you had given out about previous discussions! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in on the reopened discussion about staff lists above at #On-air staff list redux again. Spshu (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the names that don't belong and explained why, but a list of people is still a list of people if you change the format slightly. Having a list on a single line doesn't put it into different criteria than a list of people presented with one name on each line; both are the exact same content, but the presentation is different. The presentation has no bearing on the appropriateness of a name in a list of people; the content is identical, so the criteria for inclusion is as well. The "discussion" referred to does not address this in any way, is not a consensus, and certainly not a consensus that WP:LISTPEOPLE does not apply, and even if it were wouldn't override the wider Wikipedia consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! We tried telling him that, but he just wouldn't listen. After a few days, he has finally listened and removed the staff from the page. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 14:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stations by state lists

I've embarked on a bit of project to update the various lists of television stations by state. On the full-power side, most of them are in pretty good shape — the odd missing station, random outdated dial positions, and some unnecessary piped links that are also covered by redirects, but good overall. The real upgrades are happening on the low-power side, and I'm discovering that we lack consistency:

• some states list only stations that are actually low-power television stations
• some states also mix in translators
• a couple of states actually have both, but in separate tables

It's easy enough to differentiate between them using the FCC records, and I'd planned on only updating the LPTVs. So, thus far I've only been updating the states that didn't already have translators mixed in. If people think there's value in having the translators on those pages, I can make a second pass through but — more importantly — I can make sure at least for now that I don't remove any.

Either way, I think it'd be extremely useful if we were consistent across all states.

Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists in general on Wikipedia give very short shrift to notable entities which also happen to be defunct. From what I've seen of these lists, not much effort is given to including defunct television stations. That may be worth considering. It's not like the sources don't exist, even though they may require more effort to dig up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WBMA - WJSU

WJSU is mentioned only on the page about WBMA. It's repeatedly mentioned as a tv station in Anniston, but not mentioned that the tower and transmitter are well away from Anniston on top of Bald Rock Mountain in western St Clair County. It's far closer to Pell City and Brompton than to Anniston, and at only 15kw radiated power, i'd be surprised if it can be recieved in Anniston.

Recently, ABC3340 was sold, etc etc, and WJSU (now under the new owners) was said to be shut down as of 22:30cst Sept 29 2014 (yesterday), and the call letters returned to the FCC. However, today this station is still on the air and broadcasting ABC3340 content as if there's nothing new going on.

Last week i emailed the general manager of ABC3340 about the transmitter on Bald Rock going dark, because it's the only tv station which can be recieved over the air in this area. I have not recieved any reply.

Can someone else get current info and either update the WBMA page, or start a new WJSU page with the new data?

New: Sept 30 the 10pm news splash screen, 24 hours after the signoff was said to have occured, as broadcast on the WJSU transmitter on Bald Rock Mtn, lists WCFT, WBMA-LP, and WJSU. I have no access to WCFT or WBMA, but according to all i have read online (including on Wikipedia) and seen on ABC 33/40 itself, WJSU and "ABC 33/40" shouldn't be on the air. I am not complaining, but what's going on?

News: On Oct 1 2014 ~6pm, near the end of the ABC network news broadcast, all ABC 33/40 programming (the .1 and .2 channels) was removed from WJSU. The .3 subchannel (carrying "HeartLand" music) was moved to .1. But WJSU remains on the air. It's not worth watching "Rick and Bubba", but it's the only over-the-air television available here now, and it carries no local weather alerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.27.73 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

75.120.27.73 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As of Oct 20, 2014, WJSU is still on the air, as it was the day after it was "officially" dark. It's still broadcasting Heartland Network on 40.1, but 40.2 and 40.3 are now "no signal". It's carrying Birmingham local and network advertising (including some ABC3340 promos), and the "Rick and Bubba Show". I recieve it over the air on an antenna. I do not know who is in control of it, but it is NOT dark. 75.120.7.98 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Programming sections

I was wondering if there has been a discussion about the Programming sections? I noticed that there are a lot of station articles that have this section with all of these syndicated shows, but are unsourced. I know that User:ACMEWikiNet is a user that I've noticed that likes to move them into a completely new section, and has been doing that on most pages. (Example 1 & Example 2) I personally do not think they belong, unless they have a reliable source, other than the station's website. But then again, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. I'm just curious and wanted to know what others thought. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to disagree with this; they shouldn't be removed because of their importance to a station's strengths and weaknesses with their schedule. We limit it to a few shows, we're fine, and AWN's campaign is literally one-editor and supported by nobody else. This has been discussed multiple times and been regarded as unsupported content removal. Nate • (chatter) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I wan't sure if it had been discussed before and voted to stay, so that is why I asked. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 14:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Television Stations articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

audio

Could someone there please turn down the deviation on 39.3. The audio blows away whenever I hit that channel.

Nobody at Wikipedia has the power to help you with this, sorry. You need to directly contact your actual provider of whatever the heck you're talking about. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories For Deletion: TV stations by channel number

FYI, there are discussions about removing the categories American TV stations by channel number, Canadian TV stations by channel number and Mexican TV stations by channel number, e.g.:

• Category:Channel 7 TV stations in the United States
• Category:Channel 7 digital TV stations in the United States
• Category:Channel 7 low-power TV stations in the United States
• Category:Channel 7 virtual TV stations in the United States
• Category:Channel 7 branded TV stations in the United States, etc.

These discussions began January 7, 2015, so if you want to make your voice heard, please do so ASAP.

(There is also a similar discussion here about removing the "Radio stations by frequency" categories.) --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that the categories are being listified and deleted, I have a few comments:

To avoid the lists quickly becoming unmaintained and out-of-date, I've gone back to some of my watchlisted articles and replaced the removed categories with the corresponding list articles under the "See also" heading. It might be more appropriate to make these connections inline, i.e. if a station operates on "virtual channel 50", the link should probably be made right there. Whatever is decided should be done for all affected articles.

The content under, e.g. again, Channel 50 is now misleading, as it says "Several television stations in North America which broadcast on UHF frequencies covering 687.25-691.75 MHz". This is no longer strictly correct, as "50" can also be a virtual channel or a brand. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, few full-power stations still broadcast on their historic analog channels.

The new lists already provide more information than the old categories, but should we think about modeling them on e.g. List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W), List of television stations in Ohio, List of television stations in Ohio (by channel number) or List of Canadian television stations? My opinion is that there's a lot of overkill in these "model" lists, but that's just MY opinion. Still, would some kind of sortable table, analogous to what some of them have, be more useful in the long run?

I've also never been a fan of the awkwardly worded "Channel 50 digital TV station" or "Channel 2 virtual TV station", but it made it easier to locate the categories. Would it possibly make sense to combine ALL of the channel 50's into one list: Broadcast, virtual, low-power and branded?

Please discuss :) Thanks! --Chaswmsday (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Mlaffs, Bearcat, and Vegaswikian:, could y'all please consolidate your discussions here? Thanks again. --Chaswmsday (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek radio and television stations

New User:Trapezanidis 1453 has been creating a number of these, probably translating from Greek Wikipedia. It might be useful for someone from this project to assist him with infoboxes, cats, notability for broadcasters and English. I have left a note on his talk page suggesting the same. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Third Reich Television

This was the world's first public television service.link here

When it went electronic, what was the TV standard (lines and so on) that was used?Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WJAN/AméricaTeVé

What does everyone think of this edit? Shouldn't the article title be the call sign, just like all of the other articles? If so, than the article title should be WJAN-CD, according to the TV Station Profile by the FCC, which was the original name before it was moved. I haven't talked to the page mover (User:Stephiromay), yet. I wanted the WikiProject's opinions with users who are more experienced in this than I am. Thanks, Corky | Chat? 20:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

General common name is the standard for WP, while it seems that Wikiproject TV stations selected station call letters. Apparently, as the call signs are international set up (assign the first letter to a nation, W & K to the USA) and common names may be the same (ABC7 for example, ABC has a few station on the 7 channel going by the brand ABC7), they were selected as the naming standard. In looking about RabbitEars & AmericaTeVe, AmericaTeVe is programming originating at the WJAN TV stations and simulcast on several other stations, basucally a mininetowrk. Caribevision/AMERICA-CV STATION GROUP, INC. from the AmericaTeVe refers to WJAN as the AmericaTeVe station. But given that this amounts to just the programming on a single subchannel it isn't the name of the station. The station is what the article is about, so to name it after is main subchannel isn't correct. Spshu (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just TV; all of the projects went for call letters when it came to ID's regarding TV and radio for countries which usually go with that mode of ID (Europe and Asia in most cases goes with blanket licenses where transmitters are rarely identified by their calls), that way we weren't stuck with the fun of redirecting every time "News Channel 21" decided to switch to "Me-TV 21", "Today's WKP 21" or the other branding du-jour of the moment (or the vandals who revel in making WSB-TV "Nick Jr. 2" every few months, for instance; I shudder to think of the mess we'd be in if branding was standard for TVS). This was an inappropriate move; a WP:COI template needs to be dropped on Stephiromay (talk · contribs), who judging from their translation isn't a mere fan of WJAN-CD. In the meantime I have pagemoved América Tevé back to WJAN-CD, will COI-warn the user, and hopefully this is the end of it. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I do agree with Mrschimpf on the not just TV part. It'd be too much of a hassle to name the articles by their branding name as they change so often. Corky | Chat? 02:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television channel‎

Hey all, there's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television channel‎ about whether to swap |web= with |website= for consistency with other templates, like Template:Infobox television. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

K31IA

This needs attention from someone who understands the FCC lingo; I restored it from an obviously dated prior version (it was redirected). Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I reversed the redirect; as I explained on RFD, this is a TBN translator with no history that is still carrying TBN as part of the Regal Media deal where they got a whole lot of TBN translators in some kind of TBN fund-raising effort without any real idea of what to do with them. Until then, the rd to a TBN-article remains appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a virtual channel parameter to Infobox broadcast

I've started what I hope will turn into a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_broadcast#Virtual_channel. Since that page isn't exactly bustling with traffic, I'm cross-posting it here for visibility. Mlaffs (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No discussion, so I've implemented the change. We now have an active parameter for Virtual channel in this infobox - you no longer have to spoof it. Mlaffs (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mlaffs; should have been done at least in 2008 but there were a bunch of users who argued against change for reasons that never really made sense, and policy arguments were dismissed for mere 'support/oppose' counts. Nate • (chatter) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FCC Website is Down

If you have noticed that the FCC link via the {{TVQ}} template is not working, don't panic. The link is not broken. The FCC website has been down since late on Friday and as of this post remains so. It will probably remain that way until sometime later today, it is the Federal Government after all.

This is also affecting the radio side of things as the FCC links on the {{FM station data}}, {{AM station data}}, or {{LPFM station data}} templates are also not working.

The TVFool and BIAfn links continue to work. If you do need very basic information concerning a telvision station, try one of those.

Again, the links are not broken, so please do NOT nominate them for deletion. It is a technical issue on the FCC side affecting the entire FCC website. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Update: I called the FCC and they have been notified about the AMQ, FMQ and TVQ portions of their site being down. The person I just spoke to at the FCC didn't have an ETA when those areas of the FCC website would be back up and running. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Online: As of about 10:20am EDT, the FCC website is slowly coming back online. Pages are a little slow to load still, but the website is back online. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

"WikiProject Television Stations was created to guide the structure of articles related to individual local television stations in North America. For articles relating to other parts of the world, see Descendant WikiProjects and WikiProject Television."

That's just great, really. See also: Wikipedia:Systemic bias. How about "North America" create it's own taskforce or whatever and let all TV stations be covered by this WikiProject called "Television Stations", thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Yankopedia. Such a blatant systemic bias is simply intollerable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SCOPEWAR.

A WikiProject is a group of WP:VOLUNTEERS who get to work on whatever they feel like, and call themselves whatever they feel like (within the limits of what the title blacklist permits). If you don't like the scope, then join the project and persuade them that it would be fun to work on a broader scope. See WP:REVIVE for advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey. I was thinking of posting a more civil message here about changing the scope to actually get the process moving. But I'm wondering if it would be too sneaky of me to join for only this purpose. I'm not interested in television stations, I'm interested in tagging articles with relevant WikiProject tags -- but I do try to respect the wishes and intents of the actual members of those WikiProjects that I don't belong to. But in this specific case it just seems crazy. Should there be another WikiProject called "WikiProject International Television Channels"? No, that would be absurd. The current WikiProject changing its scope seems like the only reasonable option. But maybe someone from here wants to create an USian or Canadian or North American taskforce beforehand and modify the tags on current articles accordingly. (Though I'm guessing many non-NorthAmerican channels are already tagged here...) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there's potentially a systemic bias issue in our coverage of television in general, but there is an important distinction to be aware of in the context of this particular Wikiproject: in many countries in the world, there's no actual differentiation between television "networks" and television "stations", because all television service operates nationally at the network level, and any given "station" is just a transmitter which rebroadcasts the national service with no separate local content and no independent coverage that would earn it a separate article from the main one on the network itself. While there are a few individual countries where exceptions do apply (e.g. the BBC regions and ITV franchises in the UK), North America is the only region on earth where there's a continent-wide norm in which individual "stations" are nearly always a fundamentally separate phenomenon which would nearly always qualify for their own independent articles as separate topics from the network they're associated with. In most countries, standalone "stations" either don't exist at all, or they exist as isolated standalone exceptions to the way most television broadcasting takes place in their country (e.g. a local community channel) — almost no non-NA country has anything even remotely resembling the "stations are independent standalone entities which redistribute the programming of a larger network, and would all qualify for their own standalone articles in addition to the article that already exists about the main network" model.

So it's the only region which actually requires an active project to coordinate a comprehensive set of hundreds or thousands of articles about individual television "stations" — most countries don't actually have such things at all and are appropriately covered purely at the "network" level. And even in the few non-NA countries that actually do have such things, they still differ from the North American model in ways significant enough that they're better handled by a country-specific WikiProject rather than being lumped together with the North American version of the phenomenon (for instance, even in the UK the local stations are all fully owned subsidiaries of their associated networks, so this project's rules and guidelines for network affiliate stations are essentially irrelevant — and even while BBC1 and ITV have associated "stations", the other three terrestrial networks in the UK operate on the international "one nationwide service with no local differentiation" model which would preclude separate articles about each local transmitter. So even with some local "stations", the UK is still a hybrid model which falls partially outside the scope of this project.)

