Talk:The CW

Capitalizing "the"
MOS:THEINST, for names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc:

The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

We should therefore write "the CW" in running prose, not "The CW". Popcornfud (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * MOS:THEINST definitely tells us not to capitalise. Moreover, sources in the article tell us that it is consistently used without "the" and WP:DEFINITE tells us not to use "the" in the article title. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The CW's name always starts with the word "The" in uppercase. Articles and sources regarding the network start with this form unless otherwise stated (for example, KRON-TV "[serves] as the San Francisco Bay Area's outlet for The CW Television Network" or |"CBS Corporation and Warner Bros. announced a new 'fifth network' named The CW in 2006"). Changing to the word "the" in all lowercase in this article changes context (e.g. implying the network's operator's name has always been CW Network, LLC rather than The CW Network, LLC, or the network's only official shortened name is CW, with the word "the" added whenever needed). Error302UserFound (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not consistently capitalized in reliable secondary sources (example). And that's moot anyway, because we have a policy in the manual of style that specifically says to ignore all that and use lowercase. Popcornfud (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. I'm taking back my opposition, since the inconsistency was there | from the start. Error302UserFound (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear you've come round... but I don't understand your latest edit. There's no reason network operators would not also fall under this policy. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of "The CW Network, LLC" on the first intro paragraph on the 10th of January 2024. Error302UserFound (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – I've always found it really weird the "the" was capitalized. Are we also talking about moving The CW to CW (network) given it's related, as pointed out? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A move naturally follows from this discussion, though we probably don't need to put parentheses around network. It would be more natural without. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So CW Network? —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes Cinderella157 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The title should remain as "The CW" per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:THE, etc. Whether to capitalize "the" in running text is a separate matter. As for the "CW Network" suggestion, (1) that is not the name of the network, and (2) . InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From yesterday:
 * Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Well said, Chris. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, adjectival forms of proper nouns that start with "the" drop the definite article. It's a "New York Times article", even though the paper is "The New York Times". oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I more support the network name being changed altogether, but as that is not the discussion in question, I have generally interpreted The CW as the common name, and " CW " if it is grammatically impossible to identify it otherwise (e.g., " "). It does also not help that many affiliates of The CW will brand as "CW (channel number or city/region)", a naming and branding convention inherited directly from predecessor network The WB.
 * I noted on my below support for an article split to have the creation of History of The CW, not "History of the CW", for this reason. Nathan Obral • he/him • t  •  c  • 06:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I noted on my below support for an article split to have the creation of History of The CW, not "History of the CW", for this reason. Nathan Obral • he/him • t  •  c  • 06:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support lowercasing "the" – And probably support a move to CW Network, too. Probably it could be moved without an RM, as I see no opposition. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is opposition directly above your comment. This would violate multiple policies. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that – scanning for "Oppose" I only found the one who later wrote "taking back my opposition". Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean toward lowercase. MOS:THETM, MOS:THEINST don't support this marketing over-capitalization, and the network recently dropped "The" from its branding anyway. Capitalized "The" clearly dominates in the entertainment press (which habitually bends over backward to "obey" trademark stylizations, mimic logos, and match branding style, to keep its industry advertisers happy; almost all the money made by these publications comes directly from content-industry advertisers, so they are not independent sources on such a question). Even so, some major industry publications buck this habit: The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, Deadline, Screen Rant. Usage outside such publications varies; aside from mainstream news examples given by someone else above, see lower-case at Los Angeles Times, Detroit Free Press, WALB-TV News Atlanta, The Patriot-News, Elle, Slate, Gizmodo, Vulture. Fandom media varies, often capitalized but lowercase in some, e.g. Comic Book Resources, MuggleNet, and Dexerto, and mixed usage within the same article at the Batman News blog. All of the above are just from the first few pages of Google News results. Ultimately, this is simply a style choice, and ours is always to lower-case by default, unless uppercase for something is near-uniform. I'm skeptical this standard is met here, when even entertainment press are sometimes going with "the CW". But "The" really common in the entertainment press; that being the vast majority of the available source material, this leads in the direction of the common-style fallacy, but this is arguably an edge case. For me, it comes down to this: the answer to the question "Is this pretty much always treated as requiring a leading capital-T like 'The Hague'?" is clearly "no", so we should not treat it as if the answer were "yes". Also, it's possible that no clear consensus might emerge right now, but a clearer one might later, after the press has had time to absorbe the dropping of "The" from the network's brand this month.  