Talk:ON TV (TV network)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleON TV (TV network) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starON TV (TV network) is the main article in the ON TV (TV network) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 7, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that within three years, American subscription television service ON TV went from boasting 725,000 subscribers in eight cities to being out of business?
Current status: Good article

Requested Move[edit]

This request has been removed as the article was moved manually by myself to ONTV (pay TV). Any concerns please direct them to the article's talkpage located at Talk:ONTV (pay TV). Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 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 section.

ONTV (pay TV) → ON TV (subscription TV) – In 2012, this article was moved from "ON-TV" to the present title of "ONTV (pay TV)", with the reasoning,

Whom ever originally created this article did so incorrectly as ON-TV, When ONTV premiered in Chicago in 1977 it was promoted as ONTV Subscription Television with no dashes or spaces ... It was never promoted or advertised as ON-TV.

The problem here is that, in some markets, it was. News articles on this subscription TV service, sometimes even in the same newspaper, were inconsistent. As ON TV was not a monolithic operation (its Detroit, Cincinnati and Portland versions were franchised and not owned by Oak Industries), sometimes its affiliates, particularly with regard to Detroit, used hyphenation ("ON-TV"). And "ONTV" is the rarest form in contemporary materials. (Sometimes, it went by "ON", or especially in Detroit, "ON Subscription TV".)

These print ads from all of the ON TV markets show a tendency to ON TV (space), except Detroit:

Newspaper articles tended toward the hyphen, but not consistently. The Cincinnati Enquirer used all three forms: hyphen, space, and the rare none. In Chicago, the none form was used, but also it was hyphenated and spaced.

In my opinion, the evidence leans toward using a space, particularly given that all five of the Oak-owned ON TV systems (which were Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, LA and DFW) utilized a space in their own print advertising. Also, I changed the disambiguator to "subscription TV" to reflect the terminology used at the time for the entire industry (indeed the LA subsidiary was "National Subscription Television"). Raymie (t • c) 04:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I don't care for either "(pay TV)" or "(subscription TV)" as disambiguators, as they are both non-standard. IOW, we need a better solution here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IJBall: We have a bunch of subscription TV articles that are "(TV channel)", as well as Preview (subscription service). The problem for me with that is that ON TV was not even one unified service. Several of the outlets (Detroit, Cincinnati, Portland) used the brand, and programming, under license. Raymie (t • c) 17:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm kind of saying is – if we can come up with a WP:NATURALDIS solution in this case, it would be much better. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: - Currently ONTV lists a number of television channels with that name disambiguated by country (e.g., ONTV (Egypt)). Why not disambiguate that way? FOARP (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because, under WP:NCBC that's actually incorrect – it should be ONTV (Egyptian TV channel). But Raymie's point is that this particular entity can't be disambiguated by "TV channel", as that's not accurate... In search of the WP:NATURALDIS solution, I wonder if this could be moved to National Subscription Television, the name of the company that "owned" the service. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other option might be ON TV (TV network) – if this consisted of channels in 8 different markets, that basically qualifies as a "TV network" under the proper definition (albeit a small one). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm here for it, even if it's imprecise. The ownership structure is not such that companies known as "National Subscription Television" were involved in all markets. It wasn't the marketing name of the service anywhere. Most of the newspaper mentions of it as such are classified ads. Articles use "ON TV" and "ON-TV". The services themselves used mostly "ON TV" and less commonly "ON-TV", except Detroit where that was nearly exclusive, in print promotion. And it was very rarely presented without a space or hyphen. (There's a reason I rewrote the article to use "ON TV" in prose from "ONTV"). While not perfect, the "(TV network)" disambiguator comes closer. Raymie (t • c) 17:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone going to close this? – There seems to be consensus from the three of us to move to ON TV (TV network), at least as an interim solution. No reason not to just move to that now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:ON TV (TV network)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Infobox looks good.
  • Add a comma after "sporting events".

History[edit]

  • "majority owned" → "majority-owned"
  • Add commas after "January 31, 1982", "Detroit, Cincinnati", and "Los Angeles, Chicago".
  • "under construction" → "under-construction"
  • "shuttered March" → "shuttered on March"
  • "keep services" → "keeping services"
  • "southern California" → "Southern California"

Service and programming[edit]

  • Add a comma after "Los Angeles, Phoenix".
  • The phrase "did not pay simply received no" sounds wordy, so try rewording.

Equipment[edit]

  • "manufactuers" → "manufacturers"
  • "California governor" → "California Governor"
  • Remove the comma after "particularly Chartwell in Detroit".

Stations[edit]

  • Add commas after "Lakers", "September 9, 1979", "minor league baseball", "Blackhawks", and "children's programs".
  • "operating January" → "operating on January"
  • "court ordered" → "court-ordered"
  • This is the only one I didn't change, as it is a subject and verb, not an adjective ("a court ordered Desmond to..."). I'm not a personal Oxford comma fan, but I went ahead and made the changes.

References[edit]

  • Try archiving sources (especially Newspapers.com, which will disappear if the title changes).
  • Thanks for the review. Let me get back to this particular element... I hope there's a tool, because this and KVDO-TV combined have a lot of references to newspapers.com, and also I have a LOT of citations to newspapers.com in my GAs, GA candidates and across the topic area. (To give you an idea of the scale, I have nearly 11,000 clippings on newspapers.com!) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for archiving sources, but there are some, may I several edits above that weren't addressed. Same issue with the KVDO-TV article, where there are just a few issues that haven't been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Eyes glazed over a bit there, but I should have everything taken care of. The only other one besides "Telecasters" I haven't made on KVDO is "prime time", as our article on that is two words and I'm not using it as an adjective but as a noun (e.g. AP Stylebook would call for "prime time" as noun and "prime-time" as an adjective). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
An ON TV decoder box
An ON TV decoder box
  • ... that within three years, American subscription television service ON TV (decoder box pictured) went from boasting 725,000 subscribers in eight cities to being out of business? Source: Sub figures June '82 from [1]. Service closed June 30 '85.

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hook is interesting and properly sourced, self-made image is clear and has no copyright issues. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ON_TV_(TV_network)&oldid=1209517516"