Talk:One Magnificent Morning

Why did this block replace the ONLY REMAINING Saturday Morning cartoon block?!

I think that we should go out and grab some sources on exactly why this block is replacing the last Saturday Morning cartoon block as we know it in America, as I'm sure many Americans (myself included) will be not only curious, but incensed to learn of this development. Anyways, why the h*ll did they have to replace Vortexx with a non-cartoon block??!!!? I find this absolutely ridiculous, and I would really appreciate it if someone could dig up the reason why they are doing this on some website or other media source. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, it applies to all networks so the gist of it is here but the bulk of it is at Children's television series#Saturday morning cartoon blocks. Spshu (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't really understand it. None of those reasons seem legit, and even then, there's still no actual reason given pertaining to why they had to end the Saturday Morning cartoons. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They didn't! NBC Kids is a block of Saturday morning cartoons that's still playing on a major broadcast network (NBC, of course, duh)!

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

They did! See the sources below. By the way, you still didn't answer my question; I had to read through the article today to get the answer. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The "sources" are wrong. See the cartoons on NBC during that time and you'll know.

75.162.179.246 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They technically aren't traditional cartoons, so yes, the "age of Saturday Morning Cartoons" has truly come to an end in America. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, @LightandDark2000:. They don't have to be "traditional" to still be considered Saturday morning cartoons. The phrase "Saturday morning cartoons" doesn't mean "traditional Saturday morning cartoons," it just means Saturday morning cartoons. They are still cartoons on Saturday mornings (and on a major broadcast network, just as the other IP said).

spshu Thinks "traditional cartoon block" means the same as "Saturday morning cartoons"

Hey guys, what can we do about spshu, who is edit-warring against 'consensus now (2+ editors) because he/she thinks that:

1. Vortexx "was the last block of Saturday morning cartoons," because 2. NBC Kids "isn't Saturday Morning cartoons" even though it is, because 3. supposedly NBC Kids "isn't a 'traditional cartoon block'" because 4. to him/her, "traditional cartoon block" and "Saturday morning cartoons" mean the same thing even though they don't, despite the FACT that:

A. Saturday morning cartoons still exist on the NBC Kids block, and B. the sources that already support that FACT in Vortexx and Saturday morning cartoon support that here in OMM too, even though he/she thinks they "aren't verified" or "aren't available"?

Pulling my hair out now, 75.162.179.246 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at one's TV isn't a source; neither is an online TV guide, as the guide changes as to the future, not the past.

Your sources:

• Variety "NBC to launch Saturday kids block": "...Saturday morning programming block tailored for preschoolers,..." (no indication that it is a "traditional cartoon block")
• Lazy Town website: shows it isn't a cartoon, but that it is a live action plus puppets (for lack of a better term) mot a valid WP source either as a primary source
• Poppy Cat website: again a primary source but only one cartoon
• "Justin Time Article on Wikipedia" is not a valid WP source for another WP article and isn't even a current NBC Kids program
• "Beck and Call" Astroblast Show Clip by Sprout". YouTube. YouTube is not usual valid source on WP as the video can be edited. So, a second cartoon.
• "Tree Fu Tom Website". Still not good WP source, another cartoon.

You missed "Noodle and Doodle" which is a puppet show. So, the count is 3 cartoons, 1 mixed cartoon & puppet and 2 puppet shows. Also, you still don't have any news media article recently saying that NBC Kids is a "traditional cartoon block" and "Saturday morning cartoons".

While I have:

