Talk:List of television stations in North America by media market

DMA Rankings (Do I have this comment in the correct place?)
I would say even if this comes from Nielson it falls under "The Fair Use Doctrine." _________________________

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html).

I will have an account soon, just now understanding how to contribute, thanks...

68.53.49.212 (talk)


 * Sorry to say, but whether it's fair use or not, Nielsen has threatened a lawsuit and Wikipedia does not wish to defend it. As a result, the Nielsen DMAs will have to remain off of Wikipedia. TripEricson (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The DMA listing should be restored
DMAs are not owned by Nielsen. They are owned by the FCC, and the FCC has no objections to providing that information. Theaveng (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous claim. How does listing the fact they exist violate any copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.154.245 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is just a load Griffin5Talk/Contributions 05:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When I looked up the data from the FCC website, they said they use the data from Nielsen. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they own the title "DMA" and the way they make the "markets", but the official markets are decided by the FCC. They just give that data to Nielsen, they compile it and *poof*...DMA information.  What neither has control over is how it is listed on Wikipedia. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  •  Work  • October 6, 2008 @ 06:47

See the article at List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States. It is the same source. And comments should be posted at Copyright problems and Copyright problems in addition to this talk page. Apparently, there was an Oversight ticket on this subject.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am requesting the US "markets" be removed from the list as this is a list for NORTH AMERICA and Nielsen doesn't control all of North America markets (or any of the US markets, IMO). -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  •  Work  • October 8, 2008 @ 04:04
 * Seconded -- while Nielsen controls the numbers and data, they do not set the boundaries of the "markets" -- that's the FCC's job. We have removed the sensitive data the last time we had problems, turning it into a mere list of coverage areas, but not only they've decided to copyvio that list, they decided to copyvio all of North America, even though Nielsen has nothing to do with Canada, Mexico, etc. This is lunacy. -- azumanga (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the US information, so that the copyright "blockade" template can be removed (which I also removed) and the information for Canada, Mexico and other North American areas outside the US and US Territories can be viewed. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • October 11, 2008 @ 06:23

←This one has not yet come up as current at WP:CP, but, as I said at 2008Olympian's talk page, I would have been at a loss how to handle it anyway when it did. When the Nielsen demand came in, it caused a bit of an uproar at AN (as some of you know because you were there; I was not. I noted it in passing.) The decision was made by our official lawyer to comply with a letter of complaint from Nielson. (As I'm reviewing that AN section, I find that I was mistaken myself in thinking it was a DMCA takedown notice; it was not, though routinely described that way, but Mike chose to handle it as though it was for CYA concerns. This is sensible, as DMCA only covers certain kinds of internet service providers, and our right to shelter under it has been challenged before.) A bunch of people were confused as to what specifically we are not to incorporate and asked for specifics. User:Swatjester said, "For privacy reasons we cannot. OTRS tickets are emails to the foundation, and for privacy reasons, we don't disclose the contents of emails people send to the foundation. I understand that makes things difficult, but tickets are meant to be private; legal tickets even more so. If someone from the foundation wants to agree to disclose the contents, that's one thing, but for a volunteer to do so is inappropriate." Trying to provide his own guidance, Lawyer Mike said, "My own view is that the community should look at the information in question, try to make a guess as to what Nielsen thinks was wholesale copied from its content, and try to reproduce non-copyrighted information it can on restructured, retemplated pages." (These quotes, again, are copied from the AN link above and can be read with context there.) There's some conversation off-Wiki which might shed some light on what Nielsen is claiming, anyway, though it's hardly a reliable source: here. (It was submitted by "Anonymous Coward" :)) When I asked User:Jredmond for clarification with the also-challenged List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States, he suggested getting around the problem by using the Census Bureau's MSAs. My request for further clarification went unanswered. I had planned to write Mike to ask about it, but after I fully read the AN thread figured there would be no purpose. He had already spoken on the subject, and my previous correspondence with him would suggest that I'd be unlikely to get a more definitive response. (Not that I'm saying the guy is unhelpful or unfriendly; on the contrary. Rather, I suspect what he said there is all that he had to say.)

My sense, based on the non-response I got when I also asked two other admins involved in the first run and generally at WP:AN is that nobody really wants anything to do with this one. This is unfortunate, but it makes sense. Very few of us have any real authority in such matters, and the people who do have authority seem to be telling us to do our best to comply...and to figure out how to do that on our own. With respect to the section below this, in that same AN conversation, User:Kaldari noted that any Wikipedian who disagrees with Neilson's stance need only "send a counter-notice to the Wikimedia Foundation" who would be "then required by law to restore the deleted content." She/he said, "I've done this myself regarding bogus DMCA notices sent to Wikipedia and it's worked quite well. The only catch is that by sending the counter-notice you are assuming liability for any actual copyright infringements that are restored." In other words, if Neilson sues, it will sue the sender of that letter. Could they successfully? I surely don't know. Mike Godwin indicated at AN that he didn't know. Frankly, I couldn't afford to put my money there even if they lost the suit, as they have enough resources to financially cripple me long before I could (if I won) potentially compel repayment of my expenses.