This project was never meant to be inclusive of all television services that broadcast content at all; it was specifically for the kind of terrestrial "station" that exists as a local entity which affiliates with a separate entity called a "network" or a "syndicator", and thereby airs a schedule that combines both nationally-distributed and locally-produced programming. And that's a phenomenon that exists in only a few countries anywhere outside of North America. It's not a systemic bias issue, but just a reflection of the fact that terrestrial television broadcasting isn't structured the same way in most of the world as it is in Canada, the United States and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ABC News United States listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News United States to be moved to ABC News. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Planned FCC database outage

Per this, the FCC has a scheduled outage of their databases upcoming on the evening of September 2nd through the morning of September 8th. It's not explicit whether or not the TV query will come down as a result, but I find it hard to imagine that it won't. Mlaffs (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sister Stations

"should be limited to stations in the same market, radio and/or television. They should be listed in one line with no breaks, in alphabetical order regardless of whether its radio or TV. Out-of-market sister stations, even if signals overlap, should not be included as they add nothing but unwanted clutter." I got this message from 71.167.102.150. Overlap signals should be acceptable. Number 2, I think the radio and TV stations list should be splitted up into two sections so that it will not confuse the reader. Another IP which claims to be a sock of 71.167.102.150 has put up this note:

"please, ONLY SAME-MARKET SISTER STATIONS, not from out-of market"

There was no consensus for this and it doesn't need to have a separate note at the top. I say, we shall calm him down. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with allowing overlapping stations. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WNYW: What New Yorkers Watch? Is that the meaning of the call letters?

71.167.102.150, has removed the meaning of the call letters for WNYW standing for What New Yorkers Watch? That use to be a slogan for WNYW back in the 1990s, early 2000s. Here's what 71.167.102.150 said:

Dear editor, you obviously have not read a comment made on this very page nearly nine years ago. Another editor had the answer, which I've copied and pasted below:

Doesn't the callsign mean What New Yorkers Watch? ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just a slogan. The call letters were derived from the former WNEW-TV call sign, with the "Y" replacing the "E" as Metromedia retained WNEW-AM and WNEW-FM after the sale of their television stations to News Corporation. I don't watch WNYW very much, but I believe the "What New Yorkers Watch" slogan has been placed in the background since they implemented the new Fox News Channel theme. Rollosmokes 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

71.167.102.150 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That was nine years ago that this comment have made. Should we add that meaning of the call letters? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FCC Outage Update

At 8am EDT, the planned outage of the entire FCC database should have ended. As of this writing, it has not. No updates from the FCC as to when the FCC Query links will begin working again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Parts of the FCC Query links are working, but a large portion of the site will remain down until 8am EDT on Thursday the 10th. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ABC News listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News to be moved to ABC News (United States). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Turner Classic Movies listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Turner Classic Movies to be moved to TCM (TV network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

This was speedy-closed; the nominator wanted to move the article, yet said the initialism was little-used. Suspecting this was solely a disruptive nom. Nate • (chatter) 18:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Company listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for American Broadcasting Company to be moved to ABC (U.S. broadcast network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

FCC External Links

The FCC updated it's website today and when doing so, they changed the links for all FCC license documents. The {{TVQ}} template have been updated with the correct link, but the new link is still trickling through the system.

If you come across a 404 error when accessing an FCC link, remove the "www" and add "transition" in it's place and it will work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As of 12:30am EST, the corrected link to the {{TVQ}} template should have populated through to all the TV station pages. I have checked random pages multiple times today and in the last couple hours I can't find any links that are coming up 404. If anyone finds one, please let me know and I will correct it manually. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mexican digital transition

I'm trying to figure out what the best course of action is for the impending Mexican digital transition, which means hundreds of stations changing callsigns.

Most Mexican station articles are redirects (e.g. XHHPC-TV), though some have edit histories (XHACC-TV) and some are full articles (XHGC-TV). I want to have a bot aid in the task of moving hundreds of redirects and then changing all the incoming links so that there would only exist, for instance, a redirect XHHPC-TDT and links to that redirect.

Would it be more efficient to move the redirects or to create new redirects and simply change all -TV to -TDT references on the appropriate pages? The time necessary will be a good bit, and with analog shutoffs on December 11, 16 and 17 totaling more than 120 stations, this is a major endeavor. I'd love to hear your opinion. Raymie (t • c) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've saw you on the Monterrey transition back in September and I think you did pretty great on that one, bumping everything to -TDT suffixes and then updating the digital channel lineups at the same time (something else that seriously needed updating). I wish I could say create on the day of transition, but as any "simple" cable channel name change move I've attempted has shown, you might get channel fans in the way (thankfully less so with Mexican stations). For the smaller stations in smaller states you're probably safe with moving when the transition happens, but larger markets might require a rd creation and then a move request to an admin or bot assistance. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've dealt with this on U.S. stations from time to time over the last few years, although in nowhere near the volume at any given time like you're describing here. Articles obviously need to be renamed, but unless there's a significant edit history, I can't see the value in moving a redirect - much better to just create the new one, and then edit the links. If you have lists of the specific stations transitioning, I'm happy to help out with the cleanup on those three evenings. And obviously, you can call on me if there's specific admin-related support you need. Mlaffs (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm working with User:Negative24 on a bot that will handle this massive task. It's currently up for approval See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot24. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Television stations in Quintana Roo listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Television stations in Quintana Roo to be moved to List of television stations in Quintana Roo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of television stations in Quintana Roo listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of television stations in Quintana Roo to be moved to List of television stations in Quintana Roo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

New Infobox broadcast field: Operator

Due to the proliferation of local marketing agreements and other pacts that despite different names, have the same effective result, I had a new field known as "operator" added to {{Infobox broadcast}}. If the company operating the station is different from the owner of its FCC license (i.e. basically any station owned by a Sinclair/Nexstar sidecar and the like), putting it in this new field will list it below the owner at the same level of prominence, because they are effectively running the station as it is their own.

As they typically have the same on-air result regardless of whether its an LMA/SSA/etc. (beyond slight legal implications), and clutter the infobox with "fine print", articles that use this new field shouldn't list the specific type of agreement in the infobox in small text. Mentioning the type of agreement in the article body text is still okay. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

KDNL-TV listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KDNL-TV to be moved to KDNL. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WHDH (TV) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for WHDH (TV) to be moved to WHDH. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Listing TV Stations by Channel Number

The headings VHF and UHF are not appropriate and they should be removed from any compilation of television stations which is itemized by channel number. Where the channel number listed corresponds to that station's "virtual channel number" which is displayed on-screen and used to tune to the station over-the-air, no assumption can be drawn as to whether that station operates in the VHF or UHF band. Each television station broadcasts on an "physical RF channel number" which may differ from the virtual channel number used to tune-in the station. The RF physical channel is a station's authorized radio frequency assignment to either the VHF or UHF band, and it is this number which determines whether a station is a VHF or UHF TV station.

Viewers who wish to determine which type of antenna to use to receive a signal from a TV station are misled by a compilation itemized under the headings "VHF" and "UHF" since the stations listed under these categories are not necessarily broadcasting in the corresponding VHF or UHF radio band. For example, in the West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce DMA, WHDT would be incorrectly listed as being a VHF station which broadcasts on channel 9. Yet WHDT is in fact a UHF station that broadcasts on RF channel 42. There is no satisfactory way to sort TV stations by their historic or virtual channel number without producing misleading results.

The headings VHF and UHF should be removed from any compilation of television stations listed by channel number unless it is made clear that the term "channel number" means the "RF physical channel number" used by those stations listed. However, viewers do not use RF channel numbers to tune-in TV stations. Instead, they rely on each station's virtual PSIP channel number which falls in the range of 2 to 51. Such virtual channel numbers do not have any meaning with respect to whether a station is a VHF or UHF station. Only the station's RF physical channel determines whether a TV station is a VHF or UHF station.

To facilitate the identification of VHF and UHF television stations in a market, a two simple lists of call signs can be crafted which are net of channel numbers but titled "VHF" and "UHF". This will assist viewers in determining if they need to use a VHF or a UHF antenna to receive a signal from a particular station. The principle list of Television Stations by Channel Number requires no heading other than a clarification that the channel numbers listed are those used by the respective stations as their "virtual channel numbers" for over-the-air tuning.

Günter Marksteiner, Dipl. Ing.-Dr. Senior Broadcast Engineer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEBE:EE40:1953:570B:8CAF:4ED1 (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

KVMY listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KVMY to be moved to KHSV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

KHSV (TV) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KHSV (TV) to be moved to KHSV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Home Shopping Network listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Home Shopping Network to be moved to HSN (TV network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Game Show Network listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Game Show Network to be moved to GSN (TV network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Turkish Radio and Television Corporation listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Turkish Radio and Television Corporation to be moved to TRT (Turkey). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Unis (TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Unis (TV channel) to be moved to Unis TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

MyNetworkTV listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for MyNetworkTV to be moved to My Network TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2BE (TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2BE (TV channel) to be moved to Q2 (Belgium TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Q2 (TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Q2 (TV channel) to be moved to Q2 (Belgium TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed deletion of TV25.tv

The article TV25.tv has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

duplicate/content fork of KCKS-LD using its branding shared with its transmitters as all stations are name per TVS standard by their call name/sign

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spshu (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Article starter opposed the proposed deletion. It is now up at AfD. Spshu (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

KBJO-LD listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KBJO-LD to be moved to KNPG-LD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ABC News listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News to be moved to ABC News (United States). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

KBJO-LD listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KBJO-LD to be moved to KNPG-LD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

NBC St. Joseph listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for NBC St. Joseph to be moved to KNPG-LD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Canal 5 (Televisa Network) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Canal 5 (Televisa Network) to be moved to Canal 5 (Mexico). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ABS-CBN (television network) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABS-CBN (television network) to be moved to ABS-CBN. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Disruptive changes to FCC links

DJV11181988 (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive changes, mainly the removal of the {{TVQ}} template with direct links to various files on the FCC website. This is very cumbersome and contradicts established practices. Could somebody take a look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted most of the changes and warned (about 10 others remain thanks to intervening edits). Definitely not within consensus and complicating something that isn't needed, and at this point they've been blocked too many times without getting the point. Further unhelpful edits should earn them a long-term indef. Nate • (chatter) 03:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nickelodeon to be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Oxygen (TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Oxygen (TV channel) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Closed out; they wanted to redirect it to ? months before an alleged change of name I haven't seen mentioned yet. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nickelodeon to be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Closed this out; once I checked the nominator's history it became clear this was a joke nom by a Gabucho181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock (one of their entries involved their quixotic request to bring back Dan Vs..) Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

On cable televison...

We know many TV stations are carried on cable on different channels. I don't think we need the following "On cable, the station is carried on (insert cable company) channels x (high definition)." Listing cable channels on the station article may trigger a WP:NOTTVGUIDE or WP:DIRECTORY. ACMEDeputy (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop, and use common sense. The only editor who is wound up about this is you because you're bored and looking for something to fight about. Let's use common sense; 80-90% of 2-20 stations are on their OTA channel number on cable systems and they don't need call-outs in articles. After that it usually doesn't happen and for some stations they get a number throughout the market, and sometimes they don't. We can be general in that case with a general range, but we know how to set limits on most articles. If there's NOTDIR flag on something, I'll trust an admin to give us a yellow line or another user who can help us word it appropriately. I'm stopping this right here because you've dragged us through needless issues before; edit with common sense and we'll never need an artificial rule to do this. Nate • (chatter) 21:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting reassessment of article

Please comment and reassess the article Dhammakaya Media Channel, which has recently been updated greatly. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Digital transition is in the past

Nearly every US TV station page I have viewed on Wikipedia has a "Digital television" section with "Digital channels" and "Analog-to-digital conversion" subsections. The digital switchover in the US has been 100% complete since about 2009. I would propose that the switchover information be moved into the "History" section of each article, as the various events surrounding each channel's switch are now normal historical events. The list of multiplexed subchannels for each channel can be moved to the "Programming" section of each article, since it reflects programming carried on a subchannel of the station.

I took initiative and did this on the WABC-TV article. I think it makes much more sense like this.

Please discuss. If there is consensus, we should make this transition a task for the WikiProject. Jbbdude (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right in principle about what should happen, but the issue is that this project doesn't actually have the personpower needed to tackle a comprehensive mass project of getting it done across the board all at once — in reality, this project hasn't been much more than an "individual incidents" noticeboard since the day close to a decade ago that we finally had virtually all North American television station articles up and running. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Bearcat; I'd love to see that happen (and making mentioning 480i at all on any current show verboten because at this point most everyone outside the most stubborn at least has a converter box showing programs in 16:9), but we have a lot of ground to cover to get all of that merged. That, and the digital transition is technically on pause because we have no idea when low-powers will finally get a 'put it on or shut it down' date to go digital, and as long as we still have those signals on the air, the DTV switchover isn't done yet. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I have tried to even discussion this here to no success. We should at least make this the standard (and displayed at TVS Station infobox and Template:Infobox broadcast) than a task (although if its listed as a task, that might prompt new editors or editors [new to TVS] wanting to contribute to work on this with out our prompting.) As I have IP editors and others that like to reverse the removal of the digital TV § and its integration into history and the infobox base on "how its done in other articles". Thus those current editing station articles can just make the changes as we edit a particular station's article for other reasons.

I would also like the format there at WABC-TV has the infobox fields subchannel and affiliation pick up the info from the digital channel table be a part of the standard.

Digital to analog conversion was a historical event thus makes sense in the history section. There is also the upcoming digital repacking of TV stations' channels for the spectrum auctions to allow for more bandwidth for cellular services. The repacking should just be cover in history. Spshu (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Incentive auction concluded

Today (April 13, 2017), the FCC announced the results of the broadcast television incentive auction, in which TV stations are being paid to relinquish their spectrum, which is then being sold on to wireless carriers, with profits going to the federal government. The announcement includes final revised channel assignments for nearly all TV stations in the US and Canada, and the closing auction bid for those stations that will be taken silent, change bands, or seek a channel-sharing arrangement with another station. The government will take in $19.8 billion from wireless carriers and pay out $10 billion to broadcasters. The major story here is the sale of Comcast's WNBC, which received the second-highest payout of all stations participating in the auction. (Two other Comcast-owned stations will also relinquish their spectrum; in all three cases, Comcast owns another station in the same market that can share its spectrum.) TBN receives $304 million for its station in Chicago, and numerous public broadcasters receive payouts in the ten-to-one-hundred-million range to change bands or shut down entirely. (Boston's WGBH-TV is the winner in this category, receiving $162 million to move from channel 19 to channel 5.) 18.26.0.5 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• PDF of the results for easier editor reference. Note that some of these channels aren't going away, just moving to channel sharing agreements (example; WLVI keeping their 56.1 number and moving to WHDH (TV)).Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

requesting an assessment

I request a re-assessment of Dhammakaya Media Channel, which I've expanded on. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

WSTQ-LP listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for WSTQ-LP to be moved to WSTM-DT2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

American Broadcasting Company listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for American Broadcasting Company to be moved to American Broadcasting Companies. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The WB 100+ Station Group redux

Finding a set of articles in TV Week about the The WB 100+ Station Group, I set about adding the information to the respective real TV station that affiliated to cablecast as a WB faux station. I am not completely satisfied how I add the information to articles and their infobox of the clear cut WB+ faux station associated to the real station (for example, KMTR). Early discussion at TVS deal with the faux call sign getting these affiliations articles as false stations and article names if truely notable by themselves. Not all of this was acted on.