• Washington Post: "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" title "After these messages, Saturday morning cartoons will not be right back." "This past Saturday, the CW became the last broadcast television network to cut Saturday morning cartoons." "In 1992, NBC was the first broadcast network to swap Saturday morning cartoons for teen comedies such as “Saved by the Bell” and a weekend edition of the “Today” show."
• The Death Of The Saturday Morning Cartoon Is Complete: "The era of the Saturday morning cartoon is officially over." "Next week, The CW is parting with its animated block, signing on for One Magnificent Morning, a live-action block filled with educational shows for kids. This made today the last day to catch cartoons on a network station with your kids. "
• Toonzone (also at TV NewsCheck.com)-- title: "Exclusive: Traditional Saturday Morning Programming Ends This Fall as Saban Brands Pulls the Plug on the Vortexx" "Traditional Saturday morning programming on U.S. broadcast television will come to an end this September when the Vortexx programming block on the CW Network will be replaced with One Magnificent Morning,..." "The Vortexx on the CW was the last remaining traditional Saturday morning programming block containing a mix of live-action and animated, non-E/I children’s programming on any U.S. broadcast television network."
• R.I.P. Saturday Morning Cartoons: Which was your favorite? at al.com: "On Sept. 27, the CW network hammered the final nail in the coffin, airing its cartoon block "The Vortexx" consisting of "Sonic X," "Dragon Ball Z Kai," "Cubix," and other animated programs for the last time." "It's the end of an American tradition dating back to the 1960s."
• Today Was The First Day Without Saturday Morning Cartoons In Over 50 Years at Buzzfeed.com: "Last weekend was the final hoorah for Saturday morning cartoons, after dominating weekend kids programming since the 1960s." "he CW became the final network to cut cartoons from their Saturday morning lineup last Saturday, replacing their programming block called 'The Vortexx' with five hours of family-oriented, non-animated TV called 'One Magnificent Morning.'"
• Breaking: Vortexx To End September 2014 with Litton Entertainment to Take Over the CW Saturday Morning Block with “One Magnificent Morning” on ToonBarn: "Along with the rest of the Vortexx block, confirming the end of the long – sometimes great, many times sour – but almost never boring Saturday Morning Franchise on Broadcast TV."

So basically most source found on the matter is not saying NBC Kids is a traditional cartoon block. Spshu (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

[Re:Lazy Town] It has plenty of cartoon material in it. 75.162.179.246 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't include Noodle and Doodle because that's one of the shows that is not a cartoon. But just like Toonzai and Vortexx had some shows that were not cartoons (Kamen Rider/Dragon Knight at one point, and a WWE show later), their majority was cartoons, which is why they were still called Saturday morning cartoon blocks.

So why are these sources that show you that the shows are cartoons supposedly "not good WP source"?

Again, I never said "traditional." "Cartoon block" doesn't have to mean "traditional."75.162.179.246 (talk)+

Again, nobody but you is insisting that we include so-called "traditionalism."

Your postings are trying to claim that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more." NBC Kids is Saturday morning cartoons (even if there are some real-people figures in some of them).

Besides that, who said that just because one of these sources says that "Saturday morning cartoons are gone" they are correct? Are you blind? Can you not *see* that they still exist there (even if you don't have access to a TV for some reason, you can see what's on the web and the scheduling that corroborates it)? Just because your so-called "sources" missed it doesn't mean you have to pretend like it "doesn't exist."75.162.179.246 (talk)

It doesn't matter if the video can be edited. Nobody's gonna try to remove all the basic ingredients of a show and turn it into what it isn't--especially if it's IN THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL THAT BELONGS TO SPROUT!

Remember, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone! Does that mean it "has no credibility"?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop posting in the middle of my posts or posting back in your original post. That makes it hard to follow.

Lazy Town doesn't have "plenty of cartoon material in it". Having a little bit of cartoon material in a show doesn't make a show a cartoon, just like Bill Cosby hosting Fat Albert & the Gang didn't make it a live action show. I detail above why they are "not good WP sources". Using primary sources is original research, which isn't the purpose of WP. A cartoon block is just that: a block that is made of up of cartoons. NBC Kids is a mixed block.

My posts don't claim "that 'Saturday morning cartoons are no more';" they support that position with six reliable sources. Six sources, not one like you claim say "Saturday morning cartoons are gone," as that is the traditional Saturday morning program. I don't have to claim; the sources back me up.

You are the one that seems to be blind in incorrectly identifying LazyTown as a cartoon show when it is a puppet/live action show. No one can verify what you or I saw or your opinion that LazyTown is a cartoon. Again, the Sprout YouTube channel is a primary source. Credibility is threatened by the likes of you, who wish to edit based on your opinion, not reliable published sources. Spshu (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for responding in a way that makes you think it's harder to follow. I didn't mean to make it harder to follow. I posted interjections because I thought that responding to each block individually would make it easier to follow.

