Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 5

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

Archival

[edit]

I archived the talk page, which was 75 KB. I also copied code from my other project's talk page (talkheader and tocleft templates). TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know: when we first had talk pages, they did not have all the templates. I spruced it up the last two times I archived it. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PTEN

[edit]

One question for all of you guys and gals: can the "Prime Time Entertainment Network", which was the blanket title for mid-1990s syndicated shows such as Kung Fu: The Legend Continues and They Came From Outer Space, be considered a "network" along the lines of UPN/WB/CW?

I say no. It was a syndication service in which the aforementioned programs (and a few others that may be best forgotten) were branded under. A new user, Spshu, believes that PTEN was a network, and has been adding this "fact" to the Chris-Craft Industries page and adding an affiliate listing (consisting of the Chris-Craft/United station group only) on the PTEN page, which I have deleted (with valid reason) several times. Let's settle this once and for all, if you care to. Rollosmokes 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industry mews mentions of the day refer to PTEN as a weblet or ad-hoc network, which is the same way they referred to The WB and UPN when they launched, and no one is disputing their network status. Citations are listed in the PTEN article references, one of which can be read online here.
This is a mention from Broadcasting & Cable in March of this year about MyTV, but referring to PTEN as network - specifically, "The latter began in 1993 as a potential fifth network with two hours of programming per night, aimed at a consortium of 177 affiliates covering 93% of the U.S." Sounds like it's still considered a network, if a failed one, since the ChrisCraft pullout to form UPN with Paramount crippled it. TheRealFennShysa 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And They Came from Outer Space? There's no connection to PTEN with that - I'd never heard of the show, but a quick Google search shows it predates PTEN by a few years. TheRealFennShysa 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the company was Prime Time Entertainment Network. If they called themselves a network, marketed themselves as a network, and B&C refers to them as a network... then they were a network, albeit one that no longer exists. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I thought to agree with you, as the Chris Craft station in Phoenix (KUTP-TV) TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) never mentioned any Prime Time Entertainment Network, and it did seem like nothing more than a syndication service. Internet Movie Database lists them as a "distributor" [1]. However, the more research I did, the more I came to the conclusion that they were, in fact, a network, albeit a short-lived one. They had their own spot on the Warner Bros. transponder [2] and have been referred to as Warner Bros.' first attempt at a television network [3], so obviously, they were thought of at the time as a legitimate network. I'm going to have to side keeping the PTEN network notes and affiliates. dhett 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Also, for the record, IMDB also lists DuMont as "distributor".[4] Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Then, we can't trust IMDB, because DuMont WAS a big network for its time. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with this. PTEN was a distributor of programming. So, if it's now, all of the sudden, a network, then what do we call Operation Prime Time or, say, the Disney Afternoon or the Universal Pictures Debut Network? Rollosmokes 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PTEN is not "all of a sudden" a network. It was always a network, albeit one that didn't last. The difference between it and, say, something like Operation Prime Time, is that PTEN programming was regularly scheduled, and was generally run nationwide at the same time every night they programmed, except on secondary affiliates with another primary affiliation. OPT programming was limited to specials, made-for-TV movies, and other types of random programming that independent stations were generally free to air whenever they chose - there was never a set time that *all* the affiliates who ran Entertainment Tonight had to run the show. The Disney and Universal blocks were programmed similarly - stations were free to run them whenever they chose. TheRealFennShysa 03:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let us get some facts straight I did not state that PTEN was a network. I just responsed to the request for affiliates on the PTEN talk page; others indicated that it was a network. Given Chris-Craft's (CC) partnership in the PTEN; CC's stations would be a logical start. Second, I indicated in the CC article that it was an attempt at a starting a network.
Reason for it being consider a network: 1) it branded its self a network - Prime Time Entertainment Network. 2) It complies with the definition: "A television network is a distribution network for television content whereby a central operation provides programming for many television stations." 3)It was an by all accounts an attempt to launch a new network as above sources and PTEN article sources indicated. Spshu 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - 4) If you question PTEN's network status could force us to get more technical and reevaluated UPN, WB and the CW as TV Networks as I out line at My Talk page. And for that matters, PBS as they don't national set a programming schedule. Operation Prime Time, Action Pack and the like would fall into branded alternative programming. Stations most likely purchase them as a package deal and could show them at what ever time they wanted. Spshu 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB lists NBC and ABC as distributors, but it is a movie site -- it doesn't matter to them. A network is a method of distribution and so is syndication or movie "studios". I relooked at the Variety article and it indicates that Operation Prime Time was an "ad-hoc" network. Vote right now is 5 for and 1 against it being a network. How long is such a topic kept open? Spshu 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership listings (Licensee + parent)

[edit]

Since WP:TVS doesn't presently deal with this, a couple of questions about ownership info within Template:Infobox Broadcast:

  • Should we bother to list a station's licensee, or just the ultimate parent company?
  • If we should list the licensee, what format should we use?

I've always considered the identity of the specific licensee to be important - perhaps not of any direct use to the average reader, but potentially useful for legal or research purposes, and at least as useful as, say, transmitter power. The licensee need only be named in the Infobox, not the main text. But of course, as I am apt to forget myself at times, Wikipedia is not written for broadcast professionals but for the average person, and the average person couldn't care less about, say, WAGA License Inc. when all they need to know is that the parent company is News Corp.

If we agree on that, as to format... Habitually I've listed both the licensee and ultimate parent in the following format: (example would apply to WCBS-TV)

Owner: CBS Broadcasting Inc. (CBS)

The licensee can be easily verified via the FCC's TV Query. I would put CBS Broadcasting first because it is the company that directly owns the station. This is followed by a short-hand reference to the ultimate parent company, e.g. Disney or NewsCorp (or perhaps NewsCorp/FTSG ?).

The most common alternative format I've seen is this, which gives priority to the parent company:

Owner: CBS Corporation (CBS Broadcasting Inc.)

Again, this might be slightly less confusing to the average reader. Another potential alternative is separate "Owner / Parent company" lines, although in my view this would just cause more confusion.

Any thoughts? — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In station articles I've edited, I've been using the above format of Parent Owner/(Licensee). I think that format has worked for the most part, and would like to see it continue. Rollosmokes 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to go with giving priority to the parent company. Using Phoenix stations again as an example, it's more meaningful to the average user that KSAZ-TV is owned by Fox Television Stations Group, rather than KSAZ License, Inc., or that KPNX is owned by Gannett, rather than Multimedia Holdings Corporation. In each case, the latter is the actual licensee. dhett 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thinking it over I'm inclined to go the same way. I've just codified this change as an optional template parameter in the Infobox. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to make sense to indicate Parent company (Licensee). What about stations with parent company, operating company and licensee company? Parent (Licensee/operating) This seems to be the case with WSMH with the FCC record search and WSMH website. Sinclair is parent, WSMH, Inc. operating, and WSMH Licensee, Inc/LLC licensee companies. Spshu 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles?

[edit]

Do we have any good articles around here? WP:PCP has about 15 plus two FAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuMont Television Network is a Good Article prepared by various WP:TVs members. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

[edit]

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

WHYY-TV help requested!

[edit]

There appear to be many issues with our Wikipedia article on WHYY-TV. The history related in the article does not closely resemble that of external links such as this or this. For example, our article states the station was founded in 1957. The external links say 1949-early 1950. Our article says the station was originally WYBE channel 35; the external links say it was originally WDEL channel 7/12. Our article makes no mention of commercial affiliations, while the external links do. Our article makes no mention of former call-signs WDEL, WPFH, or WVUE. This is rather confusing, and either our article needs a re-write, or there were two seperate stations in Delaware with the same call sign. Any ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, WHYY was originally on 35, then went to 12 when its original occupant went dark. WYBE commenced transmissions on 10 June 1990, according to the first link. You could also write a letter to WHYY: maybe they can help. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In one month, TV-Ark will relaunch, and I'm thinking that links will change. We will have to get this done when it comes back online on Christmas Day. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot

[edit]

I asked for a SuggestBot list yesterday, and I just got it today. I've trimmed it down to our project:

Stubs
WJXX
WAWS
WTLV
ACME Communications
Cleanup
Telemundo
Wikify
OpenTV
Tokyo Broadcasting System
Expand
KVDA
WBNA
WAOE

I was surprised at the results in the stub section: all of the stubbed station articles are from the same market; Jacksonville, Florida. I was stunned when I saw this. WTEV is the only one missing.Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something here. By what criteria does this bot select articles? I thought that each section you posted meant that that particular tag is on the article, but some articles have no tag, while others are tagged but didn't appear in this list. (The aforementioned WHYY-TV is a prime example.) dhett 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off the query from July. Time to update SuggestBot, ForteTuba! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

[edit]

I plan to send DuMont Television Network to Featured Article Candidacy soon. Before I do, I'd like to run it past the friendly folks here for improvements. Without getting too TV-station crufty, I wonder if more can't be added to this article to make it better. Suggestions? Edits? Ideas?Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing faith in this place...

