Talk:Paramount Television Network

Suggestions for improvement
I went through and made some changes, and have a few suggestions for further improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The lead only goes until 1995, another statement about the last paragraph would better summarize the article.
 * Why did FCC prevent PTN from acquiring additional stations?
 * Because they didn't trust Paramount, a company which had violated many anti-monopoly laws in the 1920s-1940s. I've attempted to explain this in the text, because if it confuses you, it probably needs clarification. I can reword as needed. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was clarified in the article, but I figure it would be better to also include a few more details within the lead as well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. This is why it's useful having people read these articles for clarity. I've read the material so many times that the facts are burned in my head, and I miss things that aren't obvious to the reader. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Origins
 * Explain "big five".
 * Thank you. I've wikilinked this; is a more detailed explanation needed? Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That works for me. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FCC acronym is mentioned without full title (introduced in the lead, but assume that readers may skip the opening paragraphs).
 * Thanks. I've added this to the body. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Relations between Paramount and DuMont were strained..." Need to specify if this is between the company or Dr. DuMont.
 * Both, really, but I've modified it to "DuMont staff", which would include Dr. DuMont. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Dr. DuMont claimed that the original 1937 acquisition proposal required that Paramount would expand its television interests "through DuMont"." Since this is a quotation, it would be helpful to have a citation directly follow the statement.
 * Done; although this is a duplicate citation, I don't think you are the first person to request this, so I will acquiesce. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Programs
 * Could the list be converted to prose? Since it is just a partial list, some of them could be grouped together by type. Others could have further explanation.
 * If not converted to prose, why do some of the citations follow the title, while others are at the end of the statements?
 * The idea was that the names of these series would possibly be challenged, or the fact that they were Paramount Television Network series would be challenged; I included citations for other material that seemed likely to be challenged, but not for hum-drum things like "this was a charades game". But since it is confusing to you, it will be confusing to others. I'll rework this section tomorrow. Thanks for pointing this out. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This may take longer than I thought. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should now be clearer that the first citation cites the name of the series and the fact that it aired on Paramount's network, while subsequent citations cover the explanatory text. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Staff
 * With your knowledge of the topic, is Paul Raibourn likely to ever become an article? Otherwise I don't think you need the one red link in the article for it.
 * He was the president of the PTN. Many books on television history discuss him. I never created an article because none of the material exactly paints him in a very nice light ("the coldest man I ever met", according to Bergmann, and that's the kindest printed word). But he was definitely as notable and disliked as Paramount VP Klaus Landsberg, who, it is claimed in Kisselof's book, gave his TV station staff cancer. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Raibourn trimmed DuMont's budgets at a time when the network should have been expanding." This should have a citation directly afterwards, other wise it looks like OR.
 * Do you really want three citations to the same source in a row? I tend not to duplicate citations, but will add it if you think it is best. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since an article can constantly change and statements move back and forth, it's best to cite everything. A new editor could add a statement in between the two sentences and we'd have no idea which citation supports which statement (well, experienced editors could go back in the page history, but this could take a while). If it's an issue of being the same citation, perhaps another source could be used, or the sentences shuffled around/combined. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited, to Auter and Boyd, and also Goldenson's book. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Affiliates
 * Consider uploading File:Paramount Television Network.png to Wikimedia Commons so other language Wikipedias can benefit from it.
 * I'll definitely consider it, but even DuMont, which is much better known than the PTN, has almost no interlanguage articles. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You never know, I've seen some obscure articles on here go on to other language Wikipedias. In addition, if this makes FA, there might be some interest to create it elsewhere. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Points taken. I'll upload it to Commons tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the image to Commons. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a few two-sentence paragraphs in this section. To improve the flow of the article, these should either be expanded or incorporated into other paragraphs.
 * Thanks. I've merged one and am thinking about the possibilities for expansion on the other.
 * David moved the other sentence; it's now combined in another paragraph. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does "WABD" not have any series listed?
 * Because it didn't air any Paramount programs. I speculate that this was possibly DuMont's revenge for KTLA not airing DuMont programs, but that can't actually be sourced. Paramount programs did air in New York City, just not on WABD. WABD was already broadcasting 200 original DuMont series during this era. WABD is listed in the affiliate table only for the sake of completion: because the FCC ruled it as part of Paramount. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a note could be added to the paragraph before the table stating this. Otherwise someone might think a vandal went in there and deleted a series or something. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't cite an absence here. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * End
 * Is there a better heading title besides "End" that could be used?
 * I've changed the heading title, and am open to alternate suggestions. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still seems kind of plain, but keep an eye on it and maybe something else will pop up. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "another exception, Hollywood Reel, aired in Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Omaha, Pittsburgh, Rochester, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Syracuse, and Washington, D.C., in 1950" Instead of the long list, can we just say over ten markets including maybe three of the cities?
 * Thanks. I've reworded. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Any known reason why American Vitamin Corporation pulled its sponsorship?
 * The source states the company was readjusting its sponsorship schedule, which I don't think deserves mention here. I did add the fact that they were paying $25,000 per week for the two series; hopefully, that is useful.
 * I figure that if we're going to mention the pulling of the sponsorship, there should be an explanation why. This could also be because it's the first sentence of the paragraph, which seems to indicate it was pretty important. If you don't want to mention why, maybe consider moving the sentence somewhere in the middle of the paragraph. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was particularly helpful. I've moved it in, though still trying to keep the cancellations sequential, for the reader's sake. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughts and ideas for improvement, your copyedits and your questions. I'll continue making the improvements listed above, including a reworked "program" section, tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Austin, Minnesota?
The chart of affiliate stations lists Austin, Minnesota, as an affiliate, but the map provided does not show Austin, MN, but rather Austin, Texas. Is this a mistake in the list of affiliates? Davidgra (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake on the map. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll correct it ASAP. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paramount Television Network. 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/20110720095358/http://www.broadcasting101.ws/arizona_tv_sked-1951-1952.htm to http://www.broadcasting101.ws/arizona_tv_sked-1951-1952.htm

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) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)