Talk:Television channel

This list is of TV networks, not stations
At first I thought of moving the entire page to television network, but there is already an article there. We really need to have a list of television networks page, or perhaps one by country (as in the networks article) and one by network only (as in this stations article). –radiojon 23:28, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Massive problems
Please see my comments in Talk:Lists of television channels if you are interested in standardizing the various television station/channel pages.- dcljr 02:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

US centric
Article seems to be too centered on the United States... —Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   08:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cantus, all things applying to the US are marked as such, I do not see any problem with a US-centric view. Some of the article applies to europe and other countries, like the mention of PAL. If someone has information on other countries, he or she will add that information at a later date.  I beleive you are overthinking NPOV. --Mboverload 09:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you believe it's too US-centric, maybe you should take a shot at broadening it out. It's very clearly not in need of a neutrality note -- it's almost laughable. Boisemedia 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Removed NPOV Mboverload 04:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, this complaint is meritless and negative. There is a big difference between a biased article and one that has a lot of information about one country and not so much about others.  If there is not enough information about international facts, or television in other countries, you have the solution in your hands.Apollo (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "channel" the right name?
I've always been under the assumption that calling, say, NBC, CTV or ESPN a "television channel" was faulty because a channel, be it physical or virtual, is simply the location on which a television signal is sent. Until very recently I assumed Wikipedia had reached the similar consensus opinion, but apparently not.

Would the term "television service" be more appropriate as a blanket term for stations, networks, and cable/satellite-based undertakings? The CRTC uses "specialty services" for the latter group whereas U.S. equivalents ("cable networks") are sometimes dubbed "programming services" for legal purposes. - Stickguy 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps service may be a confusing term as it could be applied to a broad network or an aspect of a television station. I agree with what you say about channel though and think that station is the most sensible unambiguous description. Dainamo 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Station" is the correct only when referring to over-the-air broadcasts. In common usage, the term "television channel" refers to television stations and to their cable/satellite counterparts.  This broader category is the subject of the article.


 * The word "channel" can refer to a frequency band, but it also can refer to "a route of communication or access" or "a course or pathway through which information is transmitted."


 * I agree that "television service" is too vague. Cable/satellite companies are "television services," as are businesses that repair television sets.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For most Europeans, including people in Ireland and the UK, a TV or radio "station" is a building/company from where a TV or radio signal is being broadcast, just as railway stations and fire stations are buildings. In a world where one company sends one signal from one transmitter, calling that signal (feed) a "station" would be okay, but in a world where many broadcasters produce multiple feeds on a nation-wide or even global scale, the term just doesn't make sense. For 20-30 years most terrestrial broadcasters in Europe have had at least two TV feeds - nowadays often four or five, like the BBC and ITV in the UK - which are broadcasted across a whole country via a network of unmanned relay transmitters, with local or regional news perhaps inserted at specific timeslots in some of these feeds. And broadcasters for satellite and cable may offer even more feeds, like Discovery with 12 different feeds for the US market and 4-9 feeds in Europe (depending on country). The same is true for radio, where, for instance, the Danish public service broadcaster DR now is producing 27 parallell radio feeds (thanks to DAB and the internet).
 * To call each such a feed a "station" doesn't make sense, but "channel" does. On old TV sets the dial for switching between feeds was called a "channel selector", so using the term "channel" for the individual feeds make perfect sense for normal viewers (although the TV manucaturers originally introduced the term "channel" to mean a pre-set frequency).
 * I know that the term "station" has been the norm in the US and Canada, and it made perfect sense for a long time, when the radio and TV landscape largely consisted of local broadcasters with a transmitter on the roof, filling out their locally produced material with the feed from an affiliated network (a form of radio and TV distribution almost unknown in Europe, where most radio and TV has always been run on a national scale). However, cable, satellite, DAB, DTT and IPTV has totally changed this, even in the US. Today's broadcasters are more like publishing houses that produce a variety of magazines for different target groups, and the apropriate term for their "magazines" would be "channels" (with the individual programmes being the articles that make up these magazines, and the often separate playout company that handles the actual transmissions being the printing company). Interestingly enough, I've noticed that Discovery in the US call their feeds "channels", just like they do in Europe.
 * So, I would like to propose that the English language Wikipedia adopts the follwing terms:
 * Broadcaster or TV company/radio company - an enitity that produces one or more feeds for TV or radio.
 * Playout company - a company, often not owned by the broadcaster, that handles the actual transmission of each channel for one or several broadcasters.
 * TV channel/radio channel - a single feed from a broadcaster.
 * TV network/radio network - a group on broadcasters working together or being affiliates of a central broadcaster (i.e not a stand-alone broadcaster like CNN och Discovery, nor just the 'spider" in a network).
 * I understand that many may object to parts of this, as it means getting used to a new terminology, but the broadcasting world has changed drastically since the mid 1920's, when most of the current US terminology were coined, and the old terminology doesn't make much sense today.Thomas Blomberg 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Station versus Channel versus Network
These terms have been adapted somewhat from their original meanings as technology advances. A station is place where electromagnetic radiation emanates for reception in a surrounding region. A channel is a number assigned to a frequency band within which a station broadcasts its program content. A network originally was a group of stations that broadcast common program content that originates at a network center. Signals were often relayed from one station to the next in round robin fashion in order that program distribution would occur. Nowadays, a network is seen both as the place where program material orginates (more properly a network operation center) and as a company that produces or arranges for the production of program material that will attact paying advertisers. For example, station WRC-TV operates on Channel 4 and serves the Metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. That station is owned and operated by NBC, a network owned by General Electric. Some stations are not owned and operated by a network. They are called affiliates. All stations broadcast some non-network, local content. Community Antenna Television (CATV) is the ancestor of today's cable television. In mountainous terrain, it was customary for an entrepreneur to erect a receiving antenna on a high plateau and run cables to receivers in the valley. Subscribers could then profitably operate television receivers that were useless without a signal. It occurred to operators of CATV systems that they could inject their own programming for reception in the valley and charge fees to advertisers. Cable television thus was born. Widespread availability of cable television was spurred by geostationary satellites, which relay program content from a network operation center to cable television operators who resell the program content (with or without advertising) to a public that is willing to pay dozens of dollars per month for the privilege. The channels on which cable television program content is received need bear no relation to channels associated with terrestrial television stations. A cable network is like a non-cable network in that there is a network that produces and distributes program content and a network operation center that sends program content aloft, yet such can only be received in cooperation with a cable television system operator. A non-cable network's program content is intended to be transmitted by terrestrial television stations. Cable television system operators distribute terrestrial television station programming via wire so that subscribers may enjoy a better reception experience such as those valley folks did back in the day of CATV. (It is understood that a variation on cable television, known as direct broadcast satellite, exists. It permits subscribers to enjoy the same programs offered by cable television system operators via signals received directly from orbiting satellites.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrockman  (talk • contribs) 1:30 (UTC), 7 May 2006