[edit]

I am beginning to feel that my time with Wikipedia may be coming to an end soon, because I don't find it fun anymore.

First, there was A Man in Black's anti-fair use image gallery purging campaign. Then, there is this newfound "notion" (courtesy of Spshu) that Prime Time Entertainment Network was a full-fledged "network". Now, David Levy and I are battling over proper use of grammar. On top of that, Marckd continues to use various IP addresses to make his point with WWOR-TV and WTXX. This is enough for me, and there's but only so much a person can take.

I began editing Wikipedia because I believed I could use my writing talents and knowledge of television and radio history to work in a welcome environment, though I stayed away from being a full-fleged part of the WP:TVS project. Now, it seems as though the "inmates" have taken control of the asylum. Where's the real consensus? Where's the real teamwork? Instead, I only see battles on editing style, article format, content, and those with an agenda they want to push trying to get their way.

Personally, I disagree with AMiB on the fair use gallery issue, as I believed the images were beneficial to articles if we don't get excessive with them. I disagree with Spshu that PTEN was a network because they (despite the name) they never labelled themselves as anything more than just a blanket title for syndicated programming, like Operation Prime Time. Now, months after I introduced the proper practice of substituting single-digit numerals with their written forms ("one" instead of "1"), David Levy tells me that the proper way is the wrong way here, as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

So, with this, does it mean us professional writers have been wrong all along? If you believe Wikipedia and Mr. Levy, then I guess we have been. I called Mr. Levy a "kid" who knew nothing about how to write, and someone willing to throw out all reasoning in order to enforce his own will -- and I stick to those statements. He called my comments uncivil; to me they aren't as I refrained from vulgar language and stronger personal attacks. He again proved himself to be arrogant and pompous, and someone not worthy to be an administrator.

As far as Marckd goes, we have been battling for months over the content of WWOR-TV and WTXX. He insisted on adding redundant and trivial information, and on making unnecessary style changes. Now, he insists on adding a few words instead, but it still is redundant to me. I have tried to reason with him, but to no avail. And he is further able to make changes and escape credit for them by using various IP addresses (the most recent being "65.41.244.121") instead of his screenname.

I am trying to be a team player. At the same time, I wish to bring a level of credibility and a certain form of style to Wikipedia's television articles. But if my work isn't appreciated, there's no point in me staying. I will decide my future with Wikipedia within the next few days. Rollosmokes 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo, I read your comments, and I acutally feel along the same lines as you do. I started either creating and/or editing a TV and radio station pages on this site for over the last year, and I though it was would be a fun way to least sharpen my writing skills and share information (either just by memory or actual research) with others who share the passion I do. However, with the logo gallery removals, the constant horrible re-writes by a bunch of dumb-ass know-it-alls, and everything else in between, I find myself constantly frustrated with this site. A lot of hard work of myself and others are wasted and destoyed by a bunch of assholes with nothing better to do. I don't particularily mind slight edits here and there that would inhance the individual articles to make it look presentable, but it's frustrating to have someone to come behind and all a bunch of useless garbage. I could say I'm little bit guilty of that, but it's not constant like others on this site. I still see a lot of the TV station sites here where the presentation of the articles are absoulute putrid. I, myself, haven't even bothered re-writing or creating new station articles purely by the simple fact that I fear someone will ruin the time and work I put into these articles.

Bottom line is this...the site administrators have to do a better job policing these articles, and I know that each of them are doing the best they can in that regard. However, a lot of these edit wars and constant griping by us here in this community will not change unless Wiki can do a better job in policing this site. This is no means an attack towards the site, I'm just simply saying.

As far as my idea on what the TV articles SHOULD be presented, here it is...

  • Station's call letters, channel assignment (analog and digital), location and service area, and a link to that station's web site (if any)
  • Network affillation, if any, past and present
  • An introduction to the station and its influence and impact on its community
  • A concise and detailed station history, including any significant events and station personalities
  • Upcoming future plans for the station (and that information should be confirmed before posting)

No newscast schedules, no listing of station personalities, and other useless irrelevant garbage that doesn't belong. If you want to know what time that station's newscast airs, and when other shows that they air...go to their web site or visit one of the TV listing sites. ShawnHill 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop attacking me. I was not the one who indicated that PTEN was a network. All version up until my adding affiliates consider PTEN a network. I was just responding to the request for affiliates. You keep on failing to read the edit summaries and talk pages on PTEN and else were. I (original) reverted the affiliate list given that its doesn't have to be a TV network to have affiliates like professional sports teams. I offer that we come up with an alternative name to Network Affiliates if it wasn't satisfactory to you. King World has affiliates by defination as they have a set of loyal stations that have first rights to new programs but isn't a network. In the Chris-Craft article, I indicated that PTEN was an attempt to be a network not that it was a network, but you still removed it. At the WWOR article instead of reverting the affiliate information, I just indicated that it carried PTEN programming. Yet, you still remove it. It is like you don't want to make the station article a whole overall picture of the station over the year. I think knowing that a station carried alternative programming block or minor networks but not bogging the article down with every last show that the station carried is the best or atleast good way to go. Your whole argument at my talk page aganist PTEN being a network was "PTEN IS NOT A NETWORK". Not a sound argument as you are using your conclusion as your reason. I gave you a Warning 2 for vandalism on your talk page per Wikipedia instruction (which you have remove) for the two reversion with out cause. Other restore my edits and you revert them twice even though they gave reason too and direct you to PTEN's talk page. At this point, you should have received the 4th warning and an administrator should be stepping in to deal with you to the point of you being ban. But you even reject Wikipedia policy just because I am new. you have accused me of trying to prove a point and 2) claiming ownershipwhile your actions clearly show that is what you are doing. Please take the recommendation on the WP:OWN page that you should leave for a week or two at least. Spshu 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by David Levy

[edit]

Then, there is this newfound "notion" (courtesy of Spshu) that Prime Time Entertainment Network was a full-fledged "network".

It certainly wasn't a full-fledged network, but the same applies to MyNetworkTV.

I began editing Wikipedia because I believed I could use my writing talents and knowledge of television and radio history to work in a welcome environment, though I stayed away from being a full-fleged part of the WP:TVS project. Now, it seems as though the "inmates" have taken control of the asylum.

Because anyone who dares to challenge your wisdom must be crazy?

Where's the real consensus?

The consensus in favor of writing channel assignments in numerical format is obvious (given its use throughout Wikipedia), and the discussion that I read showed a clear preference for referring to PTEN as a network (and compelling evidence to back this assertion). You have decided to unilaterally overrule these decisions.

Instead, I only see battles on editing style, article format, content, and those with an agenda they want to push trying to get their way.

Yes, that's an accurate description of your behavior.

Now, months after I introduced the proper practice of substituting single-digit numerals with their written forms ("one" instead of "1"), David Levy tells me that the proper way is the wrong way here, as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

1. You neglected to mention that this dispute applies strictly to television channel assignments (not to single-digit numbers in general). It is not "proper" to spell out TV channel numbers (for the reasons noted at User:Rollosmokes/Archive 3#Recent changes...).
2. I just became aware of this issue, but several other editors have attempted to restore the numerical format (at which point you immediately swooped in to revert). Your changes did not stand unchallenged for months.

So, with this, does it mean us professional writers have been wrong all along?

1. No, because professional writers do not commonly spell out generic references to television channel assignments.
2. You stated that "we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias." I then quoted several entries from the Encyclopædia Britannica (arguably the world's most prestigious printed encyclopedia) containing numerical references to single-digit television channel designations, and you've yet to address this fact.
3. You also claimed that it was "a load of crap" to argue that a single-digit number in a postal address should not be spelled out. You then cited the Penguin Handbook, evidently overlooking the portion of your quoted passage that clearly indicates that "most styles do not write out words in ... an address" and prescribes that we "use numerals instead" (at which point you silently dropped the issue and archived the discussion without replying). As I noted, we're dealing with channel addresses.
4. It's difficult to take your grammar lecture seriously when you profess expertise via the phrase "us professional writers."

I called Mr. Levy a "kid" who knew nothing about how to write, and someone willing to throw out all reasoning in order to enforce his own will -- and I stick to those statements. He called my comments uncivil; to me they aren't as I refrained from vulgar language and stronger personal attacks. He again proved himself to be arrogant and pompous, and someone not worthy to be an administrator.