So, here's what we have: Nielson said, "Don't use our stuff." We've been told to figure out what stuff they mean and get rid of it. As far as I can tell, unless somebody decides to "put their money where their mouth is" (to paraphrase Kalderi), we have no option but to try to guess where it applies and work around it. Once an article is tagged as a problem, we can't simply remove the tag and let it go without trying to figure it out, or we run a risk of malfeasance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The listing has now come current. As the Nielson data is no longer published here, this is no longer a copyright issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to attempt any kind of disregard for this policy, but would it be okay to link to them, on the Nielson website? They have a pdf of the new list at: http://www.nielsen.com/pdf/2008_09_DMA_Ranks.pdf  12.21.216.66 (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be absolutely okay to link to them, so long as they're published on the official Nielsen site. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well here's my opinion and since this is wikipedia, I defer to a higher authority to express that opinion: Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Founder, writer of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of Virginia, ambassador to France, Third President, and founder of the Democrat-Republican Party, said: "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


 * I submit we replace the word tyrants with corporations, and not spill blood, but Definitely Ignore anything Nielsen has to say in regards to DMAs. Yes Nielsen owns the statistical data (ratings/viewers), but not the division of the country into counties, cities, and markets.  Those are regulated by the United States' FCC and therefore public domain.


 * Nielsen cannot copyright the name of cities. Neither can anybody else.    Theaveng (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are we not linking to the PDF of the Nielsen ratings any more? The link was in place for a while, and seemingly removed for no reason. I understand that knowledge of which cities are in which areas can be proprietary information, but we're not repeating it, just telling readers how they can obtain the information provided freely by the owners of that information, Nielsen. 12.21.216.66 (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This DMA listing isn't current and is misleading. It's at least 3 years out of date.

This is public domain information, not a copyright violation
IANAL, but in my opinion, any claim by Nielsen to own the concept of television market areas and rankings (whether they are called "DMA"s or otherwise) is completely without merit. I offer the following as evidence:


 * 1. In 1972, the FCC published a list of the top 100 television markets, based on 1970 market data from Arbitron. By publishing it in the Federal Register, the Federal Government has asserted that this information is in the public domain; "everything that appears in the Federal Register may be reproduced without restriction." This list still exists as 47 CFR §76.51, in the public domain, free for anyone to copy. Though these particular rankings are 38 years old, the actual market definitions have been updated in the regulation a few times (by removing and adding cities to certain markets), and it demonstrates that such market definitions and rankings are in the public domain.
 * 2. In Veeck v. SBCCI, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that when a model building code is enacted in a jurisdiction as law, the organization which wrote that code could no longer assert copyright over that which has been enacted as law; by becoming law, such codes entered the public domain. Similarly, the Nielsen DMAs are incorporated by reference into Federal law and thus also must be in the public domain. From 47 CFR §76.55:
 * "(2) Effective January 1, 2000, a commercial broadcast television station's market, unless amended pursuant to §76.59, shall be defined as its Designated Market Area (DMA) as determined by Nielsen Media Research and published in its Nielsen Station Index Directory and Nielsen Station Index US Television Household Estimates or any successor publications."
 * 3. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), the Supreme Court held that the listings in a telephone book are not eligible for copyright protection, and rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. Simply because Nielsen expended a lot of effort to determine television markets and their rankings does not give them ownership in the facts of the market definitions and their rankings. Indeed, the United States Copyright Act, at 17 USC §102 states:
 * "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
 * The definitions and rankings of television markets are facts: they are ideas, systems, concepts, and/or discoveries, which with enough work and research can be independently determined by anyone else (as demonstrated by simple thought experiments, such as here or here), and so they are not creative expression which would be eligible for copyright. Add the fact that market definitions and rankings must be known in order to comply with federal law, and it ought to be an open-and-shut case that Nielsen should have no hope of ever prevailing in a copyright claim on this data.

It's even more absurd that the templates of television stations within each market had been deleted. These lists were independently compiled by Wikipedia editors from a variety of sources, and the only thing that had anything to do with Nielsen in these templates is the little rank designation in parentheses. An equivalent scenario would be that if AFI were to assert copyright in AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies, our response would then be to delete the Citizen Kane article along with all 99 other movie articles, because they each happen to mention their ranking on AFI's list. Totally absurd. The missing templates and all templates' edit histories ought to be restored, to give credit where credit is due, to Wikipedia's editors who did the research. A lot of the stations that were on those templates are probably not even tracked by Nielsen, e.g. most low-power stations and many regional cable networks. DHowell (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1970 Arbitron rankings? Seriously?
40-year-old data to provide rankings? Say it ain't so, Joe. An example of how out-of-date it is: in 1970, Buffalo NY is #24, Syracuse NY is #35, Phoenix AZ is #43, San Diego CA is #51, Rochester NY is #56, Raleigh-Durham NC is #73, Albuquerque NM is #81, and Las Vegas NV isn't even listed in the top 100. In 2008, Buffalo is #51, Syracuse is #81, Phoenix is #12, San Diego is #28, Rochester is #80, Raleigh-Durham is #27, Albuquerque is #44, and Las Vegas is #42.