Okay, I was thinking LazyTown's was cartoony because I thought its props and the fake-people characters were 3D graphics (not regular, flat cartoons, obviously) that are drawn in a cartoon style, with 2 or 3 real people blended into that. But then we have Chica Show and Noodle and Doodle that are clearly not cartoons. Are you saying that those backgrounds, props, and fake-looking "human" characters from LazyTown are actually physical objects, then? If so, then that makes this show a non-cartoon also. (I also understand that even if the items were not physical, but were drawn in a somewhat realistic style, they wouldn't be cartoons then, either, because cartoon isn't just a method but a style too.) So is that what you're saying: that these things from LazyTown that look like 3D-graphic cartoons are actually physical? If that's the case, then since we have 3 shows currently on NBC Kids that are either questionable as potential cartoons (LazyTown) or are certainly not cartoons (2 of them), and then since this block is only 3 hours long, that means these 3 shows make up half of this block, which would render this block as a truely mixed block like you said (half and half). But then that means that we have to verify the questionable one. (LazyTown: is it made of physical objects that are built to look cartoon-like, thus keeping it a live-action show, or is it 3D graphics that are drawn in cartoon style, making it a cartoon?)

So now, even if NBC Kids is a mixed block (which will be firmly established well enough once the less-realistic material inside LazyTown is determined to be still physical instead of just cartoon-styled 3D graphics), then instead of writing that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" and things like that as the supposed sources say, we should agree to write something like "the end of predominantly-cartoon blocks, but not the end of Saturday morning cartoons completely." Because even your sources falsely write stuff like "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" and "Saturday morning cartoons are no more," which is false. I don't care if the fact that they're big-name "sources" means to you that they're so-called "reliable sources;" they can still make mistakes and be wrong. They state the loss of blocks like Vortexx as if the lack of cartoons on commercial broadcast TV is an absolute, but it's not. So we can't use those articles as "proof" that Saturday morning cartoons are just gone, because they're wrong about that.

Since when just because an online guide can change doesn't mean it's "not a good source," if you can still go back and look at the schedule of shows (some actually say the names of the shows rather than just the name of a block)? And why would it matter if the changes were into the future or into the past? And by the way, even if you use a source for something, that doesn't mean you're "not claiming it." A person still has a claim even if they have sources to supposedly back them up. That's where phrases like "use sources to back up your claim" come into the picture. Also, if you're going to try to be a goo Wikipedian like you seem to think you are, then you really should do better to write things with correct grammar and punctuation (and even complete your attempted plurals by using an s on words like "source(s)," etc.

75.162.179.246 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You made it clear that you don't even know what I had written in the article based on your claims of what I supposedly wrote.

"I don't care if the fact that they're big-name "sources" means to you that they're so-called "reliable sources;'" Well, it doesn't just matter to me that is why I linked to the WP page on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you don't wish to follow WP rules then you don't have to edit here no one is forcing you. Spshu (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you figure you know that those so-called (by you) "reliable" sources are even reliable? If someone says "there are no more cartoons on major commercial broadcast network television on Saturday mornings" (such as a phrase like "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" or "The death of Saturday morning cartoons is complete" implies), but then you see a cartoon on one or more of those major broadcast networks being played on Saturday mornings, then are they still "reliable" (no matter what their size or supposed notoriety)?

NO. Not on that subject.

Oh, you want to talk about following rules now, do you? Well then, what gives you the idea that you should even be writing stuff in an area like this--which, while volunteer-based, still needs the writing to be of a professional quality--if you can't even handle basic grammatical/punctuation structure rules such as shifting from double-quotes to single-quotes and back where necessary (for example, quoting something of mine that already has quotation marks in it, in which case you need to convert mine into single-quote marks), and such as using commas and semicolons where necessary (for example, where you said "then you don't have to edit here no one is forcing you" but meant "then you don't have to edit here; no one is forcing you"? And then why didn't you answer my similar question from my previous response?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nice, spshu, I "love" how you just think you can go back to reediting the page to your liking without even finishing this discussion here, as if you were the "boss" over it or something like that.

75.162.179.246 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Because you have not said any thing relevant to the discussion to change the fact that an AP article posted at the Washington Post is a reliable source. You have been editing and generally exhibiting poor behavior. Spshu (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been editing with and generally exhibiting poor behavior, spshu. So you're saying that just because something is from big AP means it's always reliable? So just because AP says it makes it true? So just because big AP says Poppy Cat, for example, "isn't a cartoon" (using their phrase "Saturday morning cartoons are no more") makes it true even though they're actually WRONG?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not been "...generally exhibiting poor behavior..."; you are just parroting me. I have not been insulting you at all. Five other sources agree with the AP article at the Washington Post. Reliable article have editorial controls, you do not. Secondly, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Spshu (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have been. Where did I supposedly "insult" you?