1. I don't know why you believe that anyone who disagrees with you and refuses to defer to your "professional" judgment is "arrogant and pompous," but I again direct your attention to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
2. As I've explained to you several times, I'm not acting in my capacity as an administrator. At no point in our dealings have I used any sysop tools. I haven't even reverted a page via the administrative rollback function.

I am trying to be a team player.

Which part of defying consensus and labeling controversial reversions "minor" (without providing an edit summary) fits the above description?

At the same time, I wish to bring a level of credibility and a certain form of style to Wikipedia's television articles.

You wish to own these articles, and you won't settle for anything less. —David Levy 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestone sale ([5])

[edit]

Bluestone Television sold a bunch of outlets to one Bonten Media Group. We need changes in the articles listed (WCYB is already done), plus an article on Bonten Media. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How soon do we want to start changing these? Although broadcastingcable.com lists the deal as done, the FCC shows that they just submitted the requsts for the FCC to review and grant permission for the sale. I could make a case that we should even wait until consummation, as that's when the buyer officially takes ownership of the station. Myself, I think that now is too soon, but once the FCC approves the sale, then we should proceed to make the changes. dhett 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little more information on this transaction - it's not just Bluestone Television selling the stations to Bonten Media Group, Bonten Media Group acquired BlueStone altogether - the stations came with it. dhett 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...I looked at another B&C and... http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6398658.html?display=Deals ...add WCTI-TV to the list of needed changes. TTV|talk|contribs|email 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of logo galleries

[edit]

Just thought the community should know about this: administrator A Man In Black (talk · contribs) has been removing logo galleries containing (what he sites as) fair-use images from several station articles.

A list of cable network articles he's already handled: Disney Channel. Ronald20 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit - Also handled: Spike TV, Fox Sports Net, ABC Family, ESPN on ABC, Toon Disney, CNN Headline News, CBC Newsworld, and Réseau de l'information. Ronald20 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

(Edit - I have archived the removed content here. Ronald20 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, we've been arguing this for nearly two months now, since Rollosmokes brought it to our attention. It was a huge brouhaha and there are still some hard feelings over it. Go to archive 4, item 3 (dhett 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)) for the full discussion - you might want to pack a lunch if you go; it's pretty lengthy. dhett 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, the upshot was that nobody likes this but there was grudging acceptance that this is something that needs to happen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your understanding differs from mine. I was of the opinion that there was no consensus on this, but since I've been mainly working with new articles anyway, I don't encounter many logo galleries. BTW, a point of clarification is probably in order here that only galleries of fair use and licensed images are at issue here; galleries which are comprised of non-copyrighted images, and other images over which Wikipedia excercises control, are still allowed. dhett 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've been leaving, say, images of the newscopter (assuming they're free images) alone. If I make a mistake and remove a free image, feel free to replace it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see much "grudging acceptance". I've seen a lot of people attempting to reason with you and giving up because you don't argue and defend your point, you simply repeat your same points over and over again. Many are also no doubt intimidated by the fact that you have threatened (and used) administrative action against anyone who dares to revert an edit of yours because they disagree with your interpretation of fair use policy. DHowell 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images don't identify anything and aren't themselves subjects of significant commentary. Those are the only two reasons you can use a fair-use image on Wikipedia ever. I've threatened users who revert war over inserting non-free images without proper fair-use rationales, yes. Unless the image identifies something not already identified in the article or is itself a subject of significant commentary in the article, it isn't fair use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on historical logos in galleries

[edit]

Seeing as we are at an impasse on this issue, I have just submitted an RFC about the use of historical logos in galleries at Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries. Please contribute to this discussion and help determine a consensus. Despite the assertions of User:A Man In Black, this issue is not as clear cut as he would like it to be and consensus needs to be determined. DHowell 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for cable systems

[edit]

Disavian has created an article describing the in-house cable television network used at Georgia Tech, which was originally tagged as a station needing an infobox. Problem is, our broadcast infobox template doesn't seem to apply well to the article. Does anyone know of an infobox that would be a better match? Thanks in advance. dhett 08:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, GTCN is both a station and a physical (distribution) network, as it has a few channels that it manages itself. Those aren't broadcast outside of Georgia Tech's borders, but I still think that it qualifies it as a "station." A somewhat comparable, but not identical, situation is how Comcast owns G4 (TV channel). Of course, I'm open to ideas. I get the feeling that GTCN is somewhat of a unique article, although there must be many similar networks out there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody willing to help? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D Means Defunct

[edit]

I ran into a problem on KGUN-TV. There was a translator for the station with query calls DK02BW. I didn't know what it was (I thought it meant Digital K02BW), and then Radio-Info pointed out that KTFL (query calls DKTFL) was defunct. A ton of D-call stations show up, but the one that sealed the deal was LA's channel sixty-eight, KEEF-TV, "DKEEF-TV", which I knew was defunct by all means. Thus, if you catch a D in YOUR FCC queries, the station's not broadcasting. Remember: D Means Defunct. TTV|talk|contribs|email 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, D means Callsign Deleted (for American television stations only). It means that the licensee has turned the license back in to the FCC. TTV is mostly correct in that these are defunct stations, as almost all stations with callsign deleted are defunct (sometimes the signal is left on - eg. DK04FN Quartzsite AZ, DK07WL Carrizo AZ), but there are also several defunct stations out there whose license is still active (or will be until the FCC finishes processing renewals - eg. KTLL-LP 65 Tucson AZ, K02BW Tucson before it was sold to Journal Broadcast Corporation). In the case of KTFL, the station went off the air 6/1, but the callsign wasn't deleted until 3 months later.
If you encounter a deleted callsign, sometimes you'll find it on the FCC TV Query, but usually you won't; you'll have to go to the CDBS Station Search instead. dhett 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub state classification

[edit]

Just a question for you all since I'm still a bit too nOOb to really get into the meat of editing stuff (but I'm getting there)...

I've noticed that the pages for some of our local stations here in Yuma, AZ, including KSWT and KYMA, refer to the article as a stub about a California-based TV station. What is the basis for which state is used there? Both of those, as well as KECY, have their actual studios in Yuma, AZ, but their transmitters are 15-20 mi NNW of town, in California (to serve the other and smaller half of the DMA, the Imperial Valley in CA). Since we're the larger half of the split market, and the stations have their physical operations in Arizona, it seems like the stub link should be for AZ instead... but I'm the nOOb here... :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TVGenius (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We use the cities of license, which are the following:
  • KECY -- El Centro
  • KYMA -- Yuma
  • KSWT -- Yuma
These can easily be found by doing FCC queries. They are part of the blue text. TTV|talk|contribs|email 14:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you found was an error on the part of an editor. Because the Yuma stations are in a shared market with California cities, their transmitters are in California, and the market is California-based, some assume that the stations are also based in California. No big deal - happens to all of us at one time or another. California has its own state-based stub tag, but Arizona does not; Arizona stations just use the {{US-tv-station-stub}} tag. Feel free to replace the California stub tag with a US stub tag if it bothers you, but just be sure you're only changing stations with an Arizona city of license. You could also expand the article and remove the stub tag altogether. I'm of the opinion that the KSWT article is already beyond stub status, so that the stub tag can be removed right now. In any case, if you should edit any article, be sure to leave a message in the edit summary box explaining the reason for your edit (eg., Replaced California stub tag with US tag; KSWT is an Arizona-based TV station). Also, a reminder: don't forget to sign your posts to talk pages (but not articles) by ending the post with four tildes (~) so we know who's commenting or asking the question. dhett 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized as soon as I had hit Save Page that I forgot the tildes, but then something happened with my internet connection and I couldn't get back to the article to add it. As far as KECY goes, I'd almost vote for them to be considered Yuma as well, since about five years ago, they moved their entire operation from El Centro to Yuma (to the tune of being off the air for about two weeks) but I guess that if the FCC still shows it that way, then that way it shall be. I'll go ahead and change the stub tags... maybe see what everyone else thinks about KSWT's stub status and maybe lose it later. I'll try to go in and do some more historical background (prior ownership etc) over the coming weeks/month or two, as I have time. (I worked there for over five years) I'll also update the CW fiasco whenever it's taken care of (which reminds me, I need to tweak what's there a bit now...) TVGenius 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What CW fiasco? TTV|talk|contribs|email 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole fight that KSWT and their parent company Pappas had with Time Warner Cable over whether or not it would be carried on analog cable or not. After about four months of bickering (and only being able to get it OTA on 13.2) they finally reached some sort of agreement that got it on analog 6. KECY didn't seem to have any problems getting their cable/sub-channel only ABC affiliate on channel 5 to replace KNXV from Phoenix, though. TVGenius 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a Mission involving Nexstar: partial copyvios/cookie cutters/clunky paragraphs

[edit]

Take a look at KODE-TV. What's wrong with the first paragraph? It looks like a partial copyvio. I saw it on KLBK-TV/KAMC in Lubbock, too. And it looked eerily similar. Weed out all the Nexstar and Mission stations' copyvio paragraphs (which are easily identifiable by "(station) provides a digital and analog signal to viewers" and items on Shared Services Agreements). At this rate, just like Nexstar treats its stations, it will become a dump. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfolding developments

[edit]

http://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar/stations/kode.asp shows the truth:

Nexstar page

[edit]

KODE, an ABC affiliate in Joplin, was acquired by Mission Broadcasting in 2002. Subsequently KODE entered into a Shared Services Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting station KSNF. The operating efficiencies have greatly improved both stations’ revenue share and viewership. KODE and KSNF entered into a Joint Sales Agreement in October of 2004 which will provide for more effective marketing of advertising time for both stations. KODE’s syndicated programming includes Oprah, Jeopardy, Seinfeld, and Spin City. The station provides a digital and analog signal to viewers.