The metropolitan area rankings would be much more accurate, and much safer from a copyright position. And has anyone thought that the source of the problem might be the fact that this very list is called a list "by media market"? Since we're not using media market for Canada anyway, how about a change to "List of television stations in North America by population center"? Or "metropolitan area"? Or similar? dhett (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head! If anyone can come up with a better ranking, please do so! Census areas, for example? Austin, Texas isn't even on the list! --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to do the legwork, maybe we could rank them by the size of the cities or metro areas. Except for a few (geographically) large markets (like the Boston-and-New-Hampshire market, or the ones in the Midwest with repeaters that cover whole states), this might work, and they probably won't be very different from the actual market sizes. ZanderSchubert (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the info is out-of-date, but I added it because it does have the important advantage of being unambiguously public domain. It comes directly from the Federal Register, and therefore by Federal law cannot be under any copyright. No matter what Nielsen may be claiming (and we don't know exactly what they claim because the Foundation won't reveal the contents of their notice for dubious "privacy" reasons), they don't own the concept of television markets. Even if such a concept could be "owned", Arbitron came up with the "ADI" (Area of Dominant Influence) long before Nielsen came up with the "DMA" (Designated Market Area), so Arbitron would have more of a valid claim. However, Arbitron stopped tracking TV markets in the 1990s, so Nielsen is really the only one left tracking TV markets. Everyone else in the business sources Nielsen. But, as I argued above, television markets are facts, not creative expression. Nielsen doesn't just arbitrarily draw lines on a map to come up with DMAs, they do extensive research to determine the facts of which TV stations are watched in which areas. That extensive research may be a lot of "sweat of the brow", but it doesn't create copyright in those facts.
 * Unfortunatley, neither "population centers" nor "metropolitan areas" will be accurate in ranking TV viewing areas, unless we start engaging in extensive original resesarch. If we try to use Metropolitan Statistical Areas, we find, for example that we can't separate out the Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA MSA, because everyone in that region gets the TV stations from Los Angeles. We'd have to combine these two MSAs. We might then think to use Combined Statistical Areas, but then we have the opposite problem: The Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA covers two entirely separate television markets. DHowell (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We could use a more updated way of rating the markets and independent of Nielsen and the 1970s Aribitron list. User:TripEricson uses Census data for this system to break down "market" boundaries on his site rabbitears.info.  This would include all 211 Nielsen markets broken down into 259 markets using Trip's system.  It would be different, but it would be independent.  Give it a shot? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • October 19, 2008 @ 12:08


 * To address specifically the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario issue, we can still refer to a separate Inland Empire MSA, but redirect its template to the Los Angeles one. I think the RabbitEars.info market map works pretty well also.  dhett (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rabbitears data - Consensus or not?
FOR - 2 AGAINST - 3

