Talk:WATL/Archive 1

Network status for 2007
Any stories saying that the station will get a new network in 2007?? Georgia guy 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No word as of yet; there's plenty of speculation that they will get the MyNetworkTV status for Atlanta, but there has been other speculation that the other new network could go to WPXA (Ch. 14) once Pax completely dies. I'm just hopeful that DirecTV will provide a feed for those of us who do not have a local affiliate of that network. --Mhking 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Pax is already discontinued; its name in 2005 was changed into I. Georgia guy 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant "i", but still refer to it as Pax; in any event, that network has been rumored to be in its death throes, pending the outcome of their dispute with DirecTV. --Mhking 18:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"My Network"
Someone recently made an edit that this station might be a "My network" station. Any evidence on whether it actually will?? My speculation is that it might be independent for a while and then become a My Network station. Georgia guy 21:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WATL-TV has many times been an independent network. If it continues with it's history, it will most likely be independent in the beginning, but it's not clear whether it will join with My Network TV in the future, we'll all just have to wait and see.--Dleav 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WATL will officially become a My Network TV affiliate.--Dleav 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. If there's no dab page at WATL not at least a stub on Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers after a week, though, CFIF may contact me and I'll do the move anyway, as there's apparently nothing to dab from currently. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 09:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move
WATL (TV) -> WATL. WATL is the official callsign. (Note-This would require administrator assistance.) --CFIF (talk to me) 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support CFIF (talk to me) 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is why the article is punctuated as (TV) rather than -TV. Georgia guy 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That makes no sense. It doesn't need punctuation, so why is it puncuated with anything? CFIF (talk to me) 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The punctuation of "-TV" is how FCC licenses stations when they find it necessary to distinguish it from an AM station with the same callsign. (TV) is punctuation consistent with general Wikipedia dis-ambiguation and is how Radiojon decided stations should be titled if FCC does not license the TV suffix. For anyone who sees this, can you show that making WATL into a dis-ambiguation page is something that cannot be done (not just something that hasn't been done, but something that cannot be done?? Georgia guy 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at WNBC. Do you see the page titled "WNBC (TV)" because there USED to be radio stations called that? Nope. There is a page called WNBC (disambiguation). WXXX (TV) is honestly useless and messy. CFIF (talk to me) 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The answer to that question is because of what Wikipedian has been focusing on the article's title. The general rule is that the rule a Wikipedia article is titled commonly depends on what Wikipedian has been focusing on the title; namely, someone other than Radiojon.aven't answered my question about whether it is possible to make WATL into a dis-ambiguation page by thinking of other meanings of WATL that are not necessarily callsigns. Georgia guy 22:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found by a Google search that there's another meaning of WATL: Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers. Georgia guy 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And we can't make WATL (disambiguation) if that page about the "Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers" EVER gets added? CFIF (talk to me) 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Many things, such as the city of London, are known so well that they deserve an unqualified title even if other things with the same name exist. City names, animal names, etc. can have reasons for this, but I don't see how TV stations can. I don't think there is any reason to consider a TV station the primary meaning of the letter-combination forming its root callsign unless it is a nationally-known station. Georgia guy 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is "Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers" nationally known? Doubt it. CFIF (talk to me) 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What logic is there that a callsign is considered a primary meaning over an abbreviation in a 4-letter-combination?? Georgia guy 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How notable is this other "WATL"? Probably not very notable and can't be more notable than the TV station. CFIF (talk to me) 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support WATL already redirects here; plus those are the actual calls. --Mhking 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are other uses of the acronym WATL, such as Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers, that could get articles in the future.  Leaving the article here does no harm.  Converting WATL to a dab article would make more sense. Vegaswikian 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My Network TV Logo
Does anybody have a My Network TV Logo for WATL, beacause I couldn't find it.--67.34.216.98 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait another 3 months. BTW, here is an interesting question: In 2004, why did the number 36 get removed from the logo?? Georgia guy 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Tribune Company did this on a lot of their Non-VHF stations, as the station is probably on many different cable providers other than analog television, so they just decided to brand it as "WATL Atlanta", so then there would be less confusion as to "why is it called "WB 36" when it's on channel 6 (example cable channel)?", etc. Some UHF Tribune stations did something similar. Example: (WLVI and WDCW). I guess it all depends on the cable penetration amount at the time. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing has crossed my desk on it yet; I'm keeping my eyes open though. (and yes, as it stands now, I'll probably have my hands in the site redesign for them) --Mhking 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
I added this fact but someone removed it. Please put it back, its true and important that people know the politics behind the media they watch.