KODE-TV article

[edit]

KODE was acquired by Mission Broadcasting in 2002. Subsequently KODE entered into a Shared Services Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting station KSNF. The operating efficiencies have greatly improved both stations’ revenue share and viewership. KODE and KSNF entered into a Joint Sales Agreement in October of 2004 which will provide for more effective marketing of advertising time for both stations. KODE’s syndicated programming includes Oprah, Jeopardy, Seinfeld, and Spin City. The station provides a digital and analog signal to viewers.

We are dealing with mass copyvio, folks...and it ain't pretty. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More unfolding developments

[edit]

Special:Contributions/70.242.36.188. That's the contribs of the IP that added the copyvio material. TTV|talk|contribs|email 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the inclusion of news anchors

[edit]

I notice many TV station pages include the names of current news anchors. I believe this is *mostly* inappropriate for Wikipedia for the following reasons:

  • WP:NOT#SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox for self-promotion
  • WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a TV/Radio Guide, or a resource for conducting business.
  • WP:NOTE Inclusion of news anchors is trivia, changes often, and not notable for an encyclopedia

Disscussion? --Bill Huston (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles: If they are notable in their own right, keep them; if not, go through AfD with them.

Station lists: Keep notable anchors, delete the rest immediately from article. TTV|talk|contribs|email 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LPTV alert: We nearly lost two of 'em, time to stop

[edit]

Today, I was going through CAT:CSD. Well, it went well until I saw KPDF-CA, an article I created under an anon IP, in the bin. I ran to the article. Turns out User:Alan.ca (a Canadian user) had put a G11 tag on it. I removed it, as the article was not G11-worthy. I run to get User:Dhett, also from Chandler and my major partner in maintaining the Arizona TV articles, on the line, and he replies, pointing to issues that happened with KUNP. Well, we need to watch out: our LPTVs in low-power places need a little help. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.ca has done this before with the G11 tags. For the most part, he's just doing it for the hell of it and his claims carry no weight at all. Rollosmokes 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now at AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDF-CA It would be helpful if some references could be added. --Eastmain 06:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why list it at AfD, when an {{unreferenced}} tag (or similar) would do the job instead? Besides, I'm working on providing better references for the article. dhett 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, again, my mistake. I misread your comment to say that you had listed the article. dhett 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was more a case of making a good point very badly. KPDF-CA is unsourced and in dire need of improvement (my bad), but a speedy deletion tag was not the correct way to deal with it. I left Alan.ca a polite, but firm, note on his talk page; whether or not it will have any effect is in doubt, as his contribution history includes many AfD references. It seems to be his preferred way of dealing with content he doesn't like. Tracker is right; we'll need to be vigilant with our articles, especially those about LPTV stations. Remember that LPTV as we know it doesn't exist outside the US, so many editors don't understand its signficance. In addition, some of the articles are on shaky ground with respect to verifiability and notability. dhett 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A correction - the other station that had issues used to be KUNP-LP. It's now KPPP-LP, as of Dec. 15th. I didn't realize Fisher Communications had changed the calls. dhett 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Candidacy

[edit]

DuMont Television Network has just been sent to Featured Article Candidacy. As far as I know, it is the only WP:TVS-related article to have ever been sent to FAC. Please take a moment to read the article and comment on its candidacy. If you can't support, please provide a reason on why, or a suggestion on how it might be improved. This only takes a few minutes of your time, and would be deeply appreciated. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report filed for projects WP:PCP and WP:TVS. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 23:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona TV station changes for December 2006

[edit]

Every month for more than a year now, I have published television updates to the Phoenix Television page of Radio Info for stations whose signal serves Arizona cities. I have been asked to publish that information here also.

New licenses

  • K16FB Globe (Telefutura Partnership) was granted a license to cover the construction of their translator station on channel 16. The station translates KFPH-TV 13 Flagstaff, and although licensed to and located in Globe, the signal can be seen quite clearly in Casa Grande and less clearly (if the antenna is pointed just right) in Chandler.
  • K39FC Phoenix (KSAZ License) was granted a license to cover the construction of their new Flagstaff facilities on channel 39.
  • K53IJ Prescott (KVFW-TV LLC) has been granted a license to cover construction of their new station in Prescott on channel 53. I have yet to see the station actually broadcasting programming.
  • KDFQ-LP 47 Prescott (Una Vez Mas) has been granted a license to cover their move to channel 47. While its signal points away from populated areas, according to the FCC maps, I was able to receive the station in Cottonwood, but not within its predicted coverage area.
  • KWKM-LP 10 Show Low (KM Communications) has been granted a license to cover construction of their new station in Show Low on channel 10. With the new license came a city of license change to Show Low instead of Concho.

New programming

  • KQBN-LP 28 Prescott (Una Vez Mas) has dropped its rebroadcast of KNAZ-TV 2 Flagstaff in favor of Azteca America programming. Unknown if station is translator of KPDF-CA 41 Phoenix.

Returned to air

  • KDFQ-LP 47 Prescott (Una Vez Mas), with its channel change complete, has returned to air and is broadcasting Azteca America programming. The station had been dark since being displaced from channel 24 by KTVK-DT several years ago.

Gone silent

  • KCOS-LP 28 Phoenix (Aracelis Ortiz) is no longer transmitting an ID slate. There is no longer any visible signal. According to their website, www.fe-tv.com , they're expecting to be down for 6 months. As the notice was put up in late August or early September, a March 2007 return date seems plausible.

Sales

  • Porter Mountain Antenna TV Association is donating KSAZ translator K07OJ Snowflake to KSAZ License. The donation will actually go into the books as a sale for $1 per government regulations. The donation allows the Association to exit the TV translator business; they allowed the licenses of their other two Porter Mountain translators, K05GB and K11NR, to expire. The transaction is technically pending FCC approval, but given its nature, can reliably be called a fait accompli.
  • The sale of K20IQ from Telecom Wireless to Una Vez Mas was approved by the FCC in September and was consummated October 1st.
  • Mojave Broadcasting Company is selling station K57JO Laughlin NV to 9th Island Broadcasting Inc. FCC approval is pending.

New construction permits

  • The FCC has granted to K09KV Prescott (Meredith Corporation) a displacement construction permit to move LPDTV facilities to channel 30 due to interference concerns with KCFG 9 Flagstaff. Apparently, Meredith plans to have their LPTV translators on digital before the final switch to DTV, as KCFG is abandoning channel 9 in favor of channel 32 for their DTV operations. Upon grant of the license, the station's call letters will be K30JD-D.

Expired construction permits

  • The construction permit for K20HY Quartzsite (Yuma Broadcasting Company) has expired.

License renewals granted

  • KMCC 34 Laughlin NV (Cranston II LLC) has been granted a license renewal.

Additional note

  • The Safford Spanish-language stations, KZOL-LP and K21GC, have been confirmed as translators of Univision station KTVW-TV 33 Phoenix and Telefutura station KFPH-TV 13 Flagstaff, respectively.

Comments, questions and suggestions are always welcome. dhett 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like BenH's back

[edit]

I think we have another BenH sockpuppet here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.159.38.231

I've seen this person's article style, and it reeks of BenH. -- azumanga 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Benhallums1
Can he be stopped? (My bet is on "no".) -- azumanga 07:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I didn't notice that Benhallums was already blocked. That's what you get for being away from this page for so long (and staying up too late). -- azumanga 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local Television Personalities

[edit]

Hey, y'all... I think we should have a definitive consensus on local television anchor/reporter articles on WP.