Based on the markets given at rabbitears.info, I've worked out which of their markets relate to which Wikipedia TV template (and Nielsen market). The table is here. ZanderSchubert (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Considering that nothing has been done about this, I've decided to replace the old market listing with the RabbitEars info. If anyone is against this, please feel free to revert it. ZanderSchubert (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I am all for using RabbitEars info. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 17, 2008 @ 02:26
 * DENY - The Federal Communications Commission uses Nielsen's markets (example: Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-Lebanon) to subdivide the country into regions. So too does Dish and Directv.  So too does the U.S. court system when deciding which local channels will be supplied to customers who order "local service" via the aforementioned dish companies (the judge ruled that I should get the H-Y-L-L Nielsen DMA, not the Philadelphia DMA, even though I live closer to Philly than Harrisburg).   Ditto the media when they announce Philly is the 4th largest market.   They all use Nielsen's data.   To divide markets into regions that correspond to..... well, basically nothing, makes no sense.    Theaveng (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - The RabbitEars info is better then what we use now. Powergate92   Talk  19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * RabbitEars doesn't even list my home market (Lancaster) or my neighboring market (York). It's not "better" if it's not complete and excludes whole cities!  At least the FCC/Nielsen DMA information was complete.      Theaveng (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, it's called Harrisburg. Lancaster does not have its own television market.  dhett (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dhett is correct, Lancaster and York are part of the Harrisburg market on Rabbitears. We are not allowed to use Nielsen information per an OTRS ticket. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 18, 2008 @ 23:53
 * It's pretty obvious that Lancaster/York were Not included as part of Harrisburg.     Nielsen ranks that DMA as # 41 in population, but rabbitears only ranks it as # 63, because rabbitears is ignoring two major cities (york. lancaster).    I will not support a listing that pretends me & my neighbors don't exist.    Theaveng (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the Harrisburg market explicitly includes Lancaster and York. Secondly, the reason why the market sizes are different are because the two systems count viewers differently: Nielsen counts households, RabbitEars counts population. Thirdly, because we cannot legally use contemporary markets, it's choice between RabbitEars markets or Nielsen markets from 1970: if you want Nielsen markets back, and don't want the incomplete almost-40-year-old market data we've been stuck with (I'm sure you don't), go to someone who deals directly with the copyright problem with the Nielsen Company; complaining about it here isn't going to help. ZanderSchubert (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who do I talk to? People keep claiming we're not allowed to use Nielsen's DMA data, but nobody's provided any proof.    *I* argue that since the FCC uses TMAs (television market areas) we should be able to use their data.  It's public domain.  More importantly, it's accurate.    Theaveng (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing I'm curious about is Rabbitears' rationale for its territories and rankings. One thng that strikes me odd is that two Canadian markets, London ON and Sherbrooke, also "cover" parts of the US in their market territory. -- azumanga (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the user who created Rabbitears used census information to create his territories and rankings. You would have to ask User:TripEricson (the creator of Rabbitears) about it. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 19, 2008 @ 23:11
 * He uses the last official census from 2000. I pointed out to him that by doing so, he was missing nearly 20% of the Phoenix "market", but those were the best numbers he could consistently come up with.  The 20% figure came from 2007 estimates vs 2000 census, although the estimates really aren't reliable.  dhett (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "rabbitears is missing nearly 20% of the Phoenix market"  Why are we using data that is KNOWN to be bad and incomplete?   It makes no sense.   Next I suppose the wikipedia math article will say 2+2= 3.95 because "those were the best numbers we could come up with".    We shouldn't be using data we know is flawed.    Theaveng (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth isn't the standard for Wikipedia, verifiability is. The Rabbitears.info data is using verifiable data, while the estimate that produced the additional 20% isn't.  As I don't imagine you're familiar with the Phoenix area, the missing people aren't due to an incomplete list of communities; the communities used in both figures are the same.  They just have grown that much in population from 2000 - 2007.  dhett (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The FCC Data is more verifiable than some rabbitears user blog. It's also public domain (you don't need to seek permission).   Theaveng (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to take this rabbitears data down... it's completely inaccurate. All the medium markets are waaayy off. 66.0.131.50 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a vote against rabbitears.   Theaveng (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just mis-information that's up there now! See: http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp Revzzz (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's another vote against rabbitears.   Theaveng (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trouble is that we can't use the info in that link because it came from Nielsen, according to the credits in that article. -- azumanga (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed "tally", we don't vote, we make consensus. Tallys are for votes, we don't vote. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 22, 2008 @ 08:11
 * Restating from above, consensus is not a vote, especially in terms of COPYVIO. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, however User Emarsee falsely claimed that we have consensus. We do not.  Theaveng (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only registered user on the page who refuses to accept that we can't use this information if it is a copyright violation, which consensus says it is. If it's against the policy and a copyright violation, it won't go here regardless of discussion, consensus, or anything else. Dayewalker (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My only comment to that is to quote an Administrator: "In cases such as these, imagine if the edits were made by an established user or admin. Would you still question their quality? I know it's easy to sometimes automatically take IP edits as unconstructive, particularly if they've been a problem IP before, I've done it as well. It's important to remember that we may have a tendency to do that, and take a moment to consider if we're questioning the edit or the editor."  لenna  vecia  15:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)   (This is copied from her talk page.)     -   -   Just because an "against" vote comes from an IP user does not mean you should dismiss it.   Theaveng (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Again, this is not a vote. I mentioned "registered user" because the IP made one edit to this page and does not seem to be seeking to make a case for consensus. In any case, the IP's "vote" doesn't matter because this is not a vote. Dayewalker (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand anything Jennvecia said, did you? She was specifically saying we should NOT dismiss people simply because they are un-registered users.    Theaveng (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Okay, that's enough evidence that you're not listening. I'll sum up, policy tops consensus, which is not a vote in any case. If you have a problem with the website currently being used as a source, make your case here. However, unless you can convince everyone involved that your information is not the exact same information prohibited from use on this page as a COPYVIO, it will not be allowed on this page no matter how many editors vote to keep it. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because a company CLAIMS copyright does NOT make it a valid claim
Just because a company CLAIMs to have a copyright does not mean they do. Toyota recently sent notices to a website to remove wallpaper images of cars (uploaded by users/fans of Toyota). The lawyer behind the website refused, because he said Toyota does not own copyright to photos of cars. The same applies in the case of Nielsen. DMAs are the property of the U.S. FCC - Nielsen, like Toyota, is making an invalid claim. - Theaveng (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Where's this so-called "copyright ticket"?  I keep hearing people talk about it, but I don't see it anywhere.   I'd like to read it for myself.     Theaveng (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The ticket is stored on the Wikimedia email system and can only be accessed by a select group of persons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ZScout is correct. OTRS tickets are only viewable by a select few and if they wish not to tell us what it says (like in this case) they can (and have).  Let it go, Dude. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 19, 2008 @ 23:11