5 other sources? I don't care if it's 6 "sources" or 6 million sources. If they're too ignorant to check out NBC Kids and know that while you and I have now agreed that the block doesn't have enough cartoons in it to call it a cartoon block, it still *has cartoons* and therefore any claims that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more," etc. are false, then they are *wrong*. It's not my "opinion." Someone who can't see that there are still cartoons on a commercial broadcast network on Saturday mornings is either blind, lazy, or an idiot, or a combination of those. Just find a source that doesn't claim that the cartoons are all gone from there (with some dumb, wrong statement like, "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" or "Saturday morning cartoons are no more"), and then don't write it like all the cartoons are gone from there, and then it will be fine.

75.162.179.246 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They all have used the term "cartoon block" which you have been fighting even though you agree now that this is the case. Any further attempt will be consider vandalism or disruptive editing. Spshu (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The use of the term "cartoon block" or not isn't the issue. The problem is that some sources say that Saturday morning cartoons "are no more" and "RIP," as if cartoons are no longer aired on national commercial broadcast TV on Saturday mornings, which is false.

IDriveAStickShift (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

←Yes, the term "cartoon block" is the issue as the articles are quoted as using "cartoon block" or cartoons implying cartoon block and that is what you have been reversing and edit warring about. Spshu (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reset

The term "Saturday morning cartoon" has very specific implications in U.S. popular culture. Even though that NBC block may technically be airing animated programming, it is not the type of programming that is culturally associated with the term. These blocks were only forced into filling themselves up with so much educational programming that they decided to just stick with it and give up on non-educational shows due to that and other factors. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page from editing for a week to cool down the edit war on the page. Please discuss your dispute above and if you can come to a consensus before the week is over, I'll remove the protection. Any future edit-warring or sock-puppeting will lead to blocks. Kuru (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh... you didn't notice that I already DID start a discussion above here?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. Is there something still unclear to you? Kuru (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously what? Obviously (to you) I started that discussion, or obviously you didn't notice that I did?

And then if it was "obvious" that you didn't notice that I started that discussion already, what was it that stopped you from noticing that somewhat big new section being added?

And then if it was obvious to you that I started that discussion, then why did you act as if I had not?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Change in schedule

Edit summaries:

• 16:52, 2 January 2015‎ Ttll213: (Undid revision 640651143 by Spshu (talk)Learn how to read a schedule)

Ttll213, you are reverting as the vandal as reasons have been given for reversing your edits. They have not been sourced. A schedule like TV Guide or the like is not a sufficient source nor might it current represent the show of the block as the block could have been partial displaced for other programming. For example, Sinclair Broadcasting runs American Sports Network on its CW subchannels on Saturday. Your edit has been challenged by my reversal thus it is up to you to provide a source. Spshu (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Does any one besides, Ttll213, believe Boomtron is a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Reliable source]? The source doesn't even indicate that either of the shows are canceled that Tt11213 believe are canceled. So, it only show that the shows are off the schedule for the time being, like Galavant is filling in for Once Upon A Time. Spshu (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your ASN example is irrelevant, because OMM is CW network programming, not syndicated. I never once claimed those shows were cancelled. They are, however, currently off the lineup, which my edit reflects. Quit putting words in my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Former is canceled as far as the OMM block is concerned (but not the show). Off the line up is different than "Former" mean it was former shown on the block while "Off the line up" isn't encyclopedia enough to mention. ASN is not irrelevant, local station programming may preempt network programming or syndicated for that matter which some of them are controlled by Sinclair. Spshu (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OMM was listed at STNA, the now defunct syndication trade association. Spshu (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Former is canceled as far as the OMM block is concerned" Says who? Those shows are longer being shown on the block, therefore they're "former" programming as far as OMM is concerned. That has nothing to do with whether they're canceled or not. I don't know why you keep bringing up ASN, that has absolutely nothing to do with OMM's lineup. STNA is obviously wrong, multiple sources such as Variety and TVNewsCheck confirm OMM is CW network programming, not syndication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Showing that they are not currently being shown just indicates that the show might be on "winter break", just like Galavant is currently temporarily replacing Once Upon A Time and Agents of SHIELD temporary replaced by Agent Carter or preempted by sports, breaking news, a special or movie. Networks spread their shows to make them last from the two rating sweeps time in November and May. ASN may pre empty their CW line up since Sinclair owns ASN and is programming it on Saturdays thus preempting OMM at times ("...officially launching in August 2014, ASN is affiliated primarily with CW and MyNetworkTV stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group ..."). Thus when you were checking the schedules, they many have all been Sinclair or other CW affiliates that are also affiliated with ASN thus the assuming their canceled. No, Variety and TV News Check articles do not confirm that they are network programming but (Variety) "The CW has teamed with Litton Entertainment ..." (TV News Check) "The CW ... five-hour Saturday morning educational/informational block called One Magnificent Morning from Litton Entertainment...". Also, C21 Media and TV By the Numbers cite the STNA with By the Numbers stating: "...while One Magnificent Morning comes from CBS Television Distribution, the syndicated arm of the network's corporate parent. " Spshu (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether they're on winter break or not is irrelevant. They're currently not on the lineup, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Once again, I still don't know why you keep bringing up ASN. I check multiple affiliate lineups in multiple markets. I'm well aware what station is owned by who, and I can distinguish which stations are preempting it or not. Preemption's aren't going to magically change what programs air on OMM, as you seem to believe. Also, you're out of your mind if you still think that OMM is syndication. Even the promotional bumpers that air within the block verbally use CW network branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, whether they are on winter break is relevant, so a couple of weeks doesn't make them "former" programs. As is a way to show that you are making assumptions whether or not they will be on in "foreseeable future" is |[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. ASN = possible premption. Preemption would change what the station's schedules that you check to see that it wasn't on the schedule. Since, you don't know any and don't care about ASN, means that your statement about station ownership is meaningless. Preemption is possible what you are seeing not that they are not in the line up. Winter break is a planned period of leaving a program off the line up by preemption.