1. One solution is to place an cable channel ibox near the paragraph in history about the adjunct cable channel in the stations' article.
2. Have a section for the adjunct cable channel with cable channel ibox.
3. use other channel, but that is for active translator(s)
4. use former affiliation ibox field ("KZWB cable: WB") like KMTR
5. use both former affiliation (cable: WB) and former_callsigns fields (cable: "KZWB")

With the last 2 some linkage to The WB 100+ Station Group. Any thoughts? Spshu (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ibox Branding formating

I have started a discussion about changing the example infobox broadcast to remove small formatting expressly in the branding field. Please comment there. --Spshu (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Company listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for American Broadcasting Company to be moved to ABC (Television Network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nickelodeon listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nickelodeon to be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

I closed this; it's Gabucho181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socking. Ignore the notice above. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Turner Classic Movies listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Turner Classic Movies to be moved to TCM. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ABC News listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News to be moved to ABC News (United States). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Television_Stations

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

IP keeps reverting my edits (Re: cable channel info)

Copied & pasted from WP:ANI

188.225.75.121 "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" on San Antonio TV station articles [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] I don't want to get into an edit war with an unknown user who may have probably vandalized other articles. My edits are in good faith and consistent with other TV station articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a link to where the editor left the edit you quoted here?[21] You also might want to beware the boomerang. I see that despite the fact that you did try to communicate with the IP editor, you did revert them a whole bunch of times.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. That was also even before you gave them an an actual level 2 warning[29], or reported them here to ANI.[30] Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit where the IP made that quote is here: [31] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the IP did not respond to your talk page comments before reverting. I'd suggest continuing with dispute resolution by getting uninvolved domain experts involved, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ion digital channels template

In the digital channels table on Ion Television station articles, on the bottom it says "23.7 TBN Trinity Broadcasting Network". I don't remember TBN making a deal with Ion. This has got to be a hack. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted as a good faith edit by an IP who doesn’t understand this template is wide-ranging. Probably a one-market channel share where TBN is on 23.7 (likely WDLI-TV with WVPX-TV in Cleveland/Akron). Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do I edit the template? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I’ll look over things and get wherever it needs to be edited done; no rush. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything in the FCC databases about a WDLI/WVPX channel share (the IP is confirmed from Cleveland with a Spectrum IPv4); the only thing I've found is that WDLI filed an STA notice in October while they coordinated the channel share to last until April (beyond the January 23 disbursement date) and that the channel share agreement would be released soon, but nothing beyond that release. If there's a news story or someone in Cleveland can confirm that WDLI is transmitting from WVPX, we have something, but for now, erring on the side of caution and leaving it out until confirmation. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL

Copied/pasted from my talk page.

Please become familiar with the above-linked guideline, particularly item 1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " A channel change that is invisible to the viewers (due to virtual channel numbers) is not particularly notable and may well be subject to re-think. That WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a valid argument; those should be removed as well. Jeh (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Invisible"? Well, OTA viewers have to rescan once the channel change takes place. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

True but that's not a compelling point as far as the guideline is concerned. With rare exceptions we don't mention future events. There will be ample time to mention them after they happen. Jeh (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As I had said with the italics vs. quotes debate, you would have to make changes to every TV station article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. And as before: no, not nearly every article, nor is that a reason to allow new violations to stand. Jeh (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we get some context for what the actual situation is that we're watching you guys argue about, if I'm correct in assuming that copy-pasting it here means that you're looking for outside input? Bearcat (talk)

This is about the repack. I've been including future channel allocations in the inboxes, but Jeh says I shouldn't because WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

WMYO listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for WMYO to be moved to WBKI-TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel) to be moved to Oprah Winfrey Network. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

GCN RFD

I was attempting to remedy confusion causing television articles to link to an unrelated website, and ended up taking it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 24#Global Christian Network (broadcaster). Is this network's notability any better, now? —PC-XT+ 04:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note here to clarify that after reviewing the situation, I determined that the broadcaster is not the same thing as the website in any way, so PC-XT was right to question the redirect — but neither the old article about the broradcaster nor the article about the website was actually properly sourced as notable at all. So I closed the redirect discussion and reverted the broadcaster's redirect back to its former standalone article, but have listed both topics for separate AFD discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Channel 9 (Mexico) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Channel 9 (Mexico) to be moved to Nu9ve. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pasadena Community Network listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pasadena Community Network to be moved to Pasadena_Community_Access_Corporation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nomination for merge of Idaho TV network affiliation templates

Several Idaho TV network affiliation templates has been nominated for merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Following guidelines - or disregarding them - consistently

Hello.

As crazy as this sounds, user Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) appears to believe that general Wikipedia guidelines can be disregarded as long as it's done consistently.

He has now undone my edit on three articles twice over, re-inserting code like [[Fort Wayne, Indiana|Fort Wayne]], [[Indiana]] , and linking to the United States, despite my edit summary mentioning WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK.

His laconic defense is "consistency".

What's your input, project?

• WANE-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WISE-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WPTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention linking to Indiana is also superfluous as anyone that has any interest in Indiana can already go to that through the Fort Wayne link. I concur that there's no need to over link pages. —Mythdon 05:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NET. listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for NET. to be moved to Net (Indonesian TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Should we list syndicated programming or not?

I'm personally against these lists. Firstly, they're not up-to-date/accurate most of the time anyway (Harry is listed as syndicated programming on WSIL-TV, yet it was cancelled last May). Secondly, the only sources to verify whether (for example) Judge Judy airs on KBSI are the station's website and TV listings (neither of which are appropriate sources). Thirdly, most readers outside of the viewing area (unless they're a TV station enthusiast) probably aren't going to care whether Judge Judy airs on KBSI or not even though they live in the Chicago market. It's just so much to keep track of and there's no reason to treat these pages as if Wikipedia is a television guide.

Just like we don't list every station a syndicated program airs on, we shouldn't list every syndicated program a station airs. I guess I want to say Wikipedia isn't a TV guide and I propose that we start removing lists like these. Thoughts? —Mythdon 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We've tried to limit it to five-six shows and the obvious top 10 shows so we're not listing "KXXX airs (long list of shows), along with (some film package only known to TV industry people), Taxi, the local services of the Universal Life Church and 'that Larry King Special Report infomercial'. I try to update the lists of stations I know in September, but in the smaller markets it's often not gotten to until a certain point (I've found some stations still listing Trisha Goddard for instance), and when we started we still had good 'here's what's coming to Buffalo in syndication' sources to get them in, but the cuts in the newspaper industry mean they're not being found now. Those who list more than six shows should definitely go (I admit I've slacked in a couple places). Nate • (chatter) 21:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I argued quite strongly against TV station articles listing syndicated shows the last time this came up for discussion, and my belief has not changed — it's simply not noteworthy most of the time, there aren't typically good sources that can be brought to support the information besides the TV listings grid, and as you note it's not adequately maintained so that the information stays current. In the vast majority of cases, information about syndicated shows should simply be removed from articles entirely — there may occasionally be situations where something more notable than usual happens as a result of the station's syndicated lineup (e.g. the CJNT-DT vs. WFFF-DT scheduling war over That 70s Show, or the week of "guest hosts from individual stations that carry our show" that Regis & Kelly did in 2009), but it's not our role to be TV Guide — if the sole apparent purpose of the information is so that people know what channel certain shows happen to be on in their town, then there's no value in picking out a random and arbitrary subset of the station's schedule. So if nothing special or unusual has happened to make the station's carriage of any particular syndicated show noteworthy, and instead the information is just "WAAA-TV carries That 70s Show, Kelly & Ryan and Ellen, the end" with the complete and total absence of a reason why it's important that a show's on this station rather than that one, then it should be poleaxed as non-notable trivia. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable non-primary source, no TV listing grids, then no syndicated programs. So, I have been removing them. I have in one case found a news source for a particular region (Lansing Michigan) and added them. I guess I though that it would show how the station program its syndicated fare, all court, all talk, mixed or other. But seeing the list degrade via cancellation or being dropped by the local, I am starting to lean to remove them all together. Spshu (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

When should graphics/set changes be listed?

Unless a graphics/set change just so happens to be included with the switch to HD, or is cited to at least a local newspaper (like the one listed for WSIL-TV is), then I don't think we should be listing every single graphics/set change.

To get a sense of what I mean, take a look at KWQC-TV#News operation for example. That section is bloated with every single graphics change since 2007 that's occurred every 2-3 years (that portion by itself is four paragraphs long). As I stated in a previous discussion, WP:IINFO applies since it's an indiscriminate collection of statistics. WP:NOTNEWS may even apply somewhat since its overall significance of contingent upon whichever 'graphics/set change' is the one currently being used and is of no long term historical significance.

So basically, I think some graphics/set changes can be included where appropriate (cases where it's actually been covered in sources, and thus bears significance to the station's history), but in most cases, the information just isn't useful apart from records keeping (which is of little meaning to most people outside of the television market) and is just original research that's bound to flood any "news operation" section (where most of these sections are already in need of some cleanup as is).

Thoughts? —Mythdon 00:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. As with syndicated shows, this should be noted in Wikipedia articles only on the rare occasion that something unusual or noteworthy happens as a result of the graphics change — like, I dunno, a reliably sourceable viewer rebellion that forces the station to go back to the old package. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the both of you that unless there was some sort of public response to the graphics changes, these changes are routine and don't need to be covered. Spshu (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WBZ-TV is a good example; their new set did get media attention, but was also criticized by said media attention for getting standardized branding and not being "local". ViperSnake151  Talk 

Should cable channels be listed?

If so, only the major providers? SD only? HD only? Or SD and HD? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If it qualifies for its own article according to Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines, then I don't see why not. Most channels these days are in HD anyway, but I don't see why SD channels can't be listed too. —Mythdon 04:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon:, I think Mvcg66b3r is referring to TV stations' assigned cable channels. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

On this one, the rule always used to be that we could list the channel position on DBS providers, like Dish Network in the US or Shaw Direct in Canada, that have a consistent lineup nationwide so that a station is always on that same channel no matter where in the country you are — but that we were not supposed to start listing the different channel positions on every individual co-ax cable provider in every individual city. You haven't provided a specific example to look at, so I don't know if people are starting to cross that line — but content of the latter type should definitely be removed immediately, while content of the former type should be discussed first. Especially for services with multiplex channels, even the permissible type of content has started to bloat up past any genuine utility given the proliferation of DBS and IPTV providers in the 2010s — I'm more knowledgable about Canada than the US as a rule, but when we first set the rule Canadian stations basically just had to list StarChoice and ExpressVu, and didn't have to worry about VMedia and Optik and Zazeen and two different Fibes — so it's definitely valid to revisit whether we should retain such content or not, but since it was historically considered acceptable, we would need to establish a consensus to deprecate it rather than just arbitrarily deeming it removable. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Station branding disambiguation pages

Like for example. News 3 and Local 6 where multiple stations have identified their newscasts as such.

My main problem with pages such as these is that they constantly have to be kept up to date (as stations change their branding every so many years). I just had to add KIMT to News 3 and remove WKMG and KOIN from Local 6 (whom changed their branding a few years back).

In the case of Local 6, only WPSD-TV (that I'm aware of) currently identifies as Local 6 (as the "Local" branding still isn't used by that many stations) essentially making the disambiguation moot, and should probably be redirected to WPSD-TV (just like Heartland News redirects to KFVS-TV).

Also every station listed on the News 6 page doesn't actually identify as News 6. That page was last edited in May 2011.

It just makes things confusing to have disambiguation pages that are rarely updated (and very likely to become out of date), since not that many people apparently actually search News 3 or Local 6 in the search bar (and would very likely just search WSIL-TV or WPSD-TV anyway to get to their News 3 or Local 6 station). Judging from what I've seen the majority of editors do in this WikiProject, people are much more likely to look up the call letters or television market than the branding itself (which they'll know anyway by going to the station article).

In other words, these pages merely exist and don't actually help in navigating between television station articles, in my opinion. I'm pretty tempted to just nominate these for deletion, but I'm seeking a consensus here first on what to do with them and if kept should there be a do over on how they're handled? —Mythdon 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Just PROD them (then nominate if someone objects); I'm getting really tired of all of these needless DABs involving branding that changes every year or so. I thought we were getting this control, but this, along with the 'list every cable position from Ankeny to Zion a station has' crufters, are starting to get their way too again. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with deleting both of those. I just checked Local 6's page view stats and found that it's incredibly little used — it averages less than one hit a day, and even a couple of the hits I saw can be accounted for by this conversation. And News 6 isn't the brand name of the stations on that page — there's even one station listed there despite not actually being a Channel 6 station, on the basis of having a rebroadcaster on channel 6 in a secondary market — but "one news department changes its news branding depending on what market you're watching it in" is not how television news works. Delete both of those with fire, for sure. There might be some situations where a page to disambiguate television or radio stations by on-air branding makes sense — but these two aren't among them, and there's no practical benefit to having a dab page in place for every brand name used by every broadcast station. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've prodded all three of the pages, per the above. —Mythdon 21:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Also prodded Local 4, NBC 4, CBS2, ABC 6, ABC 7, NBC 5, NBC 6, NBC 10 and Fox 7 and ABC8. —Mythdon 22:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I declined CBS 2, as I recall reading coverage of CBS's attempt to standardize this branding in major markets (NY, LA, and Chicago) though I can't immediately find it. Most of the others could redirect to a page like List of NBC television affiliates (table). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. As to redirecting, while that would certainly work for the network "ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX [channel number]" format, it wouldn't work for any of the ones with the "News [channel number]" or "Local [channel number]" format, and those might have to be AFD'd. —Mythdon 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

All PBS stations, including those of PBS 2, PBS 5, PBS 8, PBS 10, PBS 13, and PBS 39 should redirect to List of PBS member stations as well. Would that be a good idea? J4lambert (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, especially since most PBS stations aren't even branded as their channel number anyway. —Mythdon 13:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Information - what to keep and what to remove? (Proposal)

Seeing as I've started 4 discussions within the past 18 days ("Notable on-air staff" "Station branding disambiguation pages" "Should we list syndicated programming or not?" "When should graphics/set changes be listed?"), I thought I'd reworked them into a single discussion.

But there seems to be an ongoing consensus that anything that's just a routine change (non-notable staff/branding/syndicated programming/graphics changes) not be included. Yet we keep having these same conversations (about graphics changes March 2009, about syndicated programming May 2014 to give a couple examples).

Speaking of the on-air staff, I was admittedly adding stuff like "news anchor retired from [this station] after [this many years]" to a bunch of articles (as I'd already said in the "Notable on-air staff" discussion above), as of today I began removing what I originally added [32] [33] [34] when I realized it's just an excuse to keep listing non-notable staff. In all three of the instances that I've just mentioned, these were single instances where retiring staff was covered in the news, as part of routine staff changes that are routinely announced by TV stations.

What we probably need to do is establish some kind of guideline to outline where and when this information can included (or should we just keep invoking already existing policies/guidelines?). I know that sounds a bit bureaucratic, but I don't want these issues to keep resurfacing to where we constantly keep having to have these same conversations (It took years before the listing non-notable staff came to an end (Jun 2009 October 2012 July 2013 September 2014).

Thoughts? —Mythdon 22:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Notable on-air staff

I've went back and forth on this subject over the years.

But the way I see it now, I don't think we should be listing every single person that's ever worked at a TV station (that's just copying and pasting from the station website, which often isn't up to date anyway).