 * Whether or not you agree with it, this list and the market templates were forcibly removed under the covering of Wikipedia policy. Policy is always at least as stringent as the law, and usually is moreso.  Just because a company CLAIMs to have a copyright was enough for action to be required on our part, even though just about everyone questioned Nielsen's claim.  You're beating a dead horse.  There is clear consensus that the Nielsen information is not to be used.  dhett (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is consensus, how come no one can provide a link to that consensus?  It should be viewable to everyone, not hidden behind closed doors.  For all we know, there never was a consensus (just as there were never WMDs in Iraq).    Theaveng (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This discussion is the consensus.  This isn't a vote.  Everyone else who has weighed in on the topic is willing to abide by the takedown even though they don't necessarily like it.  You're the only one who cannot understand that the FCC Nielsen markets are gone for good.  dhett (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the discussion that says "Nielsen claims copyright violations" and "We reach consensus not to use any of their data". Where did THAT discussion happen?  Well as it turns-out, that discussion is closed and not viewable to any of else.  Doing things behind closed doors is not how an open encyclopedia like wiki should work (IMHO).   Theaveng (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Television Marketing Areas is the FCC term
We can use TMA in the article as it is the official term used by the FCC. It is public domain. Theaveng (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)  - - I have updated the article to remove all references to Nielsen, and used the U.S. Government's Federal Communications Commissions' TMAs. This is public domain information and not copyrighted by anyone. More importantly, it's accurate and has the force of law backing it. Theaveng (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, due to the history of this article, this change must be discussed and receive consensus here or at a project discussion page before it's changed. Thank you for the bold change, but it's time for discussion before it's changed again. —C.Fred (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, we must make sure that any information doesn't fall under OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. Which is what I have been trying to explain for 45 minutes to no avail. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 20, 2008 @ 12:37
 * Which is my point: because of the OTRS ticket, this issue must be discussed for wider consensus. We're past the bold part of the WP:BRD cycle, and it's long-since been time for discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't want copyright violations, but the data I'm providing is FCC data. Therefore public domain.  (Everything the U.S.Government prints is public domain.)     I'm not even using the copyrighted terminology "DMA" but instead using the FCC's terminology of Television Market Area.   Theaveng (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But the information you are providing is in the exact same order as the Nielsen information. You can tell betwee the two, which would fall under OTRS.  With the Rabbitears information it is easy to tell which is which. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 20, 2008 @ 12:48
 * Well if it bothers you that much, don't rank them. Just list the FCC's television market data alphabetically.  IMHO 2007 data from the U.S. government regulators is preferable to data hacked-together by some blogger back in 2000.    Theaveng (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We tried that before with an alphabetised, unranked list -- it got flagged with a copyvio anyway. -- azumanga (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything that looks even remotely like Nielsen data, will be flagged as copyvio. Right now, the RabbitEars information is the best alternative we have and I think a good one. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 21, 2008 @ 09:49
 * Rabbit Ears "looks like" Nielsen information too, so it's still likely to be flagged. Just because something has been flagged does Not mean it's a copyright violation.  The FCC DATA I provided is not copyrighted.  (How many times do I have to keep repeating the obvious?)   Nothing the government creates is copyrighted; it's all public domain.     Theaveng (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:(How many times do I have to keep repeating the obvious?)  Nothing the government creates is copyrighted; it's all public domain. -- We believe you; try telling that to the superiors that hold the ticket. So far, all the reasoning presented here has fallen on deaf ears. Even stressing that it is public domain and is part of federal documentation has been for nought. -- azumanga (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Rabbit Ears does not look like Nielsen information. The data behind the rankings is clearly sourced to 2000 Census data, so Nielsen can't touch it.  Also, I looked up the FCC reference for TMAs and nowhere can I find where they print out what the TMAs are.  Instead, I see references to the 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 Nielsen lists, meaning that the "Federal government printed it; it must be public domain" argument doesn't apply.  If there is somewhere else where an FCC document actually lists the market rankings without citing Nielsen Research data, please supply a link; I would be happy to revise my position given good enough reason.  I don't like this any more than you do; I think Nielsen is being incredibly petty.  dhett (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "has fallen on deaf ears" - So you claim. I see no evidence that the superiors object to the usage of *FCC* data.  I see them objecting to Nielsen, which is understandable, but I have seen nothing to indicate FCC data is verboten.  [edit]  [If FCC data is verboten, then we'll have to erase half the radio/television-related articles.]      I don't how you can say the FCC data is unsourced?  47 CFR § 76.51: lists the Top 100 markets explicitly.  And my college tv studio has a book, acquired from the FCC, which lists the remaining markets.   There are also lists of markets available from places like Dish or DirecTV that list the TMAs (as provided to them by the FCC).   This data is available all kinds of places and available upon request from the FCC.     Theaveng (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * With your continued edit-warring, and now blanking of the page, all you are doing is stooping to the level of the common vandal, I am sorry to say. When you do that, no one is going to listen to you.  You are putting up Nielsen data in direct violation to the OTRS ticket.  Everyone has accepted that (whether they want to or not), expect for you.  Two admin (C.Fred and Pedro) have told you to stop, you haven't.  Stop now before you are blocked. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 22, 2008 @ 08:15