Plainly and simple, you are pushing original research as you don't know if they are being preempt say based on number of episodes so a show with fewer episodes would have new episodes available for "sweeps". Why they were left off a week or two isn't not explain in your source and winter break is a possible reason. Spshu (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Get this through your head: Whether or not they're on break is irrelevant. They're not on the lineup anymore, so they're former programming. If they eventually decide return at a future date, then they'll be moved to current programming. Simple as that.

ASN - Good job at pulling BS out of thin air. As I said before, I can distinguish which stations are carrying ASN and which are not. I can also determine if a station shifting around the block or not. But, as before, this is IRRELEVANT, because ASN preemption's DO NOT change the programming that is shown on OMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Get this through your head: yes, it is relevant whether they are on break is relevant. They are not in the current schedule, you don't know what the line up since your source is a schedule, nor states the effect on the line up. ASN is not pulling BS out of thin air, based on your standard if they are preempted by ASN then they would be former programs as the program was shown and thus should be by your standard "former" programs. No your position is BS. Spshu (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"ASN is not pulling BS out of thin air, based on your standard if they are preempted by ASN then they would be former programs as the program was shown and thus should be by your standard "former" programs." - This is a delusion of your own creation. The subject of ASN preemption's are completely moot to the subject of the programming that is on OMM's lineup. You seem incapable of comprehending this. If you still doubt the lineup changes, why don't you actually observe the block's broadcast on television? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No it is a delusion of your creation, ASN is a station generated preemption while a temporary change in line up like a hiatus is generated by the programmer in this case Litton/CW. The schedule show in your source (and we have not even dealt with whether or not it is a reliable source) only indicates a single week of programming. Actually, observing the block's broadcast would not tell me what reason the show has been removed a the weekend's line up, not to mention that such an observation would not be valid for WP. Spshu (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Since your delusional state of mind can't comprehend that the subject of ASN station preemption's is completely irrelevant to the programming content that OMM provides on its lineup, I will ignore any further mention of it by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Either discussion the subject, or stop self analyzing (which you are) since I am using your logic against you. Preemption or hiatus is the key all you may be pointing to is that the shows are on hiatus, thus not on a particular weeks but is still part of the line up. You are inferring it from the source, it doesn't say that the two show have been dropped from the line up, just that they are not on the schedule. --Spshu (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