But if they've been featured in some publication, then I think they should be included somewhere in the "News operation" section. For example, Bob Reeves of KFVS-TV's retirement was mentioned in Daily Journal Online while the death of Don McNeely (also of KFVS) was mentioned in The Southeast Missourian. Both are local publications, which means they're more notable than for example Carly O'Keefe (where the only info you'll find is the official KFVS website, Topix and Linkedin). But unless they're notable like Sam Champion or Matt Lauer, then they shouldn't have an article about them.

Personally I think as long as sources exist outside of the station website, they should be included, as it's part of the station history. It's mostly the ones that have worked at a station for 20+ years (mostly in the medium or larger markets, end up retiring, or have garnered extensive media attention, long running anchor teams like Rod Wood/Carrie Lazarus of WSYR) that end up in the newspapers anyway, so it's not like these pages are going to get bloated or anything with every person that just happened to work there for a long time.

What does everyone else think constitutes notability as far as the on-air staff? When to include them and what sources to use? —Mythdon 21:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me.--Chaswmsday (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've always been comfortable with the official rule, that staff should only be listed in the article if they're independently notable and thus have a biographical article to link to. However, I'm fully aware that people have never followed that rule very well, and keep trying to readd non-notable staff anyway — but as a Canadian I only bother to do anything about it on Canadian television stations, and rarely pay much attention to what's happening on American ones. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I think your suggestion is more reasonable than the one I initially came up with. As evidence by my comments in this sections. I've backed away from adding any staff without independent notability. —Mythdon (トーク) 20:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why limit to only independently *notable* staff?? Not each and every fact or bit of prose in *any* WP article is independently notable. Why *not* allow a well-sourced fact that an on-air staff member worked at a station, as we would allow for any other well-sourced fact?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chaswmsday: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 11:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, not every staff member people might want to add to an article is actually reliably sourced at all. Much more often the names are added either unsourced, or referenced only to the station's self-published website — and even if a properly independent reliable source is added, it still might be just a glancing namecheck of that person's existence in an article about something else.

Secondly, because such content doesn't necessarily stay current: if the primary source gets taken down because the staff member has left for another job, the link's death may not get noticed and the person's name may not get removed promptly.

Thirdly, because if the person isn't independently notable in their own right, then what reason is there for any reader to actually give a flying fig about the information? It's not our mission to be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE source of every possible tidbit of information about everything or everyone who exists — our mission is to curate what's important and valuable information and what isn't, so the question is not "does a source exist for this person's name", but "why would it be important for this person's name to appear in the article at all"? If I don't live in a station's broadcast area, then the names of its non-notable staff don't mean squat to me — and if I do live in a station's broadcast area, then I already know who its reporters and anchors are without needing Wikipedia to tell me. So either way, the information has done absolutely nothing useful for me. The basis for including a staff member's name in a television station's article obviously changes if that staff member is independently notable in his or her own right, and thus has a Wikipedia article to link to — but if they aren't and don't, then the information is useless trivia about a person I've probably never heard of whose employment status I have no reason to care about. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Should slogans be listed?

Same reason I don't think station branding, syndicated programming or graphics changes. Thoughts? —Mythdon (トーク) 03:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably pointless trivia, but as consensus previously allowed them it would take a discussion of more than just one or two people to overturn that. Could you show an example or two of where you think it might be getting excessive? Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How should listing the switch to HD be handled?

The problem is many of these aren't sourced ([35] [36]) and can be taken for granted as being true anyway.

On the other hand, I was able to source WSIL-TV's to the official website (although I know that's a WP:PRIMARY source, better than no source).

Personally I think unless it can at least be sourced to the station's website, better yet, has been covered in the market's local newspaper, then it shouldn't be listed, since by now most stations are already taken for granted as offering local news in HD without every article needing to say "on [such and such date] [station] began offering local news in HD". Thoughts?—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Out-of-state stations in intrastate TV templates?

Recently I added some out-of-state stations into some intrastate TV templates, those stations that can be received in the market via cable or antenna. But my edits got reverted, with other editors saying those stations were clearly not in-state. Should out-of-state stations be added to intrastate TV templates even if they're in the same market? And what about Canadian and Mexican stations in border areas? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My definition is if they market to a nearly direct border area (Gary to Chicago, Duluth to Superior or WWOR's Secaucus, NJ to New York and Salem, Indiana to Louisville), they're fine to put in. But certainly not to an area that is incredibly secondary like your call to add Minneapolis stations to the WI templates, which was the reason for my reversion). And no to Canada or Mexico; they have their own templates, and even then, just put it in the 'see also' section with merely a link. There's nothing more annoying to see than template bloat for the sake of overtemplatization. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nate on this. It's been a constant battle between those who want to keep the templates to the purposes they were designed for, and those who want to bloat them up beyond all utility — but consensus has been that television or radio market templates need to restrict themselves largely to in-market stations (with the rare occasional exception for high-overlap situations like Nate's examples, where the station is central to two adjacent markets.) But if just "can be received via cable or antenna" was enough, then we'd have to extend that to Canada as well, such as by throwing the Buffalo and Toronto stations into each other's templates, throwing the Montreal and Plattsburgh/Burlington stations into each other's templates, adding the Detroit, Boston and/or Seattle stations carried by Shaw Broadcast Services to every damn television template across the entire country, and on and so forth. Unfortunately, however, I see that upcycling the templates to "direct inclusion of adjacent markets" has been happening again lately, so badly that I'm going to have to remove CHCH-DT from the Northern Michigan template, where it doesn't fucking belong. This is not what the templates were meant for. Please also see WP:TCREEP, which clarifies that our goal is to minimize the number of templates at the bottom of an article as much as possible, not explode it. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that we're not allowed to use swear words on talk pages. If I want to use a swear word in my comment, Mvcg66b3r, it's not your prerogative to asterisk it out after the fact — if you don't like it, tough shit, I'm the only person who gets to edit my comment at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

And this too...Duluth stations might get to a little part of Michigan, but anyone in that state would never count on a station that merely shares a large body of water with the other state (and I removed a Wisconsin station that only gets to Michigan because of the lake and doesn't even post temperatures from on their weather maps). The Toledo stations are effectively hard-blocked from most cable viewership in MI by their Detroit counterparts (and the MyNet affiliate in Toledo can barely cover the city itself, let alone outside of it). Please look at a map and think if an add makes sense to add to a template. Nate • (chatter) 05:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential WP:OR in TV Red Puerto Rico?

I recently fixed some inconsistencies within a stub article, TV Red Puerto Rico, that apparently falls within the scope of this WikiProject, when I discovered two key issues there. To avoid having to retype all the details here, I merely refer to its talk page where you can read all the issues I pointed out there (including potential original research suspicions). --SilSinn9821 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1994 United States broadcast TV realignment listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 1994 United States broadcast TV realignment to be moved to 1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

CUNY TV

This is a discussion opened at Talk:CUNY TV#channel not station about the claim that the CUNY TV is station or a channel. Please respond there. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking at TV station articles

BlueboyLI and I have been at loggerheads over links at TV station articles. I change the links to make him happy, but he still reverts to the same bland edits that were there before.

See these entries on my talk page: [37] [38] [39]

What is the proper format for linking cities and states on TV station articles? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, actually. Wikipedia has no rule dictating whether you go with [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]], [[New Jersey]] or [[Newark, New Jersey]] — but conversely, it's obviously not necessary to write [[Newark, New Jersey]], [[New Jersey]], and you should definitely avoid using pipetext to force the state or province name into the same link as a city whose title doesn't already have it (i.e. you should never turn [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]] into [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]]). OVERLINK doesn't mandate anything about that, and just suggests that it's not necessary to link [[United States]] after New Jersey — but as to how you format the link to Newark, the only rule this project has is to not fix it if it ain't broken: if it gets you to the right Newark without breaking any other rules, then don't change [[Newark, New Jersey]] to [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]], [[New Jersey]] (or vice versa) just for the sake of changing it. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

H2 (TV network) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for H2 (TV network) to be moved to History2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

KCTY (defunct) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KCTY (defunct) to be moved to KCTY (Kansas City). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed deletion of Discovery Channel Mexico

The article Discovery Channel Mexico has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as being unreferenced since 2008 and for notability/context since 2017. Article is nothing more than a single sentence and a navigation box. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG; so, if deletion is not appropriate, then a redirect to another article may be.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move - (defunct) disambiguator

Hi, here to notify you of a requested move concerning station articles with the (defunct) disambiguator in the title. You can find it at Talk:KCLA (defunct). Raymie (t • c) 04:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Channel (frequency) changes

Today (April 12, 2019), KCBS-TV (Los Angeles, CA) "moved" from channel 43 to 31. I had to find and change it in 11 articles (I hope I got them all – I'm surprised to have not found anything to change in the Category or Template namespaces). This leads me to wonder whether this has been done correctly for other channel changes. Is there a list of these changes somewhere? I'll note that, at least for KCBS-TV, there is little info in the Wikidata item. Has there been a discussion somewhere about putting the channel and other info into Wikidata and linking to it instead of hard-coding it in many articles? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, Channel 31 digital TV stations in the United States and others are currently bullet-lists in callsign order (which isn't particularly useful for most readers, I think). Any objection to my changing them to sortable tables and wikilinking the cities? Also, shouldn't these be named "List of digital TV stations [broadcasting] on channel 31 in the United States"? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You won't find anything in the Category namespace. In fact, the various sets of TV channel lists for Canada, the U.S., and Mexico — digital channels, virtual channels, low-power channels, and branded channels — were created several years ago as the outcome of a CfD. On the template side, the TV station templates that reference channel numbers tend to reference the virtual channel rather than the RF one.

As you probably know, TV stations in the U.S. are flying all over the dial over the next few years because of the repacking. The FCC has lists of when changes are scheduled to take place, but you can't use those as much more than a guideline — a number of channels have gone far earlier than planned. The trigger for me is when the issuance of a station's license to cover their new channel is published in the FCC's daily Broadcast Actions report. I've done a bunch of updates related to this, and I know I'm not the only one. The changes for the full-power stations like KCBS-TV tend to happen more quickly because there are more eyes on them/interest in them; I find it's more often the class A and low-power stations/translators that I'm cleaning up.

In terms of the formatting of the lists, sortable sounds like a great idea, and I'd be ambivalent about linking the cities. Consider that I was creating somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 of these lists coming out of that CfD, so I kept them pretty simple at the time. All I'd suggest is that you not add too much more in the way of content to the lists, particularly while these repacking changes are happening (stuff like network affiliations, transmitter locations, etc. - someone did this recently for AM radio stations, and it's made them that much more likely to become outdated). Mlaffs (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Mlaffs is correct; Wikipedia came to a consensus that television stations should not be categorized by their channel number, because it doesn't represent a defining point of commonality between television stations in different cities. Stations across the United States on Channel 31 don't actually have anything in common with each other that links them together as a group, so the only purpose such a category could really serve is helping to locate a television station you know by channel number but not by call sign — but since the category doesn't include any annotations by location, it doesn't really accomplish that purpose at all. Which is why we group "television stations by channel number" as lists, instead of categories — a list can include extra annotations, such as city or owner or branding or network affiliation, that actually help a person pin down which one they're looking for, but in a category the user would have to actually check each individual article one by one until they found the right station, which isn't helpful at all.

It would be perfectly valid to reformat the lists in a different way, if you're actually willing to take on a comprehensive project. There's no reason why they would be permanently locked into the existing format, and they can absolutely be reorganized anytime somebody's willing to put the work into improving them. It's just a big job that might take days or weeks, which is why editors haven't really shown the will to organize them into sortable tables, but if somebody's actually willing to take it on there's no rule that they can't be reorganized. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

RT (formerly Russia Today)

Hello. You are invited to participate in two related RfCs: Talk:5G#RfC:Russian disinformation and Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC:Propaganda. R2 (bleep) 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

List of United States stations available in Canada listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of United States stations available in Canada to be moved to List of United States television stations available in Canada. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Different word for current 'secondary' affiliations that fill majority of broadcast day?

I've been noticing more that what we still describe as 'secondary' affiliations for stations which carry smaller networks like MyNetworkTV and even the CW don't seem to meet that definition of the word very much anymore, especially if they otherwise carry a digital subchannel network like MeTV or Antenna TV. Somehow, an affiliation that is carried by a station 150-158/hours a week is described as 'secondary', while we describe a primetime-only service (or for the CW, with their Springer rerun and E/I blocks) as primary. For the latter, that still makes sense, but I feel like a better term could be used for these stations with the other affiliation, like;

• WXXX is a primary affiliate of MyNetworkTV, and also alternately affiliates with Antenna TV for the remainder of its programming time.

or;

• WXXX has a primary affiliation with MyNetworkTV for (primetime/late night) programming. The station is also an affiliate of Antenna TV, which broadcasts for the majority of each broadcast day.

This isn't 1989 where we still had plenty of Big Three primary/secondary stations which otherwise still had syndicated programming, and the vernacular could use a bit of updating for the modern age. Just putting this out here because I'm looking at the list ofs for the MyNetworkTV and CW programming lists, and 'secondary' seems like it's not the right word for a service filling most of the rest of a broadcast day. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

On one hand, I see what you mean. On the other, since "prime time" is the targeted/designated primary network time, secondary does seem to still apply. Editors here are hamstrung that we cannot create terms. I think that either of your statements are fine as they describe the situation with out creating a new term. I feel that you are avoid creating a term by using the adjective "alternately" instead of out right double noun "alternative affiliate". "One minor tweak with the second suggested wording:

• WXXX has a primary affiliation with MyNetworkTV for (primetime/late night) programming. The station's primary channel is also an affiliate of Antenna TV, which broadcasts for the majority of each broadcast day.
• WXXX has a primary affiliation with MyNetworkTV for (primetime/late night) programming, while also an affiliate of Antenna TV for the majority of each broadcast day.

If you are not completely satisfied with the choices, I could draft some more. Spshu (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wording for channel sharing stations?

From recent edits by Chaswmsday:

• WDTN: "WDTN's transmitter facility is on Frytown Road in southwest Dayton; it shares its digital channel with WBDT, along with unrelated Richmond, Indiana-licensed Ion Television owned-and-operated station WKOI-TV (channel 43)."
• WBDT: "WBDT, along with unrelated Richmond, Indiana-licensed Ion Television owned-and-operated station WKOI-TV (channel 43), share WDTN's digital channel from WDTN's transmitter facility on Frytown Road in southwest Dayton."
• WKOI-TV: "Transmission facilities are provided by unrelated Dayton-licensed NBC affiliate WDTN (channel 2), which shares its digital channel with WKOI-TV, along with WDTN's sister station, Springfield, Ohio-licensed CW affiliate WBDT (channel 26); the transmitter is located on Frytown Road in southwest Dayton."