Articles for local anchors are popping up everywhere (Susan Peters, Jancey Sheats, Tucker Jankosky to name a few) -- none of which are, IMHO, notable for a global audience. Are they good anchors? Sure. Award-winning? Absolutely. Do they deserve an entire article about them? I think that's pushing it a little bit.

On top of that -- it opens the floodgates for every television anchor from New York City to Glendive, MT to have their own article... and that can get out of hand if not kept in check.

I think that if WP is going to include articles on local television anchors at all, we need to establish some sort of criteria for it. Ideally, it should take market size into account primarily, and awards / accomplishments / etc. second.

Thoughts? Amnewsboy 09:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is already getting out of hand. There was an separate article for WTXF-TV personalities, which was full of cruft and was deleted.
I agree that local personalities -- anchors, reporters, and other non-news local hosts -- should be given their own articles, as long as a certain criteria is met. For me, that criteria should be strictly limited to:
  • award recognition (local Emmys, Peabodys, etc.)
  • national network experience, if applicable
  • work on major news stories
  • longevity in same market and/or same station
Based on these points, most of the anchor/reporter articles should be deleted. Rollosmokes 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, although our problem is no different than any other biography articles. My criteria are fairly similar to yours - include local anchors/reporters who have ever:
  • worked regularly on a network newscast,
  • broken, or provided primary coverage of, a story of national importance,
  • worked in a top-30 market (or other consensus market size),
  • received a nationally-prestigious award for their work
Reporters/anchors working in smaller markets who have received multiple nationally-prestigious awards can also be included (although such awards are usually the ticket to working in larger markets and/or a network). I originally thought about longevity, but wouldn't longevity in a small market just mean that they weren't good enough to move up in market size? In such case, I would again require multiple nationally-prestigious awards for those who remain in smaller markets voluntarily. Just my 2 cents. dhett 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question: How would we know someone had voluntarily remained at a small market station? It seems to me the criteria listed above are nice, but somewhat subjective. May I suggest a simple Google hit test for notability? And if a ghit test is used, where is the dividing line? Bruce Aune of KCRG-TV is very well known throughout eastern Iowa, but only receives 120 ghits on Google for "Bruce Aune"+"KCRG". Firsfron of Ronchester 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. I was making the assumption that if one received awards, but remained in a small market, it was voluntary. dhett 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of local anchors who COULD move up but choose not to (simply because they become attached to their market, get married, etc.), so I'm not sure if longevity would qualify as a litmus test.
I think the criteria proposed by dhett would work, although I do have qualms with using local Emmy awards as such (because those tend to be so localized that it still wouldn't reflect a global view -- if that makes sense). Plus, I'm just not sure that WP should be treated as somebody's professional "trophy case", as it were -- or, worse, as somebody's resumé.
I'm for the Google plan, but again, where do we draw the line? I'm not familiar with how those work in other subject areas.
In the meantime -- I think establishing market size rules would work best, and then working from there. Amnewsboy 08:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if I had included the fact that Jancey Sheats covered the devasting 2000 tornado that hit Fort Worth, Texas, and her reporting was reported on national CBS coverage, that would have made her notable? This along with the stated facts in the article that she did production work on a national TV show, and working with Elton John and his organization? BTW, she recieves about 256 ghits. Kerusso 04:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sure if I'd say that tips the balance or not. Local anchors / reporters are featured on national news broadcasts all the time, and other local stations around the country. Thoughts? Amnewsboy 06:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said any of this was a done deal; I think we're just brainstorming and discussing right now. Who knows? We might not use any of the ideas. Bottom line is, they may not be perfect, but they are ideas. Please share any ideas you might have - all are welcome. dhett 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another caveat: If we were to go with the top 30 DMA criteria, this might open a floodgate of problems. I have a feeling a newsperson for a CBS affiliate in DMA #40 is probably more widely known than (eg) a CW newsperson in DMA #20. I can't back this up with actual statistics, naturally, but this seems likely to me. And if smaller 'nets aren't included, this opens up potential NPOV problems. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Infobox Design

[edit]

I'm in my namespace, working on a slightly updated version of the Infobox design, that is based off the "old design", but carries the extended information of the other design. I'm even thinking about making it so that we use the colors of the station's logo or news graphics as the colors on the headings on it (I'll be changing my test page to only have infoboxes on it soon, stay tuned...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151/WNBC

ViperSnake151 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's back...and to the Nexstar dimension

[edit]

Quick! Copyvio at more Nexstar stuff! KTAB-TV! TRKtvtce 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with KTVX

[edit]

The KTVX translator subarticle has been nominated both for merge into the main article and deletion. I have presented my defense, but if anyone could help out, I would certainly appreciate it. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now purely at List of KTVX translators: if it were merged, the article would become particularly bulky; KUTV has a list too like this, and KSL and KSTU most likely do as well. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second this request for comment. This project's insight would be particularly valuable. See also the related discussion at Talk:KTVX#Merge notice. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV stations with schedule/personality info

[edit]

I've seen multiple articles with long lists of schedule and/or personality information. This stuff is simply non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tv guide. I've cleaned up a few articles from Template:Oklahoma City TV and others, but I'm sure there are more. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, since this is the relevant wikiproject. Thank you for your efforts, Fang Aili talk 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are aware of the problem. Several members of this WikiProject have attempted to remove the listcruft, only to see it get added back again. BTW, "NOT a TV Guide" isn't really even relevant, since even TV Guide doesn't have long lists of station personalities. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. Just wanted to say something. About TV Guide, yes you're right, and I mean that WP:NOT a TV guide or the station's website, etc, etc. Cheers and thank you for your continuing effort! --Fang Aili talk 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always, Fang Aili. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Networks needs help

[edit]

List of United States over-the-air television networks is in really bad shape. It currently lists "networks" with only one affiliate (How is a network with only one station a network?), And many columns are filled in with "?" or "unknown" (The information is not unknown; someone obviously knows it; the fact the person editing the page doesn't know it is not the same thing). I've reverted these additions many times, but it just keeps getting added back in. Perhaps we can come to a consensus here about the material included in this list? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting on Azteca América; while I'm counting, I'm also putting the stations into the Azteca América network affiliates category. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of historical logos continues

[edit]

It seems that not being content at simply deleting logo galleries, A Man In Black is now deleting historical TV station logos anywhere he sees them. Citing WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FU, and probably other policies as well, he now finds any excuse he can to remove this historical (and often difficult to find) information from the encyclopedia. See the latest at the WUSA (TV) edit history (or just look at his recent contributions) and at WP:AN#A Man in Black and WP:AN#Continued Problem. DHowell 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, what MIB is doing is beyond belief. His opinion is that Rules are rules -- period -- end of discussion. If he wants to get rid of old logos, how about ALL old logos? With MIB, the scary Viacom "V" and the old Detroit Tigers logo don't have a chance. In other words, I smell "double standard" here. -- azumanga 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the "scary Viacom V" is indeed gone, and, surprisingly, AMIB had nothing to do with it. What has happened to Wikipedia in the year between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Viacom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of Viacom? DHowell 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona TV station update - January 2007

[edit]

Posted as per request. New licenses, construction permits, applications and license renewal sections are compiled from FCC documents. New programming, returned to air and silent station sections are original research and are included for information only.

All necessary updates have been completed to the articles. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New licenses

  • K20HS Flagstaff (Turner Enterprises) was granted a license to cover the construction of their LPTV station on channel 20. Broadcast content is unknown.
  • KWSJ-LP 12 Snowflake (KM Communications) has been granted a license to cover construction of their new station in Snowflake on channel 12. With the new license came a city of license change to Snowflake instead of Concho. The transmitter location is the same as KWKM-LP 10 Show Low, licensed last month. I don't know what either station broadcasts, but given KM's other stations in Flagstaff (KCFG) and Holbrook (KNJO-LP), America One is a strong possibility.
  • KHRR-DT 42 Tucson (NBC Telemundo) has been granted a license to cover construction of their digital facilities.

New programming

  • New station K41JE Williams (KTVK Inc.) may be on the air. KASW now lists the channel as one of their translators. I haven't been to Williams in several months, so I cannot confirm.
  • K19CX Yuma (KAZT LLC) no longer broadcasts KAZT-TV to the Yuma area. Instead, the station is a translator for PBS member station KAET 8 Phoenix.
  • K28FM Yuma (Broadcast Group Ltd.) has dropped MTV Trés for Retro Television Network.
  • K65BB Wellton (Wellton Mohawk Irrigation District) has dropped KAZT-TV in favor of KSWT's CW feed from channel 13.2, meaning a digital-only station is being translated into analog.

