Talk:WSTQ-LP

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Stations

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

New York (state): Syracuse

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syracuse, New York, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

On 14 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from WSTM-DT2 to WSTQ-LP. The result of the discussion was moved.

Fair use rationale for Image:Wstq lp cw 6.jpg[edit]

Image:Wstq lp cw 6.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) 15:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wstq news.jpg[edit]

Image:Wstq news.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) 15:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WSTQ-LP. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013631/http://www.sbgi.net/site_mgr/temp/Barrington%20Closes.pdf to http://www.sbgi.net/site_mgr/temp/Barrington%20Closes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WSTQ-LP → WSTM-DT2 – WSTQ has an unbuilt digital CP that will be displaced by WSYT in the repack; the WSTM subchannel is more widely viewed both OTA and on cable (Zap2it even lists WSTM-DT2 over WSTQ); the WSTQ callsign is mainly used as a brand name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The naming conventions for broadcast stations states that Where a broadcast outlet operates a low-power transmitter as part of a major national network, the same content is often duplicated to a digital subchannel of a full-power TV station or to a local cable television operation. If any independent ITU callsign exists (even with a broadcast translator-like numbering or suffix pattern like W47CK or WNYF-CD) this should be used as the unique identifier even where it is the weaker signal. This appears to be the case here, since WSTQ-LP is an official call sign for an FCC-licensed station that carries the "CW 6" programming (even if it is a low-viewed analog station with a questionable long-term future), and not merely a fictional call sign for a program feed carried solely on cable or the subchannel of a larger station. (It's also worthy of note that WP:BROADCAST appears to suggest that any presumed notability for "CW 6" may actually be specific to WSTQ-LP itself — on its own, the WSTM-DT2 subchannel, despite the CW affiliation, may in fact be unlikely to be have any notability independent of WSTM-TV. I should also note for completeness that as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there is no guarantee that, despite the fact that WSYT moving its RF channel to 14 will displace both the digital CP and analog license for WSTQ-LP, the post-auction repack will be the end of WSTQ-LP as a standalone license.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wc's great points; unless SBG completely ends WSTQ as a going concern, the article should remain as-is. Nobody outside of a few antenna viewers actually watch the LP analog signal and most get it through the cable signal, but for all intents and purposes, it remains the main avenue for the station in every sense. And even if the station is done, we'll keep the article as it had a history well before DTV launched. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WSTQ station is what the article is about and is correctly named as WC Quidditch states. Therefor, its carriage over another station's subchannel doesn't change the originating station. --Spshu (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per well-articulated points above. WSTQ-LP is the station's licensed call sign, and the established convention is that's where we put U.S. broadcast articles. Mlaffs (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 30 September 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WSTQ-LP → WSTM-DT2 – As of 2020, WSTQ's signal is only available as a subchannel of WSTM-TV on 3.2. Its flash cut to digital never did happen and WSYT is now transmitting on channel 14. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. 2pou (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Statements to this effect in the article are not actually sourced. Courtesy pings to participants of the previous RM. After three years, has consensus changed? @Wcquidditch, Mrschimpf, Spshu, and Mlaffs:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I stand by my basic assertion from the 2017 RM — even if WSTQ-LP is all but dead (and outside of WSYT's RF 14 operation being licensed, there's been no filings or FCC action to that effect yet), any presumed independent notability for "CW 6" is tied to WSTQ, not the WSTM-TV subchannel, which if not for WSTQ wouldn't be independently notable from WSTM. Also, as noted before, our naming conventions seem to suggest that the correct title for the article about a station in WSTQ-LP's situation would indeed still be WSTQ-LP for as long as it still exists. (Then again, the article title may be the least of the article's issues — the sourcing here in general is limited enough that if WSTQ-LP is defunct as a separate license, perhaps the same path that we did for WTTX-LP should be pursued — it was displaced by WSKA and wound up returning its license, its programming moved exclusively to a subchannel of big sister station WETM-TV, and before long the separate WETM-DT2 page was merged and redirected to the main WETM article — consequently becoming WTTX-LP's redirect target as well). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Analog station is still on the air, and until we hear anything else regarding the station or IP unit's fate, it should stay here. As before...it has a history as an analog station that should be retained under this callsign (and why wasn't the article updated with the WSYT information in the first place?). Nate • (chatter) 20:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if it's no longer an operating concern – which seems likely even we can't source that currently – it's still an active FCC license. And even if the license ends up being cancelled, it still existed, had a history, etc., and the article should remain in place with content linking off to the WSTM-TV article (and vice versa). Mlaffs (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2020 (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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WVTV-DT2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]