Should this wording be applied to all stations that share a channel? Chaswmsday says my edit "could easily be read as them sharing a tower, not a channel." Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I find bits and pieces about "channel sharing" within WP, but nothing like "host" and "guest" as detailed in RabbitEars market listings. --Chaswmsday (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

WJCT listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for WJCT to be moved to WJCT, Inc.. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WMEU-CD listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for WMEU-CD to be moved to WCUU-CD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WBTS-LD listed at Requested moves

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:WBTS-LD#Requested move 10 August 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bravo (American TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bravo (American TV channel) to be moved to Bravo (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nexstar Media Group takes over Tribune Broadcasting stations Today.

Greetings, I, Along with many of you, will be updating the Tribune Stations to being owned by either Nexstar, TEGNA, or Scripps due to many of the Former Tribune Stations popping up on the companies websites. Happy Editing. Bbabybear02 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

DWEC-TV listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for DWEC-TV to be moved to DZRR-TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

DXAP-TV listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for DXAP-TV to be moved to DXAR-TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:DXAP-TV, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

CPAC (TV channel) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for CPAC (TV channel) to be moved to Cable Public Affairs Channel. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Decided to implement this since most projects have it. Raymie (t • c) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about TV and radio station style variances

Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in an RfC at Talk:WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on out-of-state stations in state TV templates

Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in an RfC at Template talk:Missouri TV#RfC on out-of-state stations in state TV templates. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Turn this WikiProject into a WikiProject TV taskforce?

I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert many inactive WikiProjects into taskforces, including this one. --Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No more Sea of Blue

Want to eliminate overlinking in lead paragraphs of TV station articles.

Example: [[Memphis, Tennessee|Memphis]], [[Tennessee]] → [[Memphis, Tennessee]]

For major cities: [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]] → [[Boston|Boston, Massachusetts]]

There are a lot of these articles, so I could use some help here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted some of these, especially for stations which serve an entire state or province, where a link out to a state/province is proper and needed. Place names are not an actual rule or policy as part of MOS:SOB, and this just seems designed to merely up your edit count numbers rather than for the benefit of the encyclopedia, which in actuality outside of one table and your own edit counter, few ever look at. Please focus on quality edits, rather than quantity edits. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, Well it was BlueboyLI who came up with this idea, not me; talk to him. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't in MOS:SOB. Your edits will remain reverted, because it's good policy to have at least one link to a province in the infobox and article body. This policy was invented by you (I saw nothing about it on the other editor's talk page) and obviously hasn't been taken up by anyone else; until then, bring a case here, and I kindly ask that you do no further edits like this as they are overall, not helpful. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, It was Blueboy's idea. He told me about it here and here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This, in general, is a bad idea. For one thing, for cities that are titled with just the city name, rather than "City, State" or "City, Province", then doing this completely defeats the entire purpose of the cities ever having been created at or moved to undisambiguated titles in the first place — if the links to it have to either go through the "Boston, Massachusetts" redirect or have "Boston, Massachusetts" piped in over "Boston" instead of just linking directly to Boston, then why is the page even at just "Boston" anymore?

And the "Sea of Blue" rule is also not that there can never be two wikilinks in close succession at all; it deprecates extended strings of blue links all parading one after the other, like its own stated example of "Irish Chess Championship", but does not automatically militate against two blue links separated by punctuation. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes?

Within the past few weeks, an editor started adding second and third infoboxes to certain Canadian television stations (e.g. CICI-TV, CHBX-TV) to cover off rebroadcast transmitters. This has never been normal practice for Canadian stations, however (as witness the fact that they were only just added for the first time a few weeks ago, even though the articles have existed for around 15 years) — so I removed the superfluous infoboxes, but was then reverted on the grounds that "the rebroadcasters provide substantial additional coverage; this is present in US station articles".

But firstly, the "substantial additional coverage" provided by rebroadcasters is adequately covered off just by listing them in the article, and doesn't need a separate full infobox for each individual rebroadcaster — the core purpose of the infobox is to cover off information about the station as an entity, not necessarily about each individual transmitter as a stick. And even more importantly, in the Canadian context it would be literally unsustainable to require a separate infobox for each rebroadcaster: the structure of Canadian television broadcasting relies much more heavily on rebroadcasters than the structure of American television broadcasting does. For comparable examples, CHCH-DT would have to have seven supplementary infoboxes on it to cover off rebroadcasters, and CKY-DT would have to have eight, and CBLFT-DT would have to have 27 — and CBLFT isn't even the worst case, because then we get to CHAN-DT, the ultimate example of why this is just not sustainable: it would literally have to have well over 100 infoboxes, queuing up long past the end of the article's actual text. So even if it's done in the United States sometimes as the user claims, there's no rule that Canada and the United States always have to follow identical principles of article structure — it simply doesn't work in Canada regardless of whether it's done in the US or not, because Canadian television stations would routinely have to include many more infoboxes than American stations normally would.

And even then, I'm not actually finding a lot of evidence of American television stations actually containing separate infoboxes for each relay transmitter as a matter of course — I obviously haven't comprehensively checked every television station in the entire United States, but after spotchecking a representative sample I've found a good dozen television stations that do have rebroadcast transmitters but still just have one infobox on them instead of two or five or ten, and exactly zero stations that actually have multiple infoboxes on them.

So I don't buy that it's a standard expectation, and I don't see that it's warranted on Canadian television stations at all — but I wanted to solicit outside opinions on this rather than letting it lapse into an edit war. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, you are absolutely right...should be removed. The same editor as you noticed above tried to ram through consensus that we shouldn't even have a link to the province the station was in because of a bad reading of MOS:SOB, which makes no sense when a station does serve the entire province. Mvcg66b3r, stop applying American rules to Canadian television stations; they are two completely different animals with two different SOP in regards to their articles. You are required to get a consensus from multiple editors before making a change like this, and it just isn't going to happen. Nate • (chatter) 14:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bearcat: @Mrschimpf: I'll go ahead and comply, but at CHRO-TV, I'm keeping the CHRO-DT-43 infobox, since it's digital and covers the Ottawa metro. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've re-merged the boxes; it's 99% a repeater, and stop removing sourced information about spectrum re-allocations like you did with 198.48.226.12's contrib. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, even IPs. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in – I've done a lot of work on U.S. television station articles, particularly with rebroadcasters/translators, and I can't think of a single instance when I've seen a separate infobox in an article for a translator. They're often not even identified in the main infobox. More frequently, they're listed as only an anchor link to the section in the article that provides the detail, particularly where a station has multiple translators. Mlaffs (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"UniMás owned-and-operated television station" is correct

Re: WFUT-DT I'm just trying to maintain consistency with other TV station articles. BlueboyLINY is just a picky editor. [40] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Argentina

While a bit out of most of our comfort zones, there are a bunch of Argentina station articles in our purview, and they've got title problems. I'm trying to fix that at a new RfC on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#RfC - article titles for television stations in Argentina. Please help me figure out the best naming scheme for these articles. Raymie (t • c) 06:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

ATSC 3.0

I Now have an ATSC 3.0 station in my market as of June 16th, 2020(Pittsburgh PA WPNT). How can I add to the Infobox that it broadcasts in ATSC 3.0 4K? I hope this could also be used in future ATSC 3.0 launches. Bbabybear02 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New discussion on Location field

Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in a discussion at Talk:WRNN-TV#Location field. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{Infobox broadcast}}

I'm proposing changing the CDBS link to LMS in US TV station infoboxes at Template talk:Infobox broadcast#FCC CDBS TV Query link change to LMS. This is necessary given that CDBS TV Query is data frozen and increasingly out of date. I would like your thoughts, and if supported, I'll put in a TPER to get this done. Raymie (t • c) 05:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Separate from this (but to be included anyway), I'm proposing a redesign containing visual, technical and other improvements to {{Infobox radio station}} and {{Infobox broadcast}}. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal. Raymie (t • c) 05:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI - Related Infobox templates

TV + radio infobox templates (count at 6 July 2020)

Infobox Template	Count	Details
{{Infobox radio station}}	21611
{{Infobox television channel}}	5924
{{Infobox television station}}	~1	Redirects to Infobox broadcast
{{Infobox broadcast}}	3693	Infobox television station before 2008
{{Infobox broadcasting network}}	1484	Not for television stations
{{Infobox TV}}	~0	Redirects to Infobox television
{{Infobox television}}	49631	Television programs

Not sure what the difference is between a television channel and a television station.  — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Channel is the frequency (or content stream) granted over the air, cable, satellite or streaming. A TV station has a license for broadcasting on one or more channels (multiplexing) over the air either networks' and/or independent programming. Since the last FCC auction, a station may have the license to air programming but no over the air frequency, thus must lease air from another station in the market to air its programming. Spshu (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, note that broadcast networks are not the same as cable networks, although they general misname cable channels as networks. See: WP:NC-BC. Spshu (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine: I'm likely going to be proposing a rename of Infobox broadcast to Infobox television station, which I believe would clarify its intended usage, after implementing my RfC. {{Infobox broadcasting network}} has its own problems; in fact, more than 10 percent of transclusions use an unknown parameter, and that number was higher before I tried to tackle some of them. There have been several merger TfDs (Radio station/Broadcast in 2010, Broadcast/Broadcasting network in 2013) that have ended no consensus. Raymie (t • c) 05:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

{{TVQ}}

I've opened a discussion on replacing CDBS for {{TVQ}} with a more updated source. There are two contenders, LMS and REC. See Template talk:TVQ#Moving away from CDBS. Raymie (t • c) 06:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

I've started an RfC to analyze a potential split (and partial merger) of {{Infobox broadcasting network}}. You can find the RfC, information, and discussion at Template talk:Infobox broadcasting network#Proposed split into new templates. Raymie (t • c) 21:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Changes to Infobox television channel?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Changes to Infobox television channel?. Raymie (t • c) 03:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal. Raymie (t • c) 07:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Scripps-Ion deal

@Mrschimpf, Raymie, Tvstationfan101, Tvtonightokc, and Wcquidditch: Need help with the Ion Television station articles, which stations are going to Scripps and which are going to Ion, where duopolies can and can't be formed, add references where needed. Mvcg66b3r (talk)

@Mvcg66b3r: Here you go:

• To INYO Broadcast Holdings: KPPX, WPXD, KPXC, WVPX, WDLI, WIPX, WCLJ, KPXE, WHPX, WPXP, WPXV, KOPX, WPXH, WZPX, WGPX, WPXX, WPXJ, WLWC, WYPX, WUPX, KPXO, KGPX, KTRV
• Scripps gets the remainder
• Being divested to INYO unless the WPIX sale closes first, at which time they go to Scripps: WPPX, KKPX, KPXM

Note that Inyo is acquiring the shared duopolies in Cleveland (WVPX-WDLI) and Indianapolis (WIPX-WCLJ). Comprehensive exhibit is here. Raymie (t • c) 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf, Raymie, Tvstationfan101, Tvtonightokc, and Wcquidditch: Need help resolving a content dispute with User:CPLANAS1985 re: WPXD-TV. See here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I specifically stated this stuff in WPXD-TV and Ion Media, but it keeps getting deleted... I wouldn't have added this stuff if it was merely a rumor with links or references... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf, Raymie, Tvstationfan101, Tvtonightokc, Wcquidditch, and Mvcg66b3r: I also ask you, with all due respect... Am I lying with the details??? Have I engaged in misinformation??? If so, providing references, then how!?!? Please explain to me... Is it possible to reach a compromise??? I'm only helping to keep Wikipedia articles factually sound like everyone else here... No offense or disrespect intended whatsoever... And I'm sorry if I angered or upset anyone for this... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please remove me from this thread; I have no opinion on this matter and don't wish to have one either. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf, Raymie, Tvstationfan101, Tvtonightokc, Wcquidditch, Mariacer Cervantes, and CPLANAS1985: The Scripps deal closed today (https://scripps.com/press-releases/scripps-completes-acquisition-of-ion-media-from-black-diamond-creating-new-national-networks-business/) Make changes to the articles as needed. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Project scope question

Been thinking about this for a bit...

TVS has always defined its scope as "individual local television stations in North America". This was fine in the early years of the project. However, I can't help but feel like that strategy has left two classes of additional articles underserved under WP:TV proper, and other editors in the encyclopedia think they are in our existing scope.

These are

• articles on non-broadcast television channels in North America, such as Food Network and ESPN, and
• television station, channel and network articles in non-North American countries, like Telefe or Nine Network.

WP:TV itself is concerned mostly with television programs and episodes, and it is one of the largest projects on the encyclopedia in page count (nearly 96,000 articles, about 7400 of them here in TVS). It does not tend to handle channels or stations, and there is no other group that concerns itself with anything similar. In my opinion, that is one of the root causes of the seriously neglected condition that {{Infobox television channel}} was in until last year.

A look through Category:Television stations task force articles shows that our scope is so ill-defined that articles that would not belong in the narrower scope often get tagged into our project. There are articles on television stations outside of North America (Aichi Television Broadcasting, DYBU-DTV, XHKG-TDT); on North American cable channels (Game Show Network, Le Canal Nouvelles); and on services that are not stations nor in North America (92 News, Nagorik TV, TeleHit). (In practice, some of the articles in the former category are pretty close to what we would do at TVS, mostly because countries like Japan, the Philippines and Mexico developed television systems with very strong American influences.)

Taking our scope from "individual local television stations in North America" to "linear television programming services, including broadcast stations and networks and pay TV channels" would allow for more consistent management, even if most of our editor base is here for the former. It would ensure that our scope is better defined, both geographically and in terms of the method of delivery. I also think it would avoid the sort of neglect that can occur with some of these higher-readership pages.

I know that sometimes it feels like I'm constantly rocking the TVS boat, but that's because I want to ensure this project is in harmony with wider encyclopedic standards and objectives. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Syndicated programming lists

I think we should just get rid of syndicated programming lists from all television station articles. They constantly have to be updated and like with the "on-air staff" lists, they're not always kept up to date and Wikipedia is not TV guide. I think we should just do away with these lists/sections as this kind of information is better served somewhere outside of Wikipedia (like TV listings/guides, etc). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I can't find a reliable source for them, either. What do I cite? I very specifically excised that section from WCNC-TV because I plan on nominating it for GA. Complete agree. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • They're mostly sourced to the station's website (if at all), but honestly, sourcing isn't the issue when it comes to these kinds of lists. The lists are just filler content and hold no historical significance whatsoever. The only time syndicated programming should be listed is if there's been extensive media coverage about it, like with WSIL-TV#Programming when WSIL-TV refused to air NYPD Blue and it caught national media attention, but otherwise, I'd say do away with the lists entirely.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Mythdon: And that was an ABC network program, not even a syndicated show. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

      Sammi Brie, Still, there was national media coverage over the show being syndicated in markets where ABC affiliates refused to air it. Being that, in the WSIL-TV television market, NYPD Blue was syndicated to that market's FOX affiliate (KBSI) but is mentioned in the WSIL-TV article, not KBSI. My overall point, that sections dedicated specifically to syndicated programming should not read like a TV guide and that syndicated programming should only be mentioned when there's national media coverage, still stands. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

O&O bolding

This needs to be put under control and clarified.

At first, bolding major network O&O's in templates and infoboxes...it makes sense. They're owned by the Big Five networks. Higher tier digital networks like MeTV and Ion (and even MyNetworkTV), it also makes sense. They're special stations, and often, network hubs.