Returned to air

  • KCOS-LP 28 Phoenix (Aracelis Ortiz) is back on, again transmitting the ID slate with jazz/rock instrumental music background on a 3-song loop. It seems like a stronger signal, as I am picking it up much clearer. They put notice on their website (http://www.fe-tv.com/) in late August that they expected to be off the air for 6 months - the 6-month period ends at the end of February.

Silent station

New construction permits

  • The FCC has granted to KBFY-LP 41 Fortuna (Powell Meredith Communications Company) a displacement construction permit to move their facilities to channel 53 and their city of license to Henderson NV due to interference concerns with several stations on channel 39, for which they had a construction permit. Prediction: the station will be up for sale soon, as the FCC has greatly increased its potential coverage and therefore, its value.
  • Venture Technologies has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station to K08NY Holbrook, which is also still being constructed. The new digital station, on UHF channel 58, will have the call letters K58IW-D.
  • KM Communications has been granted construction permits to build digital companion stations to KWKM-LP 10 Show Low, KWSJ-LP 12 Snowflake, KWTF-LP 51 Flagstaff (still being constructed), KNJO-LP 6 Holbrook and K50JJ Prescott (still being constructed). The new digital stations will be KWKM-LD 13 Show Low, KWSJ-LD 9 Snowflake, KWTF-LD 21 Flagstaff, KNJO-LD 15 Holbrook and K45JX-D Prescott.
  • The University of Utah has been granted construction permits to build digital companion stations to K07PH LeChee (Page), K23DP Kanab UT and K51GH Washington UT. The new digital stations will have the call letters K33IY-D, K17IB-D and K50KC-D, respectively.
  • Smoke and Mirrors has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station to K67HO Laughlin NV. The new digital station will have the call letters K35JA-D.
  • Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses has been granted construction permits to build digital companion stations to K28EA Washington UT and K69CT St. George UT. The new digital stations will have the call letters K52KG-D and K25JS-D, respectively.
  • KUTV Holdings Inc. has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station to K07SC Hildale UT. The new digital station will have the call letters K08OG-D.
  • Western Kane County (UT) Special Services District has been granted construction permits to build digital companion stations to K10ME, K18DN, K28IT and K32DC, all of Kanab UT. The new digital stations will have the call letters K40JM-D, K16HF-D, K42HW-D and K26IO-D, respectively.
  • Biltmore Broadcasting Las Vegas Inc has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station to KLSV-LP 50 Las Vegas NV. KLSV-LD will broadcast on UHF channel 49.

Applications for digital television licenses to cover

License renewals granted

Can we get people to create and fix these articles? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting templates

[edit]

The Phoenix template got a bunch of out-of-metro-area translators. Should these be split off? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sought comment on a few suggestions that I had put into my user space, but nobody seemed interested, so last month, I put a {{db-owner}} tag on them, and they're gone now. I like what I saw in another city template: the metro-area stations were presented first, then the outlying area stations, which would cover the stations whose signal doesn't reach the metro area. A lot of these stations are actually not translators at all, but standalone full-service and low-power affiliates. The only ones I know of that are translators are KZOL-LP and K21GC, which are translators of KTVW-TV and KFPH-TV, respectively, and I only recently discovered that; up until then, I thought that they might be standalone affiliates also. Come to think of it, I'm just going to be bold; you can revert it if you don't like it. I will keep both the primary and the repeater if the primary station IDs by the repeater rather than the primary, or if the repeater is a Class A station. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a TV station notable?

[edit]

For those of you who, like me, have spent some time and effort in the past defending TV station articles against deletion, I have found a precedent that we can cite in our defense arguments. Appropriately, it comes from a subarticle to Articles for deletion, from the Entertainment paragraph in Precedents.

Some have made the argument that all television stations are inherently notable, but I cannot fully agree. I believe that most would agree that mere translators are not notable. However, this precedent does allow for inherent notability of most full-service television stations, as most originate programming. Those that don't, such as statewide PBS networks, and groups of stations in Montana and North Dakota, are mostly already in common articles. Class A is even more cut-and-dried, as the very Class A license is contingent upon the station broadcasting a minimum of three hours of locally-produced original programming per week. Of course, there could be a few exceptions where either the local programming requirement is waived (although I cannot cite such a case) or where a group of Class A stations with adjacent coverage area are allowed to broadcast common programming, in which case there would be one article for the originating station and redirects from the others.

As for the rest of the low-power television stations, we have a precedent. While it is not as strong as a guideline or a policy, it is a start, and can be used to determine whether or not the station deserves a standalone article. There are some articles that we probably need to eventually revisit, mostly affiliates of satellite-delivered services such as HSN, Jewelry Television, Shop at Home, TBN, Daystar, MTV2, MTV Tr3s, Univision, Telemundo, Telefutura, Azteca América, and The CW, especially stations that are part of The CW Plus group.

If possible, I'd like to see this precedent expanded upon - enough to at least merit inclusion in WP:ORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations. It's ironic that coverage on a television station can be used to establish notability, but the station itself not be considered by some to be notable. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, dhett. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Entertainment can be quoted in the case another station is sent to AFD. In the case of LP stations in the largest markets, it only needs to be pointed out that the station does have a potential audience of millions; more than the national networks of many countries. The irony you point out about notability is not lost, BTW. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the AFD precedents page is old and out of date and mostly frowned upon. Precedents are more useful for effective arguments. I don't think any of the articles I've seen particularly need to be deleted, but if it's a significant issue, it'd be best to tighten up the arguments against deletion. In service of this goal...

Why does original programming matter? We don't consider self-produced, self-distributed work in other areas (books, internet) sufficient to establish notability. Why should this be different for television stations? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see several edits to the page from October and November 2006, with the last edits from December. I hardly consider that old or outdated, nor do I consider age of a precedent to be an argument against use, but rather an argument for use, since the precedent is long-established. I'd be interested to learn where the precedents page is frowned upon; I didn't get that impression at all.
The problem in Wikipedia with TV stations, and broadcast media in general, is that editors are constantly trying to apply the WP:CORP notability guideline to the stations. That standard requires multiple independent, non-trivial references from reliable sources, which usually is taken to mean books, newspapers and other print media. Thing is, seldom does an individual television station get coverage in such sources, and when they do, it is a fleeting reference at best. It has been argued that such references do not meet the standard necessary to establish notability. See the KPDF-CA AfD discussion for an example. While our writing and citation practices need to be tightened up significantly, and I have been among the chief offenders, it is frustrating to be continually defending articles in AfDs, often battling the same arguments over and over again.
Stations with original programming are considered to be more consequential, not just in Wikipedia, but in general. Some consider television affiliates to be no different than franchises of a corporation, and therefore, inherently non-notable; existence of original programming on a TV station innoculates its article against that criticism. If original programming shouldn't contribute to notability, what are your thoughts? Do you consider all television stations to be inherently notable, or is there some other standard that you think should be applied? dhett (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considered to be more consequential by whom? Importance and consequentiality and notability and all synonyms of same all go back to WP:N, whose standard is "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources". Why are television stations exempt from this because they meet your alternate standard? In fact, where is your alternate standard coming from?
Additionally, without non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, how can we ever hope to write well-sourced, encyclopedic articles? What do we do when the only coverage of a station is the FCC report, no matter how much original content it produces? Lists of trivial facts, gleaned from personal observation, don't really cut it as encyclopedia material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just for the record, I haven't seen any indication that the AFD precedents page is frowned upon (frowned upon by who? Certainly not by the people who edit it, which includes several active admins.), and as Dhett says, the page doesn't seem truly inactive, as there were edits from just over a month ago. I'll add the the talk page is active as of today. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the old in/out AFD precedents list, which was apparently at another title. Don't mind my poor recollection on that point. It would still help to refine the argument behind that precedent listed on an informal page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KMAS...NBC owned PBS station?

[edit]

According to the front page of 100000watts.com, KMAS has flipped to PBS from Telemundo. KMAS (and sister KDEN) are owned by NBC Telemundo. Now, normally 100000watts.com is pretty reliable source, but I am unsure on this one. I have made a KMAS page (it is pretty bare) but if someone out Denver way could confirm this cause I have never heard of an O&O flipping a station to PBS before. Thanks. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are correct. Telemundo had bought KMAS 24 Steamboat Springs as a rimshot to the Denver market and used a couple of LPTV stations to cover the cities. It didn't work out for them as they wanted, so they bought KDEN 25 Longmont and flipped it to Telemundo. Having no more use for a Spanish-language station tucked away in the mountains, they figured that flipping KMAS to PBS would serve the communities better than shutting it down. They sold the station to Rocky Mountain PBS. If you look up KMAS-TV in the FCC application database, then go to the application for the sale, you'll find the whole story. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenH -- Second Verse...

