Talk:GWN7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Past assets[edit]

GWN used to own three radio stations (6TZ Bunbury, 6CI Collie and 6NA Narrogin). From what I can tell they were sold off separately when Northern Star purchased BDC in 1987. Does anyone have any more information? i.e. when they were acquired? --Tntnnbltn 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The network is called 'Golden West Network', therefore I have reverted your article move. Even the official website says 'Golden West Network' (see [1]). As well as this there are numerous other resources, such as from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (see [2]), that clearly state the name 'Golden West Network'. Please in future discuss, then move. Stickeylabel 13:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be a total pedant and point out that WP:REVERT says you should discuss before reverting things.
Either way, Golden West Network is probably the most appropriate name for the article since it's not associated with anything else (unlike GWN) and they do use both relatively equally. timgraham 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you call the US the 'United States of America'? Nobody refers to it as Golden West Network, in fact it is historical. And I believe you are involved with NBN, a NSW station. Please make sure you know the 'local lingo'. Auroranorth 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved with neither actually, although earlier this year when I spent two weeks watching the network I noticed it used both names - GWN when referring to itself in idents, program promotions and so on, Golden West Network with respect to local news (it was GWN on screen but Golden West News when spoken).
I'm not advocating the name change either way, I actually think they're equally accurate - although for simplicity's sake I would say Golden West Network would be the most appropriate. Stickeylabel reverted the change, I'm sure he'll have a satisfactory explanation. timgraham 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Media Watch, ACMA, AusTVHistory, prefer GWN [3] [4] [5] [6], while the ACCC, Lyngsat and Caslon Analytics like Golden West Network [7] [8] [9]. It's pretty much a dead heat.. timgraham 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am going to try and do is get a government agency's name for the network. Auroranorth 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The license for the network is under 'Golden West Network Pty Ltd'. Even government agency's such as ACMA formally use 'Golden West Network' (see [10]). As well as this, the official owners of the network, Prime Television Limited, state 'Golden West Network' on their corporate site (see [11]). The network is clearly the Golden West Network, GWN is just an acronym used for the logo. In order to clearly state that GWN is a commonly used name to refer to the network, I have added "often referred to as GWN" in the article's lead section. Stickeylabel 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to continue my research. Auroranorth 08:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to be under Golden West Network. As Stickeylabel has said, the legal name of the company is 'Golden West Network Pty Ltd'. NBN's is 'NBN Limited'. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 09:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But do you refer to NBN as 'NBN Limited'? Auroranorth 09:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see such attention given to little old GWN. Research it as much as you like Auroranorth, I myself would love to see more and more information injected into the Golden West Network article. Changing the article name however seems pretty pointless as the official name for the network/station/channel/affiliate is 'Golden West Network,' or GWN for short. Being Wikipedia, I think it's in the interests of everyone that the article gives as much information as possible. Just by keeping the current article name already explains what GWN stands for. The name is in no way treated like WIN Television or NBN Television (where the meaning of the acronym is never used by the network at all). However, many TV guide publishers, sponsorships, even the news presenters still refer to GWN as 'Golden West Network' or simply 'Golden West.' How about you spend your time expanding and building on the current article rather than modifying page names unneccesarily? --Smacca 09:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like my research. Fortunately for me, I have called the GWN station in Bunbury (try 0897214466) and they said it would be more appropriate to list under GWN, and then begin the text as Golden West Network, often referred to as GWN. Somebody from GWN is trying to create an account right now, and will contribute (I hope) and then we can move as needed. Auroranorth 09:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make big decisions right now - I have to eat dinner (sobs). Auroranorth 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage all discussion, however no original research belongs on Wikipedia. The verifiability policy demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources, that can be referenced according to WP:Cite. It does not matter what a GWN employee states, it has no encyclopedic factuality, and someones official form of employment does not alter their status on Wikipedia. And in response to your most recent comment, concensus must be gained for all decisions, and the current concensus is that the article should not be renamed. Stickeylabel 09:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, how can this GWN employee prove their position in the network? Auroranews; can't we just expand the current article rather than modifying the structure? Everyone wants to change article names but never have any useful information to contribute. --Smacca 10:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Besides, I'll probably be accused of sockpuppetry. I realised this when chewing on a bit of fish (lol)! Let's just work on the article. Does anyone have suggestions? Auroranorth 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously passionate about GWN if you want these changes so bad. I reckon the first thing that needs to be looked at and researched is whether VEW, GTW, SSW callsigns are still in use today, or whether WAW has taken over all markets. --Smacca 10:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I just received a call from Auroranorth and I must say the general public do know us better as GWN, probably due to our logo and progam promos however our company name is The Golden West Network. For the purposes of a search tool in Wikipedia it would be great to be listed under both names. If anyone knows how to do this that would be fantastic. We are listed in the white pages under GWN which says: see Golden West Network. Thanks again for your call Auroranorth and thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion. Marketing Manager GWNTelevisionuser 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that posting that may have put me in a tight spot concerning sockpuppetry. I will not continue to push this change until my identity (different to Televisionuser) is confirmed. Auroranorth 10:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Callsigns[edit]