Where it's lost the plot is for more minor networks like the Tegna, Sinclair and Katz/Scripps networks. We're clogging up station infoboxes with too much information, unexplained bolding and linking out the Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States article to the average reader who doesn't edit here and doesn't understand the reasoning for bolding why Court TV Mystery on some Ion station in West Virginia on 67.6 is important in the grand scheme of American television. And often, because we don't care about O&O's of Grit, TBD, HSN or Charge!, they're completely lost as to why they ended up at an article where those networks aren't mentioned.

Just now, I've had to revert 2600:8801:1F00:4F0:257B:1525:7B38:7BEE (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has turned the list-of tables for these minor networks into a bold/regular case ugly mess which has no rhyme or reason or explanation about why these autofeeds on subchannels are special because they're "O&O stations", which doesn't mean anything when say, KTNV and KMCC, don't ever put local programming on their subchannels from Katz, and the average viewer who is never going to edit a Wikipedia article likely will never care either; it's like bolding a Comcast article just because they carry an NBCU network on a certain local Xfinity system. It's also spread to the local market infoboxes, which I admit I did for awhile when it made sense (again, for MeTV or MyNet), but creates a hideous situation when you've now got Ion, Sinclair and Nexstar turning some stations into subchannel farms, and we have more bold messes, so some kind of consensus is needed to keep things neat and organized. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• It shouldn't happen for subchannels. It shouldn't happen for Univision and Telemundo, networks where a huge proportion of the station stock is network-owned. IMO, it just shouldn't happen. (And it shouldn't happen in any country where almost every TV station is an O&O). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Piloted the removal of bolding on {{Charlotte TV}}. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks really good...I think I'm going to clean up a couple WI templates and see how it looks. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing to see that the 2600:8801:1F00:4F0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) range is continuing to bold and O&O note, so reversion is needed when this occurs. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I did most of the markets in Virginia and DC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Put me in on the "no boldening for O&Os" camp. Diginets are turnkey networks that are cleared by and large by station groups, of course they are O&Os. But it diminishes whatever pull the "big four network" O&Os had at the same time and makes it almost meaningless. At this point, with so many diginets owned by station groups, the TV infoboxes and media market templates have become visually ugly and rather distracting to boot with the excess boldening. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I know that I'm not apart of this "taskforce" any longer (nor do any interest in re-joining), but I always found it rather dumb to bold owned-and-operated stations on the market templates anyway, when one just has to simply click that station's article to find out what you need to know. It's one of many things that bother me about these TV station articles and templates, and it stems from some "genius" or two with too much time on his hands. I will agree though that the excessive bolding is not just dumb and quite useless, but it's also visually messy. Less is more! ShawnHill (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

List of United States television markets/Nielsen

Some time around the end of 2016, this went from a basic state market list to someone reinserting the DMA numbers and counties that we had long been told shouldn't be there per Nielsen's OTRS ticket in 2008. I don't really go to this article that much (thus why I'm only mentioning it now), but I highly doubt anything about the 2008 notice has changed and we need to get those DMA's out ASAP. It was formerly in sortable order by state by default, and only seems to have become an ugly mess of over-tabling with a dose of WP:SPEC since then; my 2019 Mac is on the highest resolution it can muster and needs a bottom scrollbar to see everything. Nate • (chatter) 02:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Invitation: RfC being planned to propose making WP:NMEDIA a guideline

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability § Planning for possible RfC to make WP:NMEDIA a guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations § Removing slogan parameter from Infobox radio station and Infobox television station

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations § Removing slogan parameter from Infobox radio station and Infobox television station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Project tagging

Would there be any objection to me temporarily adding a category to transclusions of {{Infobox television station}} and {{Infobox television channel}}? This would be used to support tagging pages that contain these templates into the TVS project using Wikipedia:WikiProjectTagger. We have pages that aren't tagged even into WP:TV, particularly in countries like Australia and India where the TV task force is under the national WikiProject and not WP:TV. Additionally, this would assist with reports and identifying pages that need assistance, especially ones that weren't thought of as TVS pages for some time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Market-level TV station overview/lists

I recently nominated for AfD two pages, List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area and List of Los Angeles television stations. After, I learned of the existence of History of television in Atlanta, which is similar to the San Francisco page as a historical overview of TV in one market. Both AfDs were closed no consensus, with some editors (including me) believing them to be duplicative of existing navboxes and categories and others pointing to WP:CLN and the unavailability of navboxes to mobile users.

If they are to be kept, these articles need to converge on one type of presentation. Are they lists—like the LA page, a table version of what you might see on RabbitEars—or historical overviews? (The historical overviews are badly in need of additional citations, as a note.) Would they be best merged into "Media in (city)" pages, which are more common?

I am pinging all the users that participated in these AfDs to weigh in: @Mrschimpf, Andrew Davidson, Shushugah, Mikehawk10, Estheim, 4meter4, and 力: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My understanding from the AfDs is that folks seemed to agree that the topics were notable enough for an article. I think that means they should be comprehensive articles, and include the lists of stations within it UNLESS the list is so long it disturbs readability. Content in higher level topics (umbrella topics, like Media > TV) should be cleared out and replaced with a hat note because new information is being added inconsistently across disconnected articles (a problem I've noticed before in media-subjects). Cheers, Estheim (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Even though I didn't vote for either AfD (which I will take responsibility for), I do not see the justifications for either of those three articles. Moreover, an editor should not have to work on both a TV station article and a "history of television in (city)" or "list of (city) television stations" article, but you'd have to in order for those pages to not become fossils. Either merge them into "Media in (city)" pages or make them simple disambig pages that just link to TV station articles with nothing else that risks being outdated. Otherwise it's not worth the time and trouble to keep up something that even I had no idea existed until Sammi Brie brought them to my attention. Those pages as they are... is simply and purely unacceptable. What is the point? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 02:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I voted delete on both as outdated clones of the Bay Area and SoCal TV templates we already have (and which are transcluded to every article, though a commenter noted they don't transclude on the mobile version because of WMF limitations (and please don't get me started on how the mobile web as Steve Jobs intended meant as-is desktop web pages and not this reduced 2004-like mobile junk I turn off every single time anyways!)). Honestly, I'd rather just redirect to San Francisco Bay Area#Media and an equivalent heading in Southern California, because station articles as-is have the history we need, and loading them into the regional articles would add more unneeded heft. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Denoting ATSC 3.0 lighthouse stations in market templates

I have begun to note lighthouse stations in each market with the indicator ^{(ATSC3 ⌂)} in order to not clog the templates up with long text. If there's any objection or better suggestion to note as such, please feel free to let me know. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I have a WP:SMALLFONT concern with that presentation... There has to be a better way, though. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I forgot the "above" field can convey the same information without text reduction/odd characters, so I switched it to that using a line break (example here). Nate • (chatter) 06:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Infobox television channel"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television channel , which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Translator tables

I see a conflict brewing between Mattdp, Nathan Obral, Mvcg66b3r and myself about the use of larger tables for translators, so I'd like to defuse it.

Nathan and I prefer a list presentation for translators, in which each bullet point is the location of the transmitter and a wrapped LMS link. Matt makes larger tables that include more information, which as a result are used on the vast majority of pages. Matt notes that most articles use the tables; I worry that the tables may be excessively large and contain too much information. Which style do you prefer? (Samples below from KPHO-TV) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Example list

• Bullhead City (Katherines Landing): K05MR-D
• Camp Verde: K31LZ
• Chloride: K30GG-D
• Cottonwood, etc.: K29LM-D
• Dolan Springs: K34PE-D
• Flagstaff: K17MO-D
• Globe/Miami: K27KS-D
• Kingman: K18LZ-D
• Lake Havasu City: K26OK-D
• Meadview: K15LR-D
• Prescott: K30JD-D
• Topock/Bullhead City (Goldroad Crest-Oatman): K21FU-D

Example table

City of license	Call sign	Channel	ERP	HAAT	Facility ID	Transmitter coordinates	Owner
Bullhead City	K05MR-D	5	0.093 kW	−126.9 m (−416 ft)	43420	35°12′46″N 114°33′21″W	Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Camp Verde	K31LZ	9	0.165 kW	687 m (2,254 ft)	69920	34°28′12.4″N 111°52′25.2″W	Camp Verde TV Club
Chloride	K30GG-D	30	0.071 kW	172.5 m (566 ft)	43373	35°23′48.9″N 114°10′18.8″W	Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Cottonwood, etc.	K29LM-D	29	15 kW	757 m (2,484 ft)	41224	34°41′12″N 112°7′1.8″W	Gray Television
Dolan Springs	K34PE-D	34	1.92 kW	175 m (574 ft)	43392	35°35′41.9″N 114°14′48.8″W	Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Flagstaff	K17MO-D	17	1 kW	617 m (2,024 ft)	41227	35°14′26″N 111°35′50.5″W	Gray Television
Globe Miami	K27KS-D	27		658.7 m (2,161 ft)	41216	33°20′31.4″N 110°52′14.8″W
Kingman	K18LZ-D	18	1.26 kW	1,046.4 m (3,433 ft)	43401	35°4′53″N 113°54′16.8″W	Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Lake Havasu City	K26OK-D	26	2.21 kW	45.5 m (149 ft)	43398	34°36′9″N 114°22′15.8″W
Meadview	K15LR-D	15	1.96 kW	221.5 m (727 ft)	43389	35°51′47.9″N 114°5′47.8″W
Prescott	K30JD-D	30	1.2 kW	470.7 m (1,544 ft)	41218	34°29′24.3″N 112°32′2.5″W	Gray Television
Topock	K21FU-D	21	1.03 kW	417.3 m (1,369 ft)	43417	35°2′9″N 114°22′16.8″W	Mohave County Board of Supervisors

Discussion

I remember finding the basic table formatting on some station and decided to implement it universally as I went state-by-state, updating translator information - some lists were non-existent, some incomplete and some very out-of-date. I'm nearly done with the entire United States, so that formatting is pretty much standard. Places in Texas and Oklahoma have an even bulkier table. I haven't messed with those yet.

The translator tables contain the same information you'd find for the main station in it's infobox: Call letters, RF channel, output power, height, coordinates and owner. The bullet lists don't contain any more information than they city and the call letters - at a glance, it is not very informative. Generally, translator tables are also at the bottom of an article, so they don't clutter up the rest of the article. Mattdp (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• In order for Sammi Brie to elevate KTVK-TV to GA status, the reviewer openly stated that the table was excessive with too many external links, and was told to have a list with one source, it being this. She said this before. All the info in that table is needlessly counterproductive and prone on us to continually edit whenever info gets out of date when it can simply be accessed with a link to the necessary info through Template:FCC-LMS-Facility.

It is not even a contest. A list is infinitely more acceptable, easier to maintain and should be standard across the board. We as editors seriously need to get beyond this outmoded mindset of putting all information out there when it risks becoming too dense and unreadable for anyone not versed in the broadcast industry. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 21:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all; simple COL/calls and FCC is the way to go here. For the most part, all of these stations all have the same virtual channel in the end, and the list simply meets WP:ACCESS much more readily. I work on the priniciple of treating the reader with respect, rather than overloading them with too much information or insulting them with details easily found in the next hyperlink (in the List of Peacock original programming for instance, adding nations to articles when that information is known to the reader or a click away in the production partner, removing unneeded clutter). Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As an editor who's updated a lot of this type of information over the years, including all through the recent transition, I would selfishly prefer the simple list format. It's easier to source the information, much quicker to update it, and – again, selfishly – table formatting makes my head hurt. As a user, the volume of information in the table is excessive, and at the same time incomplete (virtual channel isn't included, for example, which would be more relevant to most users). I don't generally need to know this much about them and, if I do, I can follow the LMS link. For what it's worth, this similar problem exists in some articles with respect to radio station translator information, but it's far more prevalent here on the TV side. Mlaffs (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We're supposed to be here to provide information, not clickbait. I don't see how lists benefit anyone other than the attention-addled. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The translator table as it is currently employed is only useful for people who are very well-versed in television broadcasting. That's... really not many people. TVS articles need to be focused on approaching a general audience, and simplicity is key. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 01:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Denoting ATSC 1.0 simulcasts in infoboxes and subchannel tables

@Sammi Brie: User:Vjmlhds says I shouldn't "mix and match" stations that share spectrum, saying that "only hardcore tech geeks care about spectrums". I want to know your say about this. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I say certainly keep it confined to the originating station and no further. It should be noted in text for 3.0 lighthouses that their 1.0 channels are on another station, but not any further than that. Nate • (chatter) 19:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also add a "see also" in the Subchannels header for the subchannel headers of the other stations on the mux, as I did at WNJU#Subchannels. There are some stations that require quirky sub boxes, e.g. KSTP/KSTC (two muxes), and it should also be considered if it's a case like WEDU/WEDQ or WMBQ-CD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: User:Chrisipedi has been doing the same thing, this time in TV market navboxes. You should talk to him on that. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My argument for having ATSC 1.0 simulcasts in the subchannels list is that even if I'm not someone who's tech geek, it gives more convince and not having to go somewhere in the info boxes and go directly into the lighthouse station to see who's airing it. I rather mention which station is carrying an ATSC 1.0 simulcast instead of not adding it there. 20chances (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

WIN Television good article reassessment

WIN Television has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Continued infrastructure improvements

I am continuing to add infrastructure items specific to the stations task force in order to assist in the identification and maintenance of articles that belong here.

Project tagging with EarwigBot recently concluded. It added many pages with {{Infobox television channel}} to scope for the first time and also identified stragglers with {{Infobox television station}}, with more than 5,000 additional pages. This is a lot—it's a nearly 60 percent increase—but it rectifies the scope problem that non-North American topics were inadequately sorted. I have already identified a number of pages that have been sent to PROD or AfD as a result.

I am also adding a new article result page for television station-channel-network pages, with rules at User:AlexNewArtBot/TelevisionStations and (once the bot runs) results at User:AlexNewArtBot/TelevisionStationsSearchResult. This will assist in adding new pages to project scope so that large tagging runs are not needed and pages can be identified for the support they need.

These join other improvements in the last year, including popular pages and recognized content, and tools that I've brought to TVS in the past, such as article alerts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguator

I saw REDTV (online TV channel), which deals with Nigeria, was created recently. It's not a linear TV channel, though it might be a YouTube channel (they also have their own website but it just links to YouTube). Do I call this a streaming service? A YouTube channel? Something else? The disambiguator in the article title is poor, and I'm wondering if we should style the name "RedTV" (they put it all caps) per MOSTM. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Establishing a set standard for subchannel tables/technical information

An edit conflict between myself, Vjmlhds and Sammi Brie has been developing over the makeup of the subchannel table for WVPX-TV. The dispute is largely what should be the proper way to address this information that 1) provides the best possible explanation and 2) is not too technical in the explanation. A set standard across all U.S.-licensed television stations should be in order.