[edit]

...same as the first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.77.209.207 -- azumanga 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wdamtv

[edit]
What about Chris Coleman? Taylorsville

Question

[edit]

Got a bit of a problem and I know this is WP:TVS, but figure someone might know the answer. There are some of Clear Channel radio stations that are now under "BT Triple Crown Merger Co." (a private company that is pretty much still Clear Channel), should I put the merger company name in small italics under Clear Channel or just put Clear Channel and leave it at that? - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it under Clear Channel, unless "BT Triple Crown Merger Co." has some significance other than being a license-holding subsidiary of Clear Channel. Even then, I would probably put that information under the history section, and put Clear Channel in the infobox. DHowell 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox_Broadcast template already addresses this issue. Put the main company (Clear Channel) with the owner tag, and the licensee entity (BT Triple Crown Merger Co.) with the licensee tag. The infobox will take care of the rest. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

If anyone wishes to save the American Broadcasting Company logos, Arrow 4 logo, Circle 7 logo and GMA Network logos articles, you had better act quickly. The articles have been nominated for deletion (American Broadcasting Company logos, Arrow 4 logo, Circle 7 logo and GMA Network logos). The noms expire Friday and the nominator states that the articles violate WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N. The BBC One logos and Logos of Viacom articles have already been lost. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Add RCTV logos, PBS idents and NBC logos to the AfD parade, these expiring on Saturday. The same user has nominated all seven articles, citing violations of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N for each. AfD noms: RCTV logos, PBS idents and NBC logos. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona TV station update - February 2007

[edit]

Again, here is a summary of updates of television stations viewable in Arizona cities. I have removed original research from the summary, which can be seen in full at my Radio-Info Phoenix TV post. I have also added references to this summary.

New license

New construction permit

  • KWWB-LP 45 Mesquite NV (Entravision) has been granted a construction permit to move their transmitter location and modify their broadcast pattern. The new transmitter will be located not far from the old one, to the west of St. George UT, but whereas the old broadcast pattern was a narrow lobe actually pointing away from its city of license, Mesquite NV, the new broadcast pattern will be more omnidirectional, which should provide a stronger signal to Mesquite. Grant of Permit Technical Exhibit

Applications not yet granted

Applications dismissed

License renewal granted

Expiring construction permits

dhett (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up -- BenH's at it again:

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.77.211.227

And while you're at it -- meet his twin, "Mmbabies":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mmbabies

-- azumanga 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up a bunch of New York City station articles vandalized by one of the aforementioned suspected BenH sockpuppets. Rollosmokes 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Metromedia

[edit]

Several users are reverting each other on Metromedia. I've protected the page for now (protection is not an endorsement of the current version) to keep the article free of being the subject of a long-lasting edit war. Comments are appreciated on the talk page, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy wording proposal regarding fair use historical images (such as logos)

[edit]

The continuing removal of logo galleries by User:A Man In Black has prompted me to submit a proposal to change policy wording, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images. Please contribute to this discussion. DHowell 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in TV Station Infoboxes

[edit]

A user named "JD2635" has started putting US flags besides the cities in the infoboxes of TV stations. For an example, see KTRK-TV, which has a US flag next to "Houston, Texas" in the infobox.

Personally, I think it's unnecessary, as it's nothing but clutter. How about you? -- azumanga 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed clutter --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's clutter ... but I see he's also added the network logo as well. I honestly think it's a nice touch--what do you guys think?Blueboy96 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Take a look at WP:FLAG. Also, the addition of the network logo may be well-intentioned, but that involves the use of fair-use images. - Hinto 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I actually like the flag and the network logo personally and I think they pass the fair use test, Kaldari makes a brilliant case against them in his WP:FLAG essay. Although it's not a policy or guideline, the essay is correct and I strongly urge editors to read it. Agree - remove the flag and logo. dhett (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reviewed the issue more closely and am revising my opinion on fair use concerns with the network logo. While not a violation of fair use laws in my opinion, use of the network logo in the broadcast infobox of the TV station article does violate #8 under WP:FUC, and therefore, violates Wikipedia policy. The article is about the TV station, not the network, so the network logo is simply decoration. The same holds true for company logos in the TV station article. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Personally, I think it's more decorative, creative and innovative... It won't hurt to give it a chance!!! P.S. I believe in more freedom in Wikipedia!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT MAR 24 2007 8:08 PM EDT

Where does it end? If national flags are okay, are state flags also okay? I don't really care about flags (although I'll revert station logos on sight, due to fair-use issues), but do consider the implications and limits of any standard that is ratified. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a ton of these Fair Use logo's from the templates. (Although i'm being reverted on several, but I guess that will get sorted out). --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i'm being reverted on all of them by User:Orangemonster2k1. crap there we go for another take to FUC. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am....as these logos are already in the Wikipedia system and removing them just from the infoboxes and calling it a "fair use violation" would mean they are a violation on the actual pages (ie: CBS logo on the CBS page). You can't call it a violation on one page and not the other. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't fully understand Fair Use in wikipedia. The whole point of it is that you are violating copyright, by using it in a certain exception. In wikipedia the exception is to provide critical commentary to the subject directly related with the (in this case) logo. The use that i was removing it from was to provide visual identification of a company within the article. But the subject does not need this visual cue in order to be a good and useful article. The simple text will do just fine. That means that the use of the logo is a violation of wikipedia's Fair Use policy. The CBS article however needs the CBS logo in order to be able to provide a good article on the subject CBS. Anyway, i don't really care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#using_company_logo.27s_in_infoboxes_for_Television_stations will be longer, but i'll still be right :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you mean network and company logos and not station logos, since a fair-use station logo uniquely provides a visual description of the subject of the article and is appropriate for use in Wikipedia. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A station logo reflects on the station artcle directly. Just like the CBS logo is used on the CBS article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I'm asking A Man In Black to clarify what he meant. He seems to be threatening to delete station logos, which is not appropriate. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want, I don't have the strength to fight you on this. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack no not what I meant. I'm removing the little CBS/ABC/NBC/etc. logos on sight. The one station logo in the infobox is okay. I mean I'd remove NETWORK logos on sight from station infoboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which only seems appropriate, as these articles concern the stations, not the network. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a little test, I removed the NBC and ABC logos on the NBC and ABC pages with "rmv logo as it was in violation of fair-use rule". Of course, they were reverted, which I expected. Now, here is where I run into a problem. If it is not a fair-use violation on the NBC or ABC pages or on any page about those networks, then why is it a violation in the infobox of an affiliate of those networks? This is where I am confused. You can't have it on one page and it be OK and not on another and it be a violation. It can only be one or the other.
These stations are affiliates of those networks, so the use of the logo should be allowed, but only in that form. I know if it is allowed, it opens up a whole can of worms with logos being added for everything. This, though, I don't see a problem with. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the station articles are not about ABC or NBC; they are about groups that happen to be affiliated with ABC or NBC.
There is a key difference between a subject and subjects which happen to be related to that subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do what now? What did that have to do with what I said and what the hell did you just say?! - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[6] I gave this response on the users talk page. I'm hoping the difference in Fair Use law between an image and the usage of the image is now more clear to him. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[7] I responded with that....and fair-use doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me no matter how many times I read it. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni

[edit]

I was looking at the pages for WIBW-TV, KTKA-TV, and KSNT-TV in Topeka, and noticed that some folks have been adding alumni lists... I know that they're nothing new, and appear on many TV pages, but for these particular pages, they're so comprehensive that, in many cases, they're longer than the station articles themselves. Have the lists moved from historical value to pure ListCruft? Amnewsboy 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix BenH for good

[edit]

I just proposed a community ban for BenH at WP:CN. That may be the only way we can stop him and his sockpuppets. I've had to fix at least two of his screwups (thank God WJZY was the only Charlotte station he messed up), and this may be the only way to head him off for good.Blueboy96 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, here's the proposal at WP:CN.Blueboy96 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image categorization

[edit]

Question. The Category:Television logos is currently swamped with TV station logos. But in between are also a slew of other logos. I was wondering if people would be interested in helping to sort the actual station logos into a Category:Television station logos. Because at the moment these images are just a nightmare to naviage. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the non-free image cleanup, I have created Category:Television station logos and have been putting images there. Once we're done defending logos from deletion, I'll start going through Category:Television logos to see what I can pull out. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenH ISP info

[edit]

Took the liberty of running most of the IPs of BenH's suspected socks. Most of them trace to Winter Park, Florida; hosted by Embarq. Embarq seems to have a pretty tough AUP, which friend Benny has violated several times over. So now we've got an additional measure once the [[community ban carries--first edit one of his socks or someone that looks like one of his socks makes, fire an email off to Embarq. I'd post the email addy here, but I'm not sure if that's allowed--could someone clarify. Blueboy96 03:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger nuisance than BenH? Yes