" since I am using your logic against you" - No, you're just spewing out a bunch of nonsense. " they are not on the schedule." - Exactly! Therefore, they're labeled as former programming as they are no longer on the lineup. If they eventually decide to return them to the lineup in the future, then they'll be moved to current programming. This isn't a hard concept. Ttll213 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am, you are have a hard concept understanding the difference between a line up and schedule. Once Upon a Time and neither is Agent of SHIELD is currently on the schedule as you can clearly see when you go to watch them that Galavant and Agent Carter are being shown in their place. But given the notice that ABC has given that the regular shows have been preempt as part of their winter hiatus with different shows. The CW nor Litton has indicated in you source what is the fact in the case is. Is the removal from the schedule of Reluctantly Healthy and The Brady Barr Experience because they are canceled or they on hiatus? Show me the quote in your source which states which is their status (ie. the reason for them not appearing on the schedule)? Spshu (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

OMM is a programming block, not a network, so your comparison is invalid, as is your fantasy definition of "schedule". Once again, whether those shows have been cancelled or not is irrelevant. They are no longer on the lineup for the foreseeable future, therefore they are former programming as far as OMM is concerned. Ttll213 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I thought OMM is part of a network, the CW, ((Tt11213: "...because OMM is CW network programming,...") as you so terrible fought for it to be despite unclear language. So is it or is not No it isn't "fantasy definition of 'schedule'" as I show to you with ABC's handling of two shows. And you have not given a quote as to their removal, so no "they are former programming as far as OMM is concerned." I am still waiting on the quote. Spshu (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. OMM is distributed as a part of the CW network, but OMM is not programmed by CW. It's programmed by Litton. It's a block. I'll type it again so that you can process it. It's a block. Your comparison is still invalid. Ttll213 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what I am talking about as I provided examples. And you just contradict yourself again. Yes, Litton is programming it as that is why other Litton programming was replacing it whether reruns or new show of their block. You need to process it. My comparisons are not invalid, just your hand waving them away. You are not providing any new information, but just showing that you have not been paying attention and intent at being a jerk. Spshu (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one hand waving facts away and being a jerk. I see that my edits have been vindicated. Thank you, Shadeed. Ttll213 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the one giving example and you are just making statement. No your edits have not been "vindicated" since your source was not the one used. --Spshu (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You kept denying that the lineup had changed, and you've been proven wrong. Ttll213 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to make this simple. I found OMM's website through their Facebook account. I only see FOUR series listed on their site.

From the following:

• Calling Dr. Pol
• Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan: Family Edition
• Expedition Wild
• Rock the Park

This is their official site and I don't see the other two programs listed on THIS schedule. And they're not on my cable's guide. King Shadeed 12:01, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Shadeed, I found the website url there too, but when I visited it nothing was coming up. This solves it, not Tt11213's source, hopefully we can find a non-primary source as the website will likely change and primary sources are not preferred at WP. Spshu (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. King Shadeed 12:11, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming programming

Not sure why some of the originally announced shows that didn't end up on the premier line up are listed under "Upcoming programming". Since there has been no news about these shows they show have been left in the history as announced but not shown as we cannot know if these show got out of development or pilot and reject or sent back for retooling or what ever the situation is. I guess the history wording that was there previously ("Additional programmings announced but not place on the premiere schedule were America's Flavors, Taste of Home, Swag and Social Media Mania.") may have implied that they are upcoming but to indicate that they were announce but not programmed into that line up. --Spshu (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviation in the lede

There is quite a bit of edit warring ([1], [2], etc.) regarding the inclusion of the abbreviation "OMM" in the lede. What's the consensus? What do others think? JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've add the abbreviation to the OMM disambiguration page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, should stay and allows for future use beyond the one use that is in the article. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Close disruptive failure to listen by persistent CenturyLink (Salt Lake City, Utah) IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When there's only ONE other mention of it, why not just spell it out? But if I go over to another article and add similar abbreviations because it has several mentions, why are we undoing them? 75.162.243.229 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC) And why cannot you not read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? --Spshu (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Why must you insist that similar articles be formatted differently? 75.162.243.229 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC) You still have not read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. As I am not "insist that similar articles be formatted differently'. You may not use what happens at one page to justify being disruptive on another page. And that is exactly what you have done. The sole issue that we are dealing with here and how is your behavior here. --Spshu (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Additionally, this editor is quite obviously the very persistent and disruptive Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift. Polite discussions have been a waste of time. If this editor persists in block evasion, the next steps will be a WP:Site ban, and all that entails. The editor should find another form of amusement, as no one is being fooled. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)