Talk:KSWB-TV

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

Untitled[edit]

How is it known that this station will become the The CW Television Network? This is like 8 months from now and anything can happen. Just a thought. James084 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This station, as a Tribune-owned affiliate, has signed a 10-year affiliation deal with the newly created CW Television Network. XHUPN, the current market UPN affiliate will likely revert to independent status, since its affiliation will end. XHUPN is not owned by either CBS Corporation or Tribune Company, so it made sense to have Tribune's KSWB take on The CW Television Network affiliation. D2001dstanley 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This was confirmed by Tribune during their conference call announcing their participation in The CW yesterday. There are a handful of markets whose Tribune/WB stations will not join The CW, each of them is located in markets where Viacom already owns the current UPN station (WATL Atlanta for example). A full list, as released by Tribune and Viacom yesterday can be found on Wikipedia at List of CW affiliates. Mhking 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contrary to the article "everyone from the station" was not let go when the station ceased their *news* operation. The news department and the anchors departed, which is hardly "everyone from the station". The morning show anchor is still there as well, for what's it worth.

Fair use rationale for Image:Kswb-cw5.png[edit]

Image:Kswb-cw5.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 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 05:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kswb-cw5.png[edit]

Image:Kswb-cw5.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 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 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:5499.jpg[edit]

Image:5499.jpg 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 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ktty6987.jpg[edit]

Image:Ktty6987.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:D30b.jpg[edit]

Image:D30b.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KSWB-TV logo.png[edit]

Image:KSWB-TV logo.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Cruft" edit, 6 July 2012[edit]

On 6 July 2012, Drmies made an edit, [1], summarized by the user as "trimm(ing) unverified, crufty, excessive detail, directory information". "Cruft" is a term I encountered only recently. As is usual with such ill-defined Wikpedia slang, I've found one essay characterizing cruft as an uncivil argument to be avoided, and yet another claiming that cruft is a real problem, not a dirty word.

As to "unverified", the specific claims in the prose could be tagged for "citation needed". "Excessive detail" is probably in the eye of the beholder, as I personally find the removed prose to be an interesting discussion of the historical state of TV news competition in the San Diego market.

"Directory information" most likely refers to on air personnel and their assignments. This, plus titles and slogans, is standard verbiage within Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations. I, and others, have argued that this is "a way of tracking news anchors in various television markets and ... what anchor position they hold" and to "compare a station's news offerings to others in the market and to stations around the country". We hold that this usage does not violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Perhaps this type of information could be presented in another way, but that's a discussion for another time.

For these reasons, I am (mostly) reverting the "anti-cruft" edit. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I removed is the kind of cruft (yes) that we are trying to clean up from all those TV station articles. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies is right, that is definite fancruft and stuff that can be considered unsourced, unverifiable or unencyclopedic. Some of that would violate WP:NOT#DIR, while the other stuff would go against consensus. But, yes, it is fancruft and should be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...no. Please be more specific than just throwing out the word "cruft". Which elements are unsourced, unverifiable or unencylopedic? Which violate NOTDIR? Which go against whose consensus? The TV Project's? Who is this "we" who are "cleaning up" these articles? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting question--who is the "we" in "We hold that this usage..."? Whoever they are, they don't really appreciate the difference between an encyclopedia and a TV guide. I have undone your revert, one step at a time. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! Quite clever of you, Drmies, to twist my use of "we"! Mine refers to "I, and others", who I quoted. Which does not, of course, answer the question of who your "we" includes. Not, it would seem, Neutralhomer - who states in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#Style and formatting issues: "This is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit and everyone has a different writing style. We don't do uniformity on really any of the articles here because it would create something that isn't "free". It would require everyone to write in the same style...and since we aren't all little gray blobs with the same personalities, styles and everything, we are all different, a uniform version of anything will never happen. It would be nice, but with so many different writing styles, it would be impossible. Plus, I am pretty sure it would violate a couple WP:NOT rules. Unformity would change this project and Wikipedia itself to a point it would no longer be "free". So, a uniform television station article (or any article) is 'not a good idea."
I eagerly await your answer on what members of the TV Station Project (or other editors) are involved in this uniformity/cleanup task.
Meanwhile, in edit 1, which WP or Project policy or guideline holds that slogans are unencyclopedic? As for unverified 12 year old information, just slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Edit 2: You state a personal opinion about excitement level and refer WP users to TV Guide - where listings are non-existent in print form and beside the point online. Edit 3: Another "citation needed". Edit 4: Once again, "citation needed"; by what authority is info not encyclopedic?; saw the template in markup but did not see a video. Edit 5: This content does not, IMHO, constitute a "directory" & your suggestion to "check your local listings" would be fruitless, as only on rare occasions do listings include on-air staff.
But if you're serious about your view of TV station content, I'll make the same suggestion I've made previously to editors with similar ideas: Make equivalent edits to WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC, KABC-TV, KCBS-TV, KNBC, WBBM-TV, WLS-TV, WMAQ-TV, et al. Your response to this suggestion, and any subsequent reverts of these hypothetical edits, will speak volumes. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on KSWB-TV. 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) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Fox Getting some of the Divested Sinclair Stations[edit]

http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/sinclair-tribune-fox-station-deal-seattle-1202707565/ KSWB along with KTXL Sacramento are rumored to go to Fox because of the Sinclair/Tribune deal --Special:Contributions/2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:3AD 02:16, 23 February 2018

Short description[edit]

@Mvcg66b3r: You reverted my edit to the short description of this article stating that it was "non-constructive", and this discussion is to follow WP:BRD.

I made the edit (for which the Wikipedia mobile app did not permit an edit summary) because the short description does not meet the requirements of WP:SHORTDESC, in particular WP:SDJARGON's requirement that it should "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject".

I don't know what "Fox affiliate" means: it seems to be technical jargon with no meaning in the part of the English-speaking world I am in; I believe its use fails WP:COMMONALITY. I suggested "Television station in California, United States", which is what the article's first few words state. I'm happy to have alternatives suggested which encompass that non-technical definition. Bazza (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r: Thanks for promptly restoring my edit to the short description. Much appreciated. Bazza (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7 Coming in a little late here... I've come around to this in my work doing short descriptions. I'd like to suggest "TV station in San Diego, California, U.S." instead.
Like with titles, short descriptions for call sign–titled broadcast stations can be very tricky because the topics can run together. I've improved KSHB-TV and KSNB-TV (and radio station KSUB) in addition to KSWB-TV, to give you an idea of how tough this can be. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sammi Brie. I only picked this article to edit because it appeared in my morning selection of "random articles".
Most of what you have said is foreign to me. I live in the United Kingdom, and the concepts of "affiliations", "call-signs" and "broadcast stations" are alien. I expect you could say similar things about what I take for granted.
I don't think cities-within-states in short-description locations are particularly useful for non-US people, but I have no problem if you decide to update the article to show what you propose. Bazza (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7 I readily appreciate that. The entire structure of regional TV in the US and UK are completely different. And I think you're right to say "that short description is too much". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KSWB-TV&oldid=1208047901"