Merge proposal
I see that it has been suggested that Television network and this article be merged together. Discuss here or at Talk:Television network --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not merge. - They are two different things - network is much more specific - and I think the distinction is important enough to warrant separate articles. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not merge. - It is certainly a problem without a perfect solution. However, there is information that would go into an articles on television "channels" that would not go into an article on "networks", so my humble opinion would be to leave them separate.  In general, I prefer the lesser evil of redundancy. Apollo (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I started writing a response here, but my conclusion was that we need a central point for discussion, so I've started a discussion at WikiProject Television about how best to organise this. - IMSoP (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital Television Section
It doesn't seem that encyclopedic and its optionated especially in the last section I think. team6and7 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote restored
I disagree with the removal of the hatnotes with the rationale "rmv inappropriate hat (links already presented with proper context in first sentence)".

One shouldn't have to read the article itself to differentiate between alternate uses of the term; by definition it's not the article you're looking for if you need that information! The hatnote makes the different options clearer and more upfront than having to digest article content. (Not *that* much here, admittedly, but it's still the principle that applies).

On top of this, television station has since been delinked anyway. We could- in theory- relink it, but since that'd be for navigation purposes rather than for the benefit of the article itself, I'd rather not and keep them separate. Ubcule (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The &#123;&#123;See also&#125;&#125; hatnote was plainly inappropriate, since such links belong in the See also section at the bottom of the page. Links to Television network and Television station are a bit more arguable, but the &#123;&#123;Distinguish&#125;&#125; template was not the correct one to use, since it's for similarly spelled terms which have obviously unrelated meanings. IMO, this falls under Linking to articles that are related to the topic, which is an inappropriate use of hatnotes. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection, you're probably correct about the "see also".
 * However, the inclusion of television station and television network are definitely warranted because in many areas (including- but not restricted to- the United Kingdom and Australia), the term "channel" is often used interchangeably with "station"... referring to what Wikipedia describes as a television network(!) (though that term isn't really used as much here). (#) In other words, neither the television station or television channel article covers what *we* usually mean when we refer to a "TV channel" or "TV station" in colloquial speech!
 * In short, there's a lot of blurring due to varying formal and informal uses of the terms in different regions, so we should be very clear on which article refers to which.
 * (#) For example "BBC One is the flagship television channel of the British Broadcasting Corporation" and "In 1993 the Australian Broadcasting Authority allocated licences for a sixth television channel for non-profit community and educational use on a trial basis".
 * Ubcule (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your addition using the About template is fine by me. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"Virtual number"
The lede starts: "A television channel is a broadcast frequency or virtual number"...

I am not sure "virtual number" is a good definition. What is a "virtual" number, when all numbers are abstract (even real numbers)? Virtual number is a term used in telephony and is not the sense meant here. We have virtual channel later in the article and that is really what is meant, but saying "A television channel is a... virtual channel" seems somewhat circular.

is used several times (as plaintext) at virtual channel, to which it redirects. The term "descriptor" is also used, but this seems to mean all the metadata associated with a logical channel, not just the channel number.

Maybe the more-general "assigned number" or "allocated number" might be better? Within the lede, we don't really have to explain how they are assigned or allocated. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal
See Television Channel Chocolateediter (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Television channel → Television frequency – I think this page should be used for some the more generic Television station article. Television channel could otherwise turned into a disambiguation article between television station and television frequency. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2022 (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.
 * Oppose for the simple fact that a page by the name Television channel frequencies exists, which uses both "channel" and "frequenc[ies]", and is apparently a list of the subject of the article requesting to be moved. Due to this, there will be confusion involved due to a lack of consistency. Either way, the latter article needs to be moved to a "List of..." title, but whatever that is, the article proposed to be moved and the list article may need to have synchronous titles if they truly refer to the same subject (which it looks like they do, but I'm not completely sure.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Transmission
Ramp up the power at the Pullman site. It’s pathetic. The reception drops out. The pixels cross and move. The sound drops out. Impossible to enjoy a program. Impossible to connect to a personal email to complain. Please forward to someone to fix the problem. Richland resident 2600:6C54:7800:15BF:1859:6C4A:A5D8:C958 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)