The source of the conflict is trying to explain the channel share situation between WVPX-TV and WDLI-TV, which share common ownership and common programming. Sammi's composition is similar to other tables for stations that engage in channel sharing, as well as stations with subchannels originating elsewhere due to ATSC 3.0. Of note, neither me or Vjmlhds have experienced the ATSC 3.0 standard here in the Cleveland market (WJW's low-power translator has not been activated for it yet), and it is a new broadcasting standard that is at risk of getting too cumbersome and difficult to explain unless you're deeply well-versed in the subject matter.

I will allow Sammi to provide her subchannel table proposal. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 02:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is fairly simple. It establishes three standard treatments for three types of situations that cause one multiplex (one 6 MHz transmission) to contain channels that are attributed to different licenses. If this is accepted, I'll put it in a standards subpage in the project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

My only issue is that if things come off as overly techno-geeky and has too much minutiae attached to it, it would confuse readers and do more harm than good. I've been working with Nathan a long time (here and elsewhere) and we've always been good, and regarding Sammi, anyone who Nathan is cool with, I'm cool with. All I'm looking for is a way to explain spectrum sharing without things looking like a complete mess and differentiating the separate stations. Sammi's chart seems to have things in check, so I'm good with it. So I metaphorically put out my hand to Nathan and Sammi, let's do a 3-way fist bump, and call it a day. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sammi Brie's proposal for handling channel sharing

Situation	Proposed treatment
Multiple stations share a channel (multiplex) and are commonly controlled. (WVPX-TV and WDLI-TV)	The subchannel table should list the full contents of the multiplex, with those corresponding to the license for that article listed at the top and the others in a separate color. The infobox should only list the channels that correspond to that license. If there are three or more stations in such an arrangement (WNET or WPBT, for example), or if both licenses also share a major channel (WEDU and WEDQ using 3.x), consider creating one table and using labeled section transclusion to display it in multiple places. At the editor's discretion, this may not be advisable for every case; I wouldn't do this for WNBC and WNJU, but I would for WEDU and WEDQ.
Multiple stations share a channel (multiplex) and are not commonly controlled. (KABC-TV and KRCA)	The subchannel table should only list the channels that correspond to the license. A {{See also}} should be included to the equivalent sections in the other station's article.
There is no channel sharing agreement, but subchannels attributed to one station are hosted on another's multiplex, typically in conjunction with an ATSC 3.0 deployment. The stations may or may not be commonly controlled.	The subchannel table for the ATSC 1.0 stations hosting additional subchannels should list the full contents of the multiplex, with the additional channels at the bottom and in a separate color. See, for instance, KCPQ. For an ATSC 3.0 station that hosts others (all full-power and some low-power stations), there should be two tables: one for the ATSC 1.0 services that correspond to it on other stations, with an "ATSC 1.0 host" column, and another for the ATSC 3.0 services that it actually broadcasts itself. See KJZZ-TV. The infobox should only list the channels that correspond to that license; for ATSC 3.0 stations, this is the information in the first of the two tables mentioned.

Category:Television stations in Hampton, Virginia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Television stations in Hampton, Virginia has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in Norfolk, Virginia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Television stations in Norfolk, Virginia has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in Virginia Beach, Virginia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Television stations in Virginia Beach, Virginia has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Formatting of lead paragraphs

@Sammi Brie, Nathan Obral, Lee Vilenski, Wcquidditch, and Mrschimpf: What would be a good format for lead paragraphs of TV station articles? We need to distinguish owned-and-operated stations from mere affiliates. Some of us have laid out examples in recent edits, but it would be best to work out a compromise. (Also, there are still some analog-only stations in Canada, so leaving in [[Analog television|analog]] could be warranted in this case.) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lee Vilenski made changes to the lede as part of a Good Article review for KMEX-TV. Lee addressed in the GAN comments and his subsequent revision that the lede was too clumsy and jargon-laden. And he's right. Lumping everything in to the start of the first sentence for every article regarding North American television stations makes for ease in streamlining, but the majority of readers to Wikipedia aren't television experts. As I said in my edit that made Lee's intro a bit more prose-ish, saying "...is a Univision owned-and-operated television station" and "Owned by the Univision Local Media subsidiary of TelevisaUnivision USA" in the very next sentence is actually very much redundant and feels like reading a technical manual. Plus the current structure of these intro sentences easily risks being a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem, as Lee also pointed out. We should not, in any way, be having introductions like ...is a Univision owned-and-operated television station licensed to Los Angeles, California, United States at all.

The intros throughout WP:TVS should still follow standard conventions but the need for absolute uniformity has long since passed. For example, we should be able to say "this station is co-owned with" or "this station is sister to" instead of "it is part of a duopoly with" for every instance of common ownership. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'll just note this: I'd have done more with that lede if I didn't feel like I was going to get reverted by Mvcg. However, I think it goes without saying for those who know my work and is consistent with my thoughts on related topics over the last three years that lighter, more understandable, less jargon-dense prose is what our pages sorely need. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I just applied some flow adjustments to the lede, and feel free to revert; the one blue link that belongs is 'television station' by far, and there has to be consideration that many of those links are in the infobox, thus the removal of "city of license", "UHF" and "virtual channel" (they're both on 34, so there's no need to say 'physical and virtual') in the overall prose (I did add a link to flagship, as that is established). I also moved the 'Spanish-language' part to before 'Univision', as it does carry subchannels in English, thus the entire space isn't Spanish-only. The lede should be there to establish basic facts, not have too many links or off-hand participles that confuse the reader. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Mrschimpf: I really like what you have in mind. Generally speaking, the start of the lede for every U.S. television station article should now follow (but not rigidly adhere to) this convention: "WXXX (channel X) is a television station licensed to serve City of license, State, United States, owned and operated by (or, "as an affiliate/member/flagship station of") Television network." Some examples:

Flagship: (using KMEX-DT)

KMEX-DT (channel 34) is a television station licensed to and serving Los Angeles, California, United States, as the western flagship station of the Spanish-language Univision network.

O&O:

WWJ-TV (channel 62) is a television station licensed to serve Detroit, Michigan, United States, owned and operated by the CBS television network.

Affiliate:

WSVN (channel 7) is a television station licensed to serve Miami, Florida, United States, as an affiliate of the Fox network.

Listing the physical channel and virtual channel numbers are cumbersome, redundant with the infoboxes, and increasingly unnecessary with ATSC 3.0 changing the delivery methods for television channels anyway. Plus it allows for similar lede conventions with other countries (remember, we now have a lot of other countries under WP:TVS's scope!). Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 07:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think you have a misunderstanding between lede sentence, and lede in general. The first sentence of the article is the most important, as it makes the reader know exactly what they are reading an article on. Something being "Univision owned-and-operated" is important information, but not something that needs to be known immediately. I think it's wise to write the first sentence as if someone has hit the "random page" button. The current lede is very good as it adequately explains that this is a television station right off the bat, then comments about the region it works in, and then specifically that it is Spanish-language. It also improves, because it actually gives an adjective to describe what Univision is. Reading the original lede, I would have had to click many links off the page to understand what a lot of what is being said, but now it's very easy to understand and process what is being said, with links there to push readers to articles that are being talked about. I have no issue with commenting about whether it's analogue or digital, but it should be somewhere further down in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• @Sammi Brie, Mvcg66b3r, Lee Vilenski, Wcquidditch, and Mrschimpf: In addition to the lede sentence, the structure of the second sentence among WP:TVS articles should be redefined for current realities. Piggybacking again on Mrschimpf's above remarks, certain details like *exact* ownership are already covered in the infobox. Typical of this, WWJ-TV's second sentence reads Owned by the CBS News and Stations subsidiary of Paramount Global, it is part of a duopoly with CW owned-and-operated station WKBD-TV (channel 50). Absolutely unwieldy and cumbersome. Plus does every article pertaining to a station owned by Nexstar Media Group need to include the fact Nexstar is based in Irving, Texas? And why?

There can be several different ways to address the second sentence based on the station itself. Verbiage should vary based on the editor's comfort level and the overall grammatical structure.

Flagship: (again, using KMEX-DT)

Owned and operated by Univision as part of a duopoly with UniMás station KFTR-DT (channel 46), both stations share studios on Center Drive (overlooking I-405) in Westchester, while KMEX-DT's transmitter is located atop Mount Wilson.

O&O with a duopoly partner:

Under common ownership with CW station WKBD-TV (channel 50), both stations share studios on Eleven Mile Road in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, while WWJ-TV's transmitter is located in Oak Park.

Affiliate:

Owned by Miami-based Sunbeam Television, WSVN's studios are located on the 79th Street Causeway (Florida SR 934) in North Bay Village, and its transmitter is located in north Miami Gardens.

Lastly, I forgot to include a turnkey network station (Ion, Daystar, TBN, etc.) among my examples. I redid WVPX-TV's lede to reflect these changes, and the change in tone in made apparent pretty quickly.

Before:

WVPX-TV, virtual channel 23 (UHF digital channel 22), is an Ion Television–affiliated station serving Cleveland, Ohio, United States, that is licensed to Akron. Owned by Salt Lake City–based Inyo Broadcast Holdings, it is part of a duopoly with Canton-licensed Court TV affiliate WDLI-TV (channel 17), which transmits using WVPX-TV's full-power spectrum via a channel sharing agreement.

After:

WVPX-TV (channel 23) is a television station licensed to Akron, Ohio, United States, and serving Cleveland as an affiliate of Ion Television. Owned by Inyo Broadcast Holdings, it is jointly operated with Canton-licensed Court TV affiliate WDLI-TV (channel 17), which transmits using WVPX-TV's full-power spectrum via a channel sharing agreement.

In any event, this should be an opportunity to rethink how these ledes should be constructed. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What about LMAs/JSAs/SSAs (virtual duopolies)? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there shouldn't be a mention where a station group is based out of in every article; it doesn't help the reader any and it's pointless when Nexstar is probably based out of Irving for pure real estate/tax reasons. And going by television network articles, it's exhausting noting every time a conglomerate puts something under a new name and now we have 40+ changes to make to TV station articles for such a pointless reason. And the virtual duop issue can go where the channel sharing sentence can go rather easily. As for the turnkeys where they don't have local studios, I think simply saying 'Owned by Inyo...and centralcasted remotely' would work. These changes are definitely proper, and warranted. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Example from an article I recently improved and updated (with a shorter parenthetical than I'm using now)... KCBA (channel 35) is a television station in Salinas, California, United States, serving the Monterey Bay area. KCBA broadcasts programming from The CW Plus. The station is owned by Seal Rock Broadcasters, which maintains a shared services agreement with the News-Press & Gazette Company (NPG), owner of local CBS affiliate KION-TV (channel 46), for the provision of certain services. Programming originates from the KION-TV studio facilities in Salinas and is broadcast from a transmitter located on Fremont Peak. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Network, channel, or station?

Uh-oh, Sammi is at it again!

I've had a few gnawing issues with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), which in general needs some other fixes, but there's one I was hoping to get more input on before getting feedback on a broader rewrite. (As a headline summary: most of the items in the rewrite are merely reflecting the RMs in recent years that have shaped precedent in call sign disambiguation, emphasized the need to avoid incomplete disambiguation and harmonize with other wider naming conventions, and so on. Some are intended to make the page more reflective of practice for non-North American media.)

The big departure from current precedent is standardizing (TV channel) as the disambiguator for certain pages, especially in the U.S., that use (TV network). We have Category:Television channel articles with incorrect naming style when I would argue that forcing "network" on pages is a bad example of imposition of US language. The series of Boomerang (TV network) but Boomerang (Asian TV channel) etc. is a wreck. Then we have Freeform (TV channel) (which is in the US), Category:Television stations in India (in a country that does not have "stations" per se), and so on.

This is the table I came up with to finally have some consistent definitions of "network", "channel", and "station" in television and radio, and I'd like some thoughts. I do also state after this, In any case, there may be variations for some terms of the art, particularly in the United States where "cable networks" are by definition channels (e.g. regional sports network), as well as in proper nouns. Channel 103 is a radio station; Paramount Network is a television channel.

Proposed definitions for naming conventions purposes

	Network	Channel	Station
Television	Distributes programming to a network of stations, either owned-and-operated by the network or affiliated and owned by a third party. May have windows in its program lineup for regional programming. Historically owned or owns a transmitter network with national coverage. The term sometimes is used for a broadcaster that distributes multiple channels (e.g. ETV Network). Examples: NBC, Network 10, Azteca 7	A single linear feed of television programming. May be distributed as a free-to-air or pay service. Even if on a network of transmitters, there is little to no variation in its schedule. There may be per-country variations for a pay TV channel, however. May be called a "network" in some cases, particularly in the United States. Does not include YouTube channels, etc. Examples: Channel 5 (British TV channel), Das Erste, ESPN2	Broadcasts local programming and possibly national network programming. Typically owns its own transmission facility; there is an identifiable transmitter (or transmitters) that belongs to it. With the advent of digital television, may actually broadcast multiple subchannels. In almost all cases, free-to-air. Examples: Telefe Mar del Plata, Akita Television, KTVQ
Radio	Distributes programming to a network of stations, either owned-and-operated by the network or affiliated and owned by a third party. May have windows in its program lineup for regional programming. Examples: Nigeria Info, CKO, Japan FM League	Not typically common in radio, though a radio station may have a channel number (e.g. on Sirius XM).	A single linear feed of radio programming, no matter the method of delivery (including internet). Even if it has a network of transmitters carrying the same program, may be considered a unitary station with little to no regional variance. Examples: BBC Radio 2, WQHT, Hong Kong Reporter

Please let me know what you think. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I do agree that the terms are often used poorly in Wikipedia, and admittedly to an extent that's because television services themselves fuzzy up the definitions by using the terms more interchangeably than they're supposed to be (e.g. something that's most properly called a channel being branded as "X Network", etc.) — but there is some value in at least trying to get some consistency here, even if I've never felt motivated enough to take on the job of being the consistency-maker.

One thing I would add is that I have seen Wikipedians make the specious argument that a "channel" should be considered a "network" on the grounds of having more than one time zone feed — under that interpretation, HBO Canada's "east" and "west" feeds would count as separate "stations" for the purposes of reifying it from a channel into a network of multiple channels, even though their programming is precisely identical except for the timeshift and thus they aren't really different "stations" in any meaningful sense. I don't agree with that interpretation at all, obviously, but it's still a thing that should be addressed by a standardization effort. I have, further, also seen people claim that a dedicated streaming app should count as a separate "station" for the purposes of rendering a channel into a network of multiple channels, which is also silly but should also probably be addressed.