 * No comment. I'm not getting sucked into another debate with you.  My edits are "good faith" edits for what I believe to be Public Domain data from the U.S. Government (of, by, and for the people).  And no I did not "blank the page" as you falsely stated.     Theaveng (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (un-dent) - You can "not comment" all you want. Your edits are verging on vandalism.  I have brought them to the appropriate admin board for comment and will let the admins decide this one.  But if you continue, your edits won't mean diddly, as you won't be listened to. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 22, 2008 @ 08:24
 * Removing 12,000+ words of information is just about the same as blanking the page. Could have said "removed 12,000+ words", but you essentially blanked the page.  You need to accept your information is copyright of Nielsen and let it go or you are going to get blocked, dude.  I can't say that enough. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 22, 2008 @ 08:32
 * If there is any chance of this being a COPYVIO, it shouldn't be on this page. Since this involves COPYVIO, which is a very serious matter, I'd strongly suggest leaving this out until there is a clear consensus and admin approval to reinsert the information. Dayewalker (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The information trying to be added is from Nielsen, which they have a OTRS ticket saying they don't want any of their information used, and Wiki was purged of a couple months ago. The information on there right now is from a website called RabbitEars and is owned by (with the OK to use) User:TripEricson. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 22, 2008 @ 08:38
 * Incorrect. I reverted to FCC changes that I acquired from the U.S. Federal Code, which is public domain, and has nothing to do with any corporation or copyright.    Sorry to "bold" but in my experience with students, sometimes that's what it takes to get their attention.    RabbitEars on the other hand is just some user blog.  The former source is superior to the latter.   Theaveng (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One, I am not a "student", thanks. Two, RabbitEars is not a blog, it is an actual website.  The information you are adding is identical to Nielsen data.  It doesn't matter where it came from.  If it looks the same, it's the same.  Everyone has excepted that but you.  RabbitEars is data away from all government and Nielsen data and that is what we are looking for....an alternative.  Third, please pick a header and stick with it.  Jumping all over the page is confusing enough. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 22, 2008 @ 09:11
 * I'll admit Rabbitears is an alternative, but it's not a good one. Why use a third-level source when you can use a primary source like the U.S. Federal Code and FCC Data?   Theaveng (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) First, the actual FCC term is simply "television market." Second, I notice that the data on the page is not an exact duplication from the FCC site. For example, the FCC does not have Abilene but the article does. The FCC has Fargo-Valley City and the article has Fargo-Grand Forks. Where did these, and there may be others come from? There is claim that this material is from Nielsen. However the FCC data is explicitly public domain. The CFR referenced here does not show that the material copyrighted by anyone else. Nielsen may simply be using FCC data. Absent a contrary ruling from the Wikimedia OFFICE. I think it can be included. Please use caution here. Be aware of edit waring and don't cross the line. I'll be around if needed. JodyBtalk 13:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of top 100 TV markets in 47 CFR 76.51 is the 1970 Arbitron list that DHowell provided. While better than nothing and clearly public domain, it is not current, nor is it complete, as it leaves out markets that are now in the top 50, such as Las Vegas. The RabbitEars.info ranking is easily superior to what is in the FCC docs. dhett (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I should chime in here, as the one who originally put in the top 100 markets from 1970. In my opinion, neither the old FCC info nor the rabbitears info is ideal, because it is not accurate according to what everyone in the industry considers to be TV markets, and that is the Nielsen markets. Unfortunately, we are in a catch-22 situation, because we can't use the Nielsen markets due to copyright claims which Wikimedia is unwilling to challenge, but the only other information available does not accurately reflect reality. The rabbitears.info list, as useful as it is, relies on a self-published source, and thus is not necessarily reliable and possibly violates verifiability policy, though it may be the best we can do. This is certainly a strong case of where we must ignore certain rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. Another possibility, though possibly bordering on synthesized original research, would be to come up with our own list based on census data and television station information (but it can certainly be argued that it is not synthesis if it doesn't "advance a position"). If it happens to look more like the Nielsen list, so be it (that means its more accurate!), but if we can prove that we did our own research based on information and data that didn't come from Nielsen, we ought to be able to overcome any copyright claims. For a long time, Arbitron and Nielsen both tracked TV markets, and while their data was different in certain details, they were also very similar. And I don't recall Arbirton and Nielsen ever suing each other over copyright violations. Until we can figure out how to generate this list, however, the rabbitears list is probably the best we can do under the circumstances. I have some ideas, but I'll probably work on them in my userspace before bringing them here. DHowell (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Concerns and Accuracy of Markets
I know I'm late to the party, but I hadn't realized there was this huge discussion here.

I grant permission for use of these listings on Wikipedia. I saw something on one of the copyright policy pages about posting on the talk page giving permission to use such material to prevent too many issues with deletions and whatnot. Of course, my data is based on census data and actual coverage, so I'm not sure how much claim I have to any copyrights, but just in case, there you go.