Regarding Smacca's question about whether the old callsigns are still used, only WAW is currently used. All the others were acquired by GWN or merged into one larger channel and then acquired by GWN before the Prime Television Limited acquisition. [12] Auroranorth 11:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GWN logo size[edit]

I don't think discussion is neccessary for a logo size change. The current poor representation of the GWN logo looks horrid at that size, it always has. --Smacca 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree. You can't say 'We shouldn't put this in because it makes the company in question look bad', or say 'I'm going to ignore the true logo size to make it look better'. Also, when making edits like that, please make sure you do discuss. I don't care about the outcome as long as it's discussed - if it's not, I will be disagreeing with you. Auroranorth 12:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only controversial edits should be discussed before implementation. No Wikipedian has ownership of articles, and you should assume good faith. Wikipedia would have a slow growth rate, if all edits had to be discussed, prior to implementation. It is best to assume good faith, and an edit should not be disagreed with on the basis that it was not discussed. According to WP:AGF, If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. In my opinion a change in the logo size to 150px strengthens the SVG's fair-use rationale, and adds consistancy with the Prime Television logo. As well as this, the edit does not detract from the logo's encyclopedic value, therefore I agree with Smacca's edit. Please in future, do not revert, unless an edit is of a highly controversial nature. Stickeylabel 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it says somewhere that if you don't know whether something is the best thing to do or not, it's best to discuss it with other contributors -- WP:REVERT or something. timgraham 13:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Timg - it also goes along with Wikipedia:Consensus. Auroranorth 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that if a Wikipedian is unsure about their edit, they should discuss to gain concensus, however, this clearly was a uncontroversial and positive contribution to Wikipedia, that was merely reverted due to an editor's disagreement. A revert of such a trivial nature should not be condoned, as it would set a dangerous precedent that would not only slow wikipedia's growth but it would also violate many of the policies mentioned prior. Please keep in mind that no Wikipedian has ownership of articles, and you should always assume good faith. All Smacca did was change '200px' to '150px' for a logo. I hope this discussion is over as this debate has only wasted several editors' time that could have been invested more appropriately elsewhere on Wikipedia. Stickeylabel 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auroranorth; If you're request was for discussion then just ask it in here. There's no need to revert everything purely because it's not discussed. I'm really shocked that you said you're going to revert everything I make unless it's discussed. (I don't care about the outcome as long as it's discussed - if it's not, I will be disagreeing with you.) Why am I being targetted here? I figured my contributions were welcome. :-( --Smacca 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Smacca if that sounded a little harsh. I didn't mean I'd revert everything (remember WP:TRR) but I think it's a little controversial. Why do you want to change it? Of course your contribs are welcome! Sorry if it looks like you're targeted. Auroranorth 14:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, I'm glad someone like that doesn't exist on here. Now, the reason I edited the image was because it was too large when comparing it to the Prime logo. My edit reduced the width to 150px to make it the same height as Prime's. Next time I'll be sure to be more clear in my edit summaries, as it seems I failed in that crucial process, but I still stand by my previous statement that this was a minor edit and a section on the discussion page isn't really relevant. Like Stickeylabel said, it would take far too long to make any changes if we had to discuss every aspect. I know you're not intentionally going to do that, but reading your first statement made it seem so. Any objections to the logo adjustment? --Smacca 14:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now I have no objections, but in the meantime, we need to find out:
  • The actual size on TV

...and Smacca, just out of interest, why does it need to be in line with Prime? I can see what you're getting at, though.

(P.S. Remember to sign your comments!)