 * Please note the point I make below. In addition, The Coral Ridge Hour is carried on at least one station in nearly every market in the nation. Are you going to go after each one, or just this one? Mhking 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

I am only in one market so I can only comment about what I have observed with this particular station. I do not think that just because someone is racist everywhere means they should be tolerated anywhere, thats how people like Hitler get into power. We should do what we can to limit hate speach even if it seems trival.


 * You get no complaint from me on that point, however, it is certainly unfair to go after a single station when there are more than 200 others across the nation in the same position (i.e., airing Kennedy's program on a daily basis). And singling out one in that regard certainly goes against the general rules that Wikipedia has established. Mhking 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Right well what if I edit the wikipedia pages for all 200 stations? Will that satisfy you? I have alot of free time.


 * Only if you then go to each of the other stations' entries and enter the same data. --Mhking 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WATL recently broadcast a film which tries to demonstrate that Darwin's writings were responsible for the Holocaust; the Jewish Anti Defamation League had previously blasted the film as being anti-semetic. ADL Article The program was broadcast 9AM August 27. Broadcast Info.


 * Two questions -- are you going to list each and every single potentially "controversial" program the channel has carried? And are you going to post this same entry on each station that has carried this program? I would suggest that the program itself (The Coral Ridge Hour) be cited as opposed to each station. Mhking 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thats a lame argument because its not possible for one person to know everything, thats why we have wikipedia. I am doing my part by listing what I know. It would be great if other people listed things that were anti-semetic (or any other group, anti gay, christian, whatever) so that people can start to understand the politics of the various broadcasters. Its what shapes our minds as a society we should be critical.


 * Entering that sort of data in and of itself would violate WP:POV Mhking 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can gather, The Coral Ridge Hour is a paid program. WATL takes no responsibility for what is broadcast by paid programs and even says that they may not reflect the opinions of the network. That makes the show controversial not the network.--Dleav 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Third Pary Opinion Solicited

 * I disagree with your posting of the "Controversy" section in that it violates WP:POV and WP:POINT. You obviously disagree with me. I will not get into a revert war with you over it, but I have asked for third parties to take a look at the situation and to determine which point is better served here. --Mhking 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to enter my opinion per WP:3O; I hope that it's helpful. First of all, I'd like to declare my particular bias: I am a Christian who believes intelligent design and creationism are terrible, terrible things for science and for Christianity itself. As such, I would like every person responsible for the airing of Darwin's Deadly Legacy shamed publicly and hopefully run out of business. Including the "Controversy" section might well do that. However, Wikipedia is not a place to embark on a crusade. The question we have to consider is the encyclopedic merit of including that information. In what way is Darwin's Deadly Legacy part of the enduring legacy of WATL? Five years from now, will someone reading about WATL's ownership history and broadcast range need to know or want to know that, at one point, it aired a fundamentalist documentary, devoid of any discussion of an enduring fundamentalist bias? My opinion is that Darwin's Deadly Legacy, on its own, is not part of the enduring encyclopedic legacy of WATL. I really couldn't sanction its inclusion in this particular article under the current circumstance. There are just too many stations airing the program, and I'm not seeing evidence (based on the article and a cursory scan of the Web) that it's part of an enduring and permanent pattern of bias on the part of the station. For that matter, while it may be controversial for us on this talk page, there's no evidence of substantial external controversy concerning this particular station on this particular issue. As such, a Controversy section in this article is not appropriate at this time.
 * I'd also like to address the issue of a possible WP:POINT violation. Please remember to assume good faith; it seems as though the anon in this case is slightly misguided, but is honestly attempting to improve the encyclopedia, and is not trying to take advantage of flaws in Wikipedia's system. It's a violation of our NPOV policy, but doesn't shade over into disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
 * As for the question of whether every controversial program a channel airs should be included, I would say no; controversial programs may have their own articles, but given how many controversial articles there are, a discussion about each program on each station that airs it would quickly spiral out of control. There really should only be that sort of discussion when a station is one of only a handful to air the program, or when the airing is notable in some way (for instance, Sinclair's attempt to air the Stolen Honor "documentary."
 * Anyway, I hope I was of help. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if there are any questions. Captainktainer * Talk 20:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Station Name
I've changed the name from "My ATL TV" to "MyAtlTV", in order to reflect the way the station name is used here in the station itself (I work for WXIA/WATL); I'll be changing the WXIA listing to reflect the same for 11Alive. --Mhking 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Myatltv.gif
Image:Myatltv.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bounce TV Subchannel
Bounce TV has announce a deal with Gannett to bring Bounce TV to WATL in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.179.159 (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I've semi-protected the page for one week in response to a request at WP:RFPP (see permalink). Hopefully this gets the attention of our anonymous friend, who otherwise doesn't seem to be responding to various talk page messages. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)