My data's not great but it's better than getting sued. I'm using census data plus an automated process and manual tweaking (which admittedly needs a lot more work) to put my rankings together. I'm aware of problems with how the data's being handled but there's not a whole lot I can do given time constraints due to school and the impending transition sucking up what time I have left. I do plan to fix the rankings to make them more accurate once I have some more free time, but as it stands, they get the job done. TripEricson (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Current List of DMAs on FCC website (public domain)
Because all documents the U.S. Government publishes are public domain, we may use this document as reference and dump the inaccurate rabbitears information. Instead we shall use the information provided by the Federal Communications Commission (official markets): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-221A5.pdf     Theaveng (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How many times do we have to go over this? That is essentially word-for-word, name-for-name the exact same list that Nielsen uses.  Using that list will get all of our templates pulled down again and hours of work trashed.  Not happening...you have been told this and yet you continue to add information you have been told will be removed.  This is tantamount to vandalism and it needs to stop. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 13, 2009 @ 05:11
 * Further, the list is Nielsen's list, so it isn't the government's to put into the public domain. —C.Fred (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm by no means a lawyer, but once something is put in the public domain by the government, it's irrevocable I think. Can someone explain the significance of the ordering of the channels (since that seems to be the focus of the dispute) and what the contents of the OTRS ticket is? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Locke, on the contents of the OTRS ticket, your guess is as good as mine. They would never say exactly what the contents were.  They kept that one pretty close to the vest.
 * As for the other question, I think the users of WP:TVS wanted to stay as far away from anything that even remotely looked like Nielsen data, so as not to risk another OTRS ticket and wipe out an entire set of remade templates. Hope that helps...<small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 13, 2009 @ 05:45
 * You know, I don't like avoiding the Nielsen rankings any more than you do, but do you have to slander my website? I'm doing the best I can.  I go out of my way to ensure my site is accurate and verifiable.
 * When this issue popped up, I consulted the professor who taught the intellectual property class I was taking and he advised me to pull the Nielsen data as quickly as possible. I don't get what your endgame is here, do you want Wikipedia sued and/or the countless hours of work redoing Wikipedia's listings deleted again?  TripEricson (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are addressing me, I have nothing against your website...personally I think it is better than Nielsen data and more localized. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 14, 2009 @ 01:20
 * No, you're fine, I'm talking to the person who said "dump the inaccurate rabbitears information" and repeatedly trashed my site in the discussion a few months back. I'd have hoped he'd have at least observed that it's not just "some blog."  TripEricson (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, good, just making sure. :) As for the other guy, I personally wouldn't worry about him.  He seems to be in the extreme minority when it comes to the listings. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 14, 2009 @ 01:50


 * I'm not insulting either you or your rabbitears website. It's a fine site but it has one fatal flaw - it's not used by the FCC, the TV stations, the cable channels, the central network offices, nor the advertisers.  They all use the official DMA markets which is what I think we should be using.  We should use the exact-same data as the U.S. Government's FCC branch uses and has published in their documents.   Theaveng (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see at the top of this page there is a OTRS ticket that says we can't use the DMA because it is "Nielsen copyrighted data". Powergate92   Talk  17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I asked on my own talk page, since the FCC is publishing Nielsen DMA information, could Nielsen sue the FCC for copyright infringement? And more importantly, would Nielsen win the case?    Theaveng (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't the point and you know it. You are adding copyrighted information to pages after being repeatedly asked not you.  If you continue, you will be blocked.  Follow that rule now. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • April 18, 2009 @ 20:45
 * If you don't know the answer to the question (Can Nielsen sue FCC for copyrigt infringement), then just say so.  Theaveng (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant to the conversation. Nielsen has granted the FCC permission to use the DMA rankings for their internal matters.  That is not a blanket license for anyone and everyone to use it, noted by the fact that they've threatened Wikipedia with a lawsuit. Whether or not they're legally correct is irrelevant, Wikipedia has decided they do not want to spend the money defending this in court. TripEricson (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)OTRS is way beyond me, all I know is that I don't want to cross an OTRS decision. If Aveng had come to the talk page and presented his evidence, this might have turned out differently. However, edit warring doesn't get the changes made. I'd suggest that as I said to Aveng, if someone has data they want on the page that could in any way cross the decision, they bring it to the talk page and gain consensus. Then, someone in the know can check that against the OTRS ticket so there's no confusion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to the DMAs?
An IP editor added language to the article including that our source groupings are not accepted by any television organization. I've deleted that. I also deleted the link he left to http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp. That is not a Nielsen site but shows the Nielsen markets listed by size, with credit. Is it within the bounds of WP:EL to link to that? —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