Auroranorth 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I did fix that before you posted by the way. :-) I guess because Prime keep that font size the same regardless if it says Prime or GWN. What exactly do you mean the size it is on TV? It obviously varies with each application a logo is used on, but for example the logo on the community partner promo matches Prime's in height, but shorter in length as it's obviously only 3 letters wide. (Prime version, GWN version) Another good example is the news opener, or the signpost. --Smacca 14:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should find out what size GWN.com.au uses. Auroranorth 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How come? I just proved my point in my previous post. Just out of interest Auroranorth, and don't take this the wrong way or anything. Do you have any knowledge at all about GWN? From everything you've said in here, you seem to only object, and assign source finding to other people. Can you even get GWN where you are? You act as if you've never watched it all - not a good position for you to be in that's for sure! --Smacca 10:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that anybody in that position shouldn't really be making comments. However, I have watched GWN and do prefer it over Channel 7 (Seven Network). Maybe it's because of the advertisements - such as Geraldton Turf Farm and Eaton Fair jingles (or is that on WIN?). Auroranorth 11:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear you're at least a viewer. Gotta say those festival type ads drove me crazy, especially the Fenancling Festival one. So, is this image issue still continuing or have we agreed that the new size is more appropriate? Just to clarify, I resized it so it wouldn't look out of proportion to Prime's version (Prime resize the logo exactly the same way I did on air, on company stationery etc.) --Smacca 12:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I won't complain further. GWN isn't actually allowed to broadcast in our area, but the signal occasionally slips through the blanker put there by ACMA, I think. I think that's illegal. I also (legally) watch GWN when I go out a little further into the country. Auroranorth 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often get the same thing with 7 Central and Imparja. Sometimes the actual encryption system stops and everything goes free-to-air. It's happened several times here in the past year I've had Aurora. --Smacca 13:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, heh. When you're not lucky, I get two blank screens for a few MHz when tuning and then it goes back to fuzz. These screens are GWN and WIN. Do you know how to bypass the encryption (all the time)? I actually prefer GWN and WIN to the three we get. I don't know why, I just do. Auroranorth 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bypassing it involves an illegal card, or an illegal method of getting keys from a legitimate card. I'd like to try it one day, but 7 Central and Imparja are free-to-air on Optus D1 anyway. So I either study hard and work out how to unlock the keys, or just get another dish. I guess it's the other way round with you Central folk. Although, GWN and WIN have been reportedly spotted on D1, but scrambled. :-( When I watched 7C and Imp, compared to GWN and WIN there was a lot of consistancy issues, especially with the clashing of brands on Southern Cross, I mean 7, I mean Southern Cross, arg! Imparja I quite liked though. --Smacca 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Cross is 10, I believe! Auroranorth 14:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally it is, but most of the time it's their 7 affiliate. It was recently changed to TDT before being changed back to 7 Brisbane. --Smacca 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody just changed the logo size. Reverted. Auroranorth 02:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating news anchor image[edit]

Noel's been gone for a while. Any objections in myself updating this to include Shauna Willis, AuroraNorth? --Smacca 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one.. perhaps you could replace the current one with an old image of him, for 'historical purposes' (since he's been around a while), and add another one as well. [Don't know if that violates any rules but it would be a nice idea.] timgraham 02:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly got some older footage of him, dating back to around 2000. I think changing it to one of those would be a good idea, then update the current image with Shauna behind the desk. --Smacca 10:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image is fine (with Noel Brunning), so keep that, but having a Shauna Willis photo would be excellent. Auroranorth 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noel has pretty much left GWN for politics, he is no longer the face of the bulletin any more. There were rumours he may return, but they're just rumours. I don't want to ruin Noel's rep by removing him as he has some history with the network, so replacing him with an older image as Timg said would be appropriate. What do you reckon? --Smacca 10:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Forrest seat I believe. No offense, but why can't we keep the current image and include Shauna Willis' photo underneath/above? Auroranorth 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that an older image would better illustrate that he presented for xx many years (in various visual incarnations of the bulletin) before going into politics, while Shauna is the current presenter. Either way I'm sure both images could be fitted in, especially if there was more detail about the bulletin (history and so on).. timgraham 12:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe both images? Auroranorth 12:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should have 2 images, one of Shauna and one of Noel. I think by having both images of the same era though, with the same set and same graphics, will look a little misleading as if GWN News was anchored by both Noel and Shauna. At the end of the day Noel doesn't present news at current, but because of his past position he still deserves a screenshot. An older one of him from say 2002 would be better in my opinion, because straight away it tells you that Noel was a previous anchor, not a current one. I'll also highlight the fact that if anyone was to tune in to GWN News now after seeing this article, they'd see Shauna presenting, not Noel. --Smacca 12:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any image is fine as long as it still has the current GWN logo in the corner. Anything before that and it might get misleading. A caption saying that Noel Brunning presented the news until 2007 is fine in my opinion, with a caption on Shauna Willis' photo saying that Shauna has presented since Noel's departure. Auroranorth 13:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on TVW-8/7. Also, good Noel Brunning picture. Auroranorth 14:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Smacca 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the images a bit smaller because they were taking over, and the wording on some of the captions was a bit suss ('Noel Brunning presenting GWN News until 2007'?) timgraham 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Auroranorth 09:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for GWN News competing with Ten News[edit]

Most of know that WIN had Ten News at 5.00pm prior to August 2006, which in turn meant GWN News competed with them at 5.30pm. How can we prove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmaccaWA (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe find official press releases from the two channels off the internet or in print form. I am signing off for the night, but I'll continue to participate soon! Auroranorth 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review 1[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Auroranorth 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GWNNews.png[edit]

Image:GWNNews.png 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 Wikipedia: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 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GWN7. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GWN7’s “closure”[edit]

GWN7 (and for that matter its eastern states counterpart Prime7) never closed, it just had a name change. Surely a better route would have been renaming the article to Seven (Regional WA), getting rid of the paste tense, and refer to GWN7 as a former name of the station? 101.118.204.94 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From @SmaccaWA's move log about GWN7: GWN7 has ceased to exist, the network is now part of the Seven Network. The article was to be rewritten from the perspective of the former entity. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing son[edit]

Age 37 disappeared after a heavy police chase in albany 120.16.31.65 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

need your help 120.16.31.65 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GWN7&oldid=1207496031"