PS: The general situation appears to be the same as with CW's predecessor network the WB, which was commonly but not consistently written as "The WB" in entertainment-industry-beholden media, and less "The"-capitalized the further from that industry the reportage got. Discussion like this also needs to happen with regard to that defunct network, which is presently being written as "The WB" at its own article but inconsistently as "the WB" or "The WB" in other articles here. PPS: I'm skeptical of a move to CW Network or CW (network), since the WP:COMMONNAME remains "the CW" (styled one way or another); it may satisfy WP:THE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , CW is a disambiguation page. CW Network or CW (network) deals with disambiguation. Do you have a better alternative. Is this page the primary target? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * CW (an ambiguous term) and CW Network (an incorrect name) are out of the question. CW (network) is acceptable, but not preferable per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The network did change their name to "CW". They changed their  to "CW". See the Variety article I linked above, as well as the quote from the CW's chief marketing officer that basically sums it up. "The CW" has always been and will always be the COMMONNAME, so WP:THE should be satisifed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was skeptical about the move idea. "The CW" as the article title seems fine, but using "on The CW" in Wikipedia's own voice to match their marketing style, when major players even in the entertainment press don't do this, seems extremely dubious to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I think MOS:THECAPS and MOS:THEINST are pretty clear on the issue of whether to capitalize "the" mid-sentence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the conversation above it seems like there's a consensus to lowercase per MOS:THEINST. Are we OK to make the change now? Popcornfud (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No further comments so I've made the change. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The fact that 2023–24 CW affiliation realignment still exists is baffling. I've merged in some of the things that were missing from this article but which that one had. But it's undue to have it in a separate article. Yes, this article is too long and hitting a point at which WP:SIZESPLITs should be considered (the history section screams for one, and we can have a reduced summary in this article). However, that is not a standalone article that should continue to exist. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – That History of The CW isn't a thing when there's more than enough material to support it is equally baffling. And any future affiliation change mentions, which are going to happen anyway because of the network's new ownership owning or leasing many of the stations affected, should be in said history article. Nathan Obral • he/him • t  •  c  • 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – Also, second the idea of a history article split/ creation. Packerfan386 beer here 06:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – That article is just way to long for me to handle that isn't it has the subsections in. Also, a history split/creation is a good idea. mer764KCTV(Talk) 11:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and also support the creation of a history article. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a great article about a major event in broadcasting. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Paramount stake
Sports Business Journal has stated that Paramount sold its stake in The CW last year, but I've been unable to find any other source for this. And given it's a sports journal and not a TV dedicated outlet, I don't think we should take it at its word without salt. A single source from a sports journal anyway is not enough for a definite proof or reliable enough to mention something as a fact in my opinion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what you mean about "sports journal." I'm not sure why not exclusively covering TV means that its sourcing is somehow incorrect. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He means that it's not their primary field of coverage. More importantly, there is no corroboration from other sources such as Variety or Deadline that specialize in media business as part of their coverage, let alone mainstream business press like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. Hell, both Paramount Global and Nexstar are publicly traded companies, and any major asset transaction would have to be disclosed. With no corroboration from any other source, the obvious conclusion is that the Sports Business Journal report is in error, and remove it from the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like deciding that the SBJ article is wrong is simply original research. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Assessing sources for correctness is not original research. Calling for additional corroborating sources is a normal part of the WP:V process. oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a quick search on Google for "nexstar cw cbs" & "nexstar cw paramount", and I couldn't find ANY news article making ANY mention of Nexstar having acquired CBS/Paramount's 12.5% stake in The CW. So, that calls into question where SBJ got their information from. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if they were confused by Paramount ending the affiliations of the stations they own that once carried the network. That's the only thing I can find. Based on your and my own inability to find any corroborating story whatsoever, I'm removing the SBJ statement outright. If it does actually get confirmed at some point, it can be re-added. oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Focus on linear and sports
What does "linear" mean? The word appears three times (including a section title) with no explanation or link. —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Split history
I think that the history section should be split into its own page. It has been brought up before with no movement, so I am SODOINGIT. I intend to nominate this article for GA but I believe that it would be a far more ataible task if the article were smaller. I am not yet creating a formal proposal I am mearly informing those intrested that I have begun a sand box found here. It is very bare bones just the standered history for now. But I intend to source it throughly and expand the lead. If anyone wishes to work on this with me feel free. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also related I have nominated The CW to be made a vital article. See here to debate it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)