Conversely, another thing that is a bit more challenging — and in this case I agree that it's a bit more complex — is a "multiplex" service such as Super Channel or Crave, which consists of a bundled package of multiple channels that could legitimately be seen to meet the definition of a network on "different programming" grounds or a channel on "same feed nationwide" grounds at the same time. I note, for the record, that I selected the two examples I mentioned precisely because they're dabbed differently from each other; Super Channel is dabbed as a "channel" while Crave is dabbed as a "network" even though there's no real basis on which to claim that they operate differently from each other. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

In the radio section, a sub-note should be made for stations like KTCL and KHTS-FM, which use "Channel (frequency)" branding but are definitely few and far between and are in no way an industry standard. And I definitely agree that the (TV network)/(TV channel) DAB is a mess, which wasn't helped by now-blocked editors who only made it worse and tried to standardize things without local knowledge (e.g. their treatment of ethnic networks with inappropriate terms). But otherwise, looks very good to me, certainly clearer than many past attempts brought around. And agreed with Bearcat about the over-abuse of timezone feeds as separate networks (they aren't, be it American premium channels or British +1 timeshifts...or as was a previous vandal pattern, junk like 'USA East/USA West'). And no, streaming channels are not separate stations (also, oy vey with AVOD's like Pluto, Peacock and the Samsung/Vizio suites with feeds like the Barker TPIR era, the NBCU trash talk trio on Nosey, and 90s Judge Judy episodes adding to the confusion lately, which should just be described as 'automated channels'). Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Gonna respond to both comments here.

• The timeshift comment is a good one and would make a good footnote: A timeshift service, such as a time zone feed or +1 feed, is not a separate channel.
• In re: multiplexes/bouquets, sometimes the individual components don't have individual notability and need to be upmerged to an umbrella article—another good footnote. Malaysia has a TV provider named Astro with a boatload of its proprietary linear channels, and I've wanted List of Astro television channels to be a thing (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro Aura HD). If a channel like Zee Tamil News isn't notable, it can be covered in summary in Zee Tamil. We also should be considering upmerges of country subfeeds of pay TV channels with little to say other than "this is channel X for country Y".
• In re the KTCL/KHTS comment, note the inclusion of Channel 103 in the green text above (which in the document will go after this box).
• The Pluto TV comment would also make a good footnote, but that's more of a notability question than a terminology one...

One thing is clear: this is going to lead to a lot of RMs and CfRs to put things into place. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that in the digital TV era, you can have one physical transmitter carrying programs of multiple "stations", which may be licensed entirely independently of the transmitter (as is the case in the UK), or separate programming streams of a single station (as is common in the US), or indeed multiple separately licensed stations sharing digital bandwidth on a transmitter that is owned and operated by only one of the licensees (as is also common in the US after the repack). With the ATSC3 rollout in the US, we're also seeing the same programming broadcast in the same location in both ATSC1 and ATSC3 formats, with the transmitters owned by separate companies (the FCC rules for the ATSC3 transition require the simulcast, and typically in the early going there has been one owner that has leased out capacity to their competitors to reduce the cost of the updates). This basically underscores the need to distinguish "channel" as a branding and marketing exercise from "channel" in the communications engineering sense of the word, before you even get to IPTV and streaming. 121a0012 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I totally get that part of it. (Look above for an example of how ATSC 3.0 detail can make things a bit mind-melting for editors.) The convergent media environment makes things fuzzy, for sure. The digital subchannels section of WP:NCBC itself reads like a relic of another era. We have 8 articles with "DT2" or "DT3" in the title, and all of them represent subchannels that were the continuations of former licenses: WVTV-DT2, KSCC-DT2, KSCC-DT3, WICZ-DT2, WGFL-DT2, KLAX-DT2, WSTM-DT2, WSYT-DT3. (Those probably need a scope redefinition to end with the license.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• This may be US bias/terminology as you noted, but at least for television, NBC/ESPN/FX/Freeform/TBS etc are networks that exist on channels (for over the air networks, on channels such as WABC-TV, etc.). As long as that's clarified in any changes, and American/US based networks stick to network terminology, that seems fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not yet convinced that this for US pages rises to the level of a needed ENGVAR issue, but I am convinced we need consistency. We have TNT (American TV network) and TBS (American TV channel). That's ridiculous. The bigger problem is we have a lot of categories for "stations" in countries that don't really have stations by the definition laid out above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Your concerns are simply based on an incorrect premise - TBS (American TV channel) is clearly at the wrong title, that's all. Moving it to TBS (American TV network) is the solution, because that is what it should be according to NCBC as it is today. -- Netoholic @ 11:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Full text now available

Hi, I now have the full NCBC revision proposal up. Aside from the above, it also contains textual improvements and a few other minor changes in practice. You can read it at User:Sammi Brie/NCBC. Your feedback is more than welcome; I do plan to bring this to RfC to replace the existing text but wanted to gauge topic area feedback before doing so. Pinging the editors who wrote in the above section: @Mrschimpf, Bearcat, 121a0012, and Favre1fan93: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• One minor change to note, in section "Call sign titling", subsection "suffixes": With the exception of CBC-owned television stations with a call sign in the format CB-(-)T, Canadian FM and TV stations are invariably suffixed. The old exception here is no longer applicable in the digital television era, and all CBC-owned television stations do now have -DT suffixes. That is, my local CBC affiliate was just CBLT in the analog era, but is now CBLT-DT just like any other non-CBC television station. Some of the CBC's analog retransmitters in small towns in the far north might still just be CB-T or CB--T without a suffix, but there's no longer any case, anywhere in Canada, where an unsuffixed analog transmitter would be the originating signal or the base article title — so this exception actually now applies only to a couple of historical oddballs, like CBEFT or CBUVT, that ceased to exist (or failed to get off the ground at all) before -DT was ever a thing. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Bearcat, thanks for catching that. This is the first real deep cleaning of this NC page in a while. I've been been wondering if "(broadcasting)" is the most appropriate disambiguator for it, heck... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC

This is now being discussed in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#2022 revision proposal. Your comments are welcome. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Should it be TheGrio.TV or TheGrio?

Most affiliates vary in between the two and other slight variations (TheGrio TV for example found in K26GS-D.] Meanwhile WLJC-TV uses TheGrio.) Which should it be?

go on and put your votes here.

votes here. Danubeball (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Danubeball, this probably should have ended up a requested move. The official styling is "TheGrio.TV", which falls in line with several other Byron Allen TV ventures. The "TV" part is used consistently, and as with other Allen ventures (such as in Entertainment Studios Networks), TV is capitalized despite the "website"-type name. (There's a case for possibly splitting TheGrio.) The channel doesn't have a lot of significant coverage to use to describe use in reliable sources, but we do have one: "TheGrio.TV Strikes Fox O&O Deal In 11 Markets Ahead Of Rebrand", Deadline December 9, 2020. I would argue it probably should be rendered "TheGrio.TV". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Subchannel listings in infoboxes

User:Nathan Obral has truncated the subchannel list on the KXTV infobox from nine to just one (the main channel). Do you think this should be done on every TV station article (listing only those subchannels affiliated with a major network)? Pinging @Sammi Brie: Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The way it was done in that infobox? That's actually perfect; as even major network affiliates are now getting above five subchannels, it's becoming absurd to duplicate the list in the infobox and in text. My only concern is outside our purview, as Google and Bing grab the sub field for their knowledge panes, but I'd rather have a clean infobox than a cluttered one. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support for stations with six or more subs (note: Nathan consulted with me on this privately). I note that, even if a station has 10 subs (and I doubt this is a big group), if any of them are Univision/Telemundo/The CW, they belong up front. For instance, a truncation of WZMQ must list the CBS sub. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with that exception. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Glossary of broadcasting terms

I just discovered this ignored gem that needs a lot of love thanks to my work at GAN. It is quite incomplete and needs more entries. It seems to also be a bit UK-heavy in places (read the definition for "zoom"!!). I'm cross-posting to a few projects to encourage editors to add germane entries. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

O&O status of CW affiliates

@Sammi Brie and Nathan Obral: Now that Nexstar has taken control of The CW, do you think we should change the lede on Nexstar CW station articles to reflect their O&O status? Also, do we remove O&O status from CBS-owned CW stations? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

CBS still owns 12.5 percent of the network. The deal hasn't formally closed (though Nexstar has assumed immediate management). Likely that a lot of articles will need one sentence added about Nexstar buying a majority stake with a standard reference—should not be much more than that. Let's not use this as an excuse to load up with cruft. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

One good comparison re: the CBS-owned CW affils is WKYC, NBC owned 49% of the station from 1991 to 2001 but they ceased being an O&O when majority control was sold (and didn't act like an O&O by any stretch of the imagination). That said, I agree with Sammi; we can withhold mentioning the sale in individual articles until the deal actually closes beyond a simple mention. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 21:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Withhold surplus changes for sure. There are still interests to work out and NX can't simply take away an affiliation in one day and breach multiple contracts, and there's no way wacky situations like WKRN deciding to give up their ABC affiliation are actually considered, much less thought about. Slow, small, and deliberate is best. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What’ll makes things stranger in the New York Market is that WPIX is owned by Mission,but Nexstar Operates. Will this station fall under a weird Semi-Affiliate Semi-O&O status? Danubeball (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It'll be O&O...Nexstar owns everything about the station outside the actual FCC license paper and ESB transmitter leasehold (NX is expanding the NewsNation facilities themselves and owns Mission's actual studios); we should still note Mission, but that's about it. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FCC Call Sign Actions Reports

For those of you who get involved in the renaming of articles due to call sign changes, a bit of news from the FCC today - the last version of the Call Sign Actions report that they issued on July 1, 2022 (covering May and June 2022) was the last version of the report that they'll be issuing.

Call sign changes that have been requested are embedded in the daily Actions report now, and that's apparently the only place they'll be reporting them. Mlaffs (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I wish I had the programming knowledge to write a bot that could create a list of call sign actions and pages to be moved... It probably is possible, but that's not me. This would be exceedingly helpful. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Upgrading Digital subchannel’s Importance

The name says it all, we probably should do this since 1: Pretty much most stations have them. From WMBC-TV in New York City to even little KXGN-TV in Glendive, Digital Subchannels are practically a constant seen in every single market. Which is why I’d like to propose upgrading it to a high-importance or even a top for the task force. Danubeball (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Danubeball: After reading the table at WP:TV/A, I think Mid importance is the correct assessment. Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Should WJAN-CD be considered Independent?

Does WJAN-CD count as an Independent station despite being classified as a flagship for the America Téve Network? WPXO-LD calls itself an affiliate and pretty much everywhere else other than the JAN and FUN articles consider it a network. Should not change it’s status as a Spanish Independent or should we consider it an O&O of the America Teve Network? Danubeball (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Page move discussion

There's a page move discussion happening at Talk:UNTV (Philippines)#Requested move 21 December 2022. Any members of this Wikiproject are open to discuss what could be the potential outcome to move the page. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:6D6E:5479:F240:D16E (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of K25NG-D for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K25NG-D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K25NG-D until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of K04QR-D for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K04QR-D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K04QR-D until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

This a 140-article nomination of non-notable low-power TV stations owned by Innovate Corp. nationally, thus the notice in project space. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of KNTS-LP

The article KNTS-LP has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG. See talk page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Out-of-state stations in intrastate TV templates? (continued)

Yeah, we had this discussion before (see here), but @Vjmlhds: and I have been having a little beef on whether stations in Fort Wayne, Charleston/Huntington, etc. should be included in the Ohio templates, despite serving parts of the state OTA and via cable/satellite. I'd like @Nathan Obral: (a fellow Ohioan himself) and @Sammi Brie: to weigh in on this. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because the stations can be seen in little slivers of Ohio it doesn't mean they serve said slivers. I made a comparison to how radio station WJR in Detroit can be heard loud and clear in Cleveland, but it doesn't mean it serves Cleveland or counts as a Cleveland station. Same idea here. Fort Wayne stations can squeak into extreme western Ohio...all well and good, a nice little bonus, but it doesn't mean they serve that area. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The application of TV markets, in my opinion, should be defined by the boundaries set forth by the designated market areas (which I personally think are an outdated system, but its the only thing we've got for measuring). The Toledo DMA does extend into Michigan (Lenawee County) while Defiance is right at the border of the Toledo and Fort Wayne DMAs (Paulding County is in Fort Wayne DMA, and Defiance County is in the Toledo DMA). The Huntington-Ashland-Charleston DMA has non-insignificant parts of Ohio and Kentucky even with the bulk of it being in West Virginia.

I'll also throw this out. Cincinnati is a border market with a DMA that's in three states (thus, the "Tri-State"). WXIX-TV is licensed to Newport, Kentucky, but is a Cincinnati station. It's also rightfully listed in the templates for Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Huntington-Ashland-Charleston DMA also includes Portsmouth, OH, and the whole area is called "Kyova" (a term taking bits and pieces from KY, OH, and W.Va) It too is a Tri-State area. My only thing with this whole deal is I just err on the side of caution, because there's so much grey area it's easy to get stuck in a quagmire, which is why low and slow works best, and not just throwing everything into the soup. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I found a compromise to give everybody a little of what they want. I divided the stations that are within one of Ohio's 7 DMAs into a "primary" section, and the ones whose DMAs are mainly out of state but squeak into Ohio into a "secondary" section

Above you'll see an example of the method to my madness. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but explicitly going by Nielsen markets is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2013#Arbitron is now Nielsen — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 00:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Except these templates don't refer to Nielsen by name. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I am, unfortunately, not a member of VRT, or else I'd dig up the specifics of the DMCA takedown notice from the ticket. That said, nothing on the page I linked to said that the specific problem was referring to Nielsen by name. It had to do with including DMA information. The problems with that are: (1) "DMA" is a registered trademark of Nielsen, and (2) their market info is proprietary.

As further evidence of what I am saying, look at what Nielsen says on their own website: "DMA boundaries and data are solely owned and exclusive to Nielsen. Any use and or reproduction of these materials without the express written consent of Nielsen is strictly prohibited." — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add that we've had discussions on this type of thing in WikiProject Radio Stations, too – including a thread I started recently to seek some clarity. While I was glad to get some engagement on that thread, I'm not sure it ended up achieving as much as I'd hoped for. What I want is to construct some solid guidelines together and codify them into a set of standards on a page somewhere so that anyone and everyone can refer to them easily. I wouldn't mind leading such an effort, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes – and I'm not totally sure whose toes I should even worry about, if anyone's. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Representing DRM subchannels in ATSC 3.0 station tables

I wanted to get some advice from the room on whether representing subchannels encrypted with DRM on ATSC 3.0 multiplexes is worth it. RabbitEars now does this in its 3.0 station listings (red background).

Sample of how it would look (KPHO-TV is the only DRM'd subchannel in Phoenix right now):

Subchannels of KASW (ATSC 3.0)

Channel	Res.	Aspect	Short name	Programming
5.1	1080p	16:9	KPHO-NG	CBS (KPHO-TV)
10.1	720p	16:9	KSAZ-NG	Fox (KSAZ-TV)
12.1	1080p		KPNX-NG	NBC (KPNX)
15.1			ABC15NG	ABC (KNXV-TV)
45.1	720p		KUTP-NG	MyNetworkTV (KUTP)
61.1	1080p		CW61 NG	Main KASW programming / The CW

  Subchannel broadcast with digital rights management

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Right now I feel like it's a smidge overblown in that community (most viewers are early adopters who are on an untested technology behaving as the worst versions of early adopters because the standard wasn't finished before it went to air), but I do see merit in noting stations using DRM, though I'd switch to a yellow or slightly darker grey box with the icon instead for the sake of readability. Nate • (chatter) 18:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if it might be too much detail myself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Turns out WUNI had a slightly different look and already denoted DRM subs. I have changed it to look like this and set up the new WPSG table in this style. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)