RabbitEars Rank Update
I've finally gotten together with my programmer and we figured out a rather large problem with my site's ranking algorithm. At some point in the near future, the rankings will be rerun and recalculated which should make them A LOT more accurate. Now I'm not sure who collected the data to put here in the first place, but it'll likely have to be redone. If there's something I can do to make it easier to load in, let me know and I'll try my best. TripEricson (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, the new ranking system is now in place, but I want to tweak it somewhat before the new ranks are put into effect. I'll post here again when I think it's in a good position. TripEricson (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, I just have gotten bogged down with school again and have been unable to finish the work on it. It might be mid-May before I get this sorted out, but at that time, I'm going to introduce code in the site to generate Wikicode I think, which should make listings generation a lot easier.  It'll be an interesting little project. TripEricson (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Trip's partial updates (as of about the 9th), I've redone the listings, and you can find them here. I haven't put them on the actual page yet as we'll end up losing a few market templates (such as Lafayette, Indiana) and I'm not sure how I should list them. ZanderSchubert (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eeek, you didn't really have to do that. It's a work in progress and I was going to announce it once finished, but this would have saved you a lot of time and effort.  Actually, I think I already linked it on the WikiProject TV stations page.
 * Lafayette IN and Lake Charles LA are the two markets which I know I've deleted that have market templates on Wikipedia. It just didn't make sense to keep them as markets to me.  TripEricson (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is linking to fcc.gov forbidden?
I've tried a couple times to provide a link to a U.S. Government website, fcc.gov, but everytime it has been removed. Why? I'm not looking for an opinion. I'm looking for a recitation of the wiki-rule that forbids linking to external government websites, so I can read the rule for myself. Thank you. :-)   Theaveng (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody can actually read the OTRS ticket (I'm not clear on why) but everyone is playing it safe and ignoring the DMA system completely so that half the project doesn't get deleted again. We don't know what the OTRS ticket does and does not cover. TripEricson (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts the black-room, secretive ticket says "Linking to FCC.gov is verborten".   That wouldn't make any sense considering wikipedia encourages links to external sites as references.   Theaveng (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since nobody can provide a reason not to link to a U.S. government website, and can cite no rule that forbids that practice, I'm going to go-ahead and do it.     Nielsen has a right to control their copyrighted information.  They do NOT have a right to control the People's government or block access to same.    Theaveng (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been warned and versed on why you can not add this information. You refuse to listen and you have been warned and will soon be blocked. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not locate ANY rule that forbids a wiki-article from linking to fcc.gov for citation purposes. And I have asked you to provide such a rule so I might review it, and you cannot provide a link to said rule either.   You are arbitrarily forbidding the practice of citing sources w/o justification.  Theaveng (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called an OTRS ticket which has been issued by Nielsen to Wikipedia to remove all Nielsen data or anything that looks like Nielsen data from Wikipedia....which would be this information. That is the justification.  You have been told this probably a dozen or more times now and for some reason you don't seem to be getting it.  You are looking at a very long block if you keep it up. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 15:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see all kinds of warnings to Theaveng, but I do not see a statement by someone with access to OTRS stating exactly what is forbidden, or what Nielson said to Wikipedia. Why is their letter to us a secret? Is it actually illegal to link to  the Code of Federal Regulations, 47CFR76.51 in Wikipedia because Nielson owns a copyright on the material therein? That seems like a pretty extreme position. If Wikipedia can't link to it then presumably no one else can. Edison (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is pretty silly, I agree, but since nobody will give us an answer, the best thing to do is err on the side of caution lest we risk having half the TV Project deleted again. TripEricson (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what happened this time to get everything taken down? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the U.S. Government Printing Office site, which posts federal regulations, in particular 47cfr76.51. Is a private company claiming that they "own" this part of the Code of Federal Regulations, and that no one may post a link to it?? I see no copyright notice in Title 47 of the CFR. Are other portions of the CFR owned by other private companies or individuals? I really want to know what the language of the prohibition is, and on what basis it was granted by Wikipedia to the Nielson company. Edison (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That list is massively outdated. I want to say that list is from 1970, but I'm not certain; I just know that it's definitely outdated.  Las Vegas isn't even on the list, while it's now around #50. TripEricson (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

These Rankings are all messed up
This isn't making any sense. Two weeks ago the Tampa market was number 13, now its 19 and on the .2 Network article, its number 16. Whats up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.129.78 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so this page had an old version of the rankings on it. I just replaced it with what should be up to date. TripEricson (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a new list of U.S. media markets
Nielsen does have an updated list of the media markets for the 2009-2010 TV season. I was able to access the PDF file of it through a forum that is a spin-off of a website called the506, which is a personal site of a man from New Brunswick named J.P. Kirby. Most of his site visits are to access the latest coverage maps for National Football League games. The link is designed to supplement the NFL coverage information.

I sincerely hope that the FCC, Nielsen, and Wikipedia will be able to resolve this issue so that I can link to the PDF. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitron Rankings
Can somebody post the markets defined by the now-defunct Arbitron ADI's? Don't rank them according to their out-of-date rankings, just give the markets alphabetically. 208.100.200.59 (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian DMAs up-to-date?
Can anyone provide an up-to-date list of Canadian DMAs? I'm not sure if the list of the provincial DMAs is up-to-date and I can't find a current list anywhere. --75.172.17.30 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this a list of stations?
This page is a list of markets. There are no stations listed on it. List of United States television markets has a list of stations by market, at least for the United States. Wouldn't it make more sense for the data on that page to be here and vice versa? Also, why are the markets text linked to templates? None of those template pages provide any useful information to readers. Wouldn't it make more sense to link to the cities themselves? &mdash; ACupOfCoffee@ 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of television stations in North America by media market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316014335/http://research.backchannelmedia.com/ to http://research.backchannelmedia.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305141623/http://www.svgbc.com/svgtv.com/ to http://www.svgbc.com/svgtv.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The DMA Chart should be restored
A few months ago this article contained a chart that broke down the markets, their stations, and affiliates in a helpful and easy to understand chart. By removing it and replacing it with links to individual lists (that are not mobile friendly), Wikipedia has added additional layers and steps to what was a very user-friendly, one-stop-shop resource for exploring the markets and their stations. Please restore it. 71.29.181.199 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Better wiki links needed
Why are the cities/markets listed here linking to Template pages? The information for the television stations in the market is great, but I'm not sure that follows Wikipedia best practices. There should either be individual DMA/TMA pages that these link to; a media page for the specific city/market, if available; or they should link to the appropriate metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or combined statistical area (CSA). (i.e., Media in New York City, New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ MSA, or New York–Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA) Playhouse76 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)