[edit]

I orioginally dropped a hint here before, but he's since became a royal pain in the a** --"Mmbabies", who has used about 35 IPs to cause literal destruction of various articles (including those of Houston TV stations, which explains its relevancy here), by deliberately adding falsehoods, as well as taunting and even threatening those who oppose his views. For more on his trail of destruction see User talk:Mmbabies. Personally, I think he's in dire need of a Community Ban, too.-- azumanga 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of the diffs on the TV articles he hit. As childish as BenH's edits, if not more.--Blueboy96 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I counted the socks--it's closer to 40. After looking at some of the non-TV related edits, I figure I have to move for a ban myself ... the nature of the threats put the entire project in danger. --Blueboy96 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I found amazing is that Mmbabies is a fan of Christian children's programs The Gospel Bill Show and Superbook, and is an avid viewer of the Daystar and TBN networks -- isn't what he's doing contrary to Christian beliefs, especially The Ten Commandments? -- azumanga 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should talk to his Father. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's officially banned. Blueboy96 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news -- he's still at it: 66.139.9.37 -- and he's asking for Mmbabies to be unblocked. Time to write a friendly e-mail to AT&T, I suppose. (Sorry -- didn't check the date -- that was yesterday, before the ban went into effect. But you never know.) -- azumanga 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit was at 3:42 am GMT on March 30. The ban wasn't enacted officially until 7:07 pm GMT on March 30. But wouldn't you know, the kidiot actually gave his password to the admin who blocked him!. Oh well--at this rate, he'll be at it again soon. Blueboy96 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- see his latest "work" after the ban. -- azumanga 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at what he did to KRIV. Good Lord, what a mess. I hope this guy realizes that what he's doing could get his parents' Internet access nuked (I'm assuming he's in high school).Blueboy96 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and he's not going to stop: look at this. -- azumanga 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked. Blueboy96 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for now. You can bet that he'll be back under yet another IP address. Whoever reports this moron to AT&T will be a hero. -- azumanga 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just reported him to the Ailef ISD, SBC Global and Southwestern Bell. Blueboy96 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, losing his internet account or being suspended from school means nothing to him: have a look at this. -- azumanga 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment about this one: User talk:75.6.214.82 -- azumanga 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I want action taken on this a**hole (sorry, but I meant "a(bleep from KETH)hole" (and yes, I'm being sarcastic)), I want him behind bars -- look at this. -- azumanga 12:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenH banned!

[edit]

The community ban on BenH has carried--whoopee! I take it this means there are no restrictions whatsoever on reverting his edits. --15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Blueboy96[reply]

Wouldn't you know--we have another BenH sock. This one's hit Philadelphia, New York, D.C., Toledo and at least one in Cleveland so far. This is going to Embarq.Blueboy96 05:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it looks like he's hit the List of programs broadcast by CBS (see this diff. Gonna need some help creating a WP:LTA page for him ... he's already got a listing there, but after this, he merits his own subpage. Blueboy96 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he still lists shows that were syndicated as "on syndicated", rather than "syndicated". He refuses to recognise that there's no such "network" as "syndicated". It's just as annoying as someone referring to the Price is Right's Showcases as the "Showcase Showdown". -- azumanga 18:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported this clown to the sock page. Blueboy96 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, finally ... Blueboy96 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look who's on Mmbabies' home turf -- no other than BenH himself, now wrecking Houston in his own way: click here. -- azumanga 03:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, some of this one's edits have been fairly decent. Too little, too late ... Blueboy96 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Benny vandalising some Mid-Michigan TV articles -- look at this. -- azumanga 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't heard...

[edit]

A Man in Black (contributions), the leader of the crusade against fair-use images, was given a block for violating 3RR with another article. And, it may have been the final straw for him. He sounds like he's done with Wikipedia. Rollosmokes 08:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the questions now are:
  • Shall we start restoring logos and work on repairing the damage that AMIB has done?
  • What if he decides to return and continue his crusade?
  • What if someone else decides to take up his cause?
  • How do we establish that there is a consensus to include these logos and that they don't violate fair use policy?
My efforts so far have failed to establish any clear consensus one way or another, but the fact is most people (including admins) seemed to be just fine with the historical TV logos before AMIB came along and removed vast quantities of them. I have a significant number of these logos saved on my computer and would be willing to start restoring them, but my time has been severely limited as of late and I would like to ensure that any time I do spend on this is not wasted. DHowell 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and put them back on ... I'm already looking for historical Charlotte logos myself. Blueboy96 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona TV station update - March 2007

[edit]

Only verifiable information is published. Please consult Radio-Info for the full update with original research.


New licenses

  • KDOS-LP 50 Globe (Telefutura Partnership) has been granted a license to cover its new station. It had been operating under automatic Program Test Authority since last month as a translator of KTVW-TV Phoenix.
  • K23HB Flagstaff (Prism Broadcasting Network) has been granted a license to cover its new station. It had also been operating under automatic Program Test Authority since last month. Still no word on its programming.
  • K16GB Kingman (Smoke and Mirrors) has been granted a license to cover its new station. According to a recent CP modification filing, they are supposed to be retransmitting K27EC Lake Havasu City, a Cornerstone Television Network station.
  • KVCW-DT 29 Las Vegas, Nevada (Channel 33 Inc.) has been granted a license to cover its new digital station.


Sales

  • The FCC has approved the sale of construction permits for Laughlin, Nevada, stations K57JO and K63HJ from Mojave Broadcasting Company to 9th Island Broadcasting Inc. Both stations are to serve Laughlin and Bullhead City. The permit for K57JO is set to expire in August 2007; the permit for K63HJ is set to expire in August 2008.


New construction permits

  • Class A station K36DU Lake Havasu City (Richard D. Tatham) has been granted a construction permit to build digital facilities on channel 36 and to flash cut to digital when finished.
  • KLVX translator K02FN Mesquite, Nevada, (Clark County School District) has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station on channel 25. Its new callsign will be K25JR-D.
  • KBYU-TV translator K36FT Santa Clara, Utah (Brigham Young University) has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station on channel 53. Its new callsign will be K53JQ-D.
  • KSL-TV translator K11QQ Hildale, Utah (Bonneville International) has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station on channel 15 to serve Hildale UT and Colorado City, Arizona. Its new callsign will be K15HS-D.


Special Temporary Authority

  • KMCC-DT 32 Laughlin NV (Cranston Acquisition) has been granted STA to operate a low-power digital television station to serve the Las Vegas metro area and parts of Arizona from the antenna farm in Henderson, Nevada. KMCC is currently operating by STA in Laughlin on channel 32, but their permanent digital station, which is actually located near Dolan Springs, Arizona, is supposed to cover the Las Vegas metro area as well as Laughlin/Bullhead City and the Mohave Valley.
  • K42EZ Santa Clara, Utah (Larry H. Miller) has been granted a six-month extension to their STA, to September 26, 2007. The station has been operating under STA since September 2000 while awaiting grant of application. This seems to be the same situation under which KSAZ-TV translator K07YJ Bullhead City operated. Given the owner of K42EZ, it is highly probable that this station is a translator of KJZZ-TV 14 Salt Lake City UT.


Applications not yet granted

  • KPAZ-DT 20 Phoenix (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has applied for a license to cover their digital station. They had been operating under Special Temporary Authority.
  • K54FW Tucson (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has had their application to move to channel 7 listed as a grantable application if no petitions to deny are filed. K54FW is a translator station of KPAZ-TV 21 Phoenix.
  • KWWB-LP 45 Mesquite, Nevada (Entravision) has applied for a license to cover their transmitter location move and modification to their broadcast pattern. KWWB-LP is a translator station of KINC 15 Las Vegas NV.


License renewals granted

  • The three LPTV stations owned by the Navajo Nation, K44BB Window Rock, K40AP Tsaile and K51AV Chinle, have been granted a license renewal. I have never picked up a signal from any of these stations; yet they claim to be on the air.
  • K30ES Globe (Globe LPTV LLC) has been granted a license renewal. I have never picked up a signal from this station, either, but they claimed to have been on the air. At the ERP for which they're licensed, their signal should be easily receivable in Globe.
  • K07OJ Snowflake (KSAZ License) has been granted a license renewal. The station had been owned by Porter Mountain Antenna Club, and KSAZ had invested some money into getting a watchable signal out of it. At first Porter Mtn didn't renew the license, but then KSAZ must have gotten wind of it, because the application for renewal was filed, and shortly thereafter, Porter Mtn donated the station to KSAZ (technically, sold it for $1 per FCC rules).
  • K51IO Bullhead City (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has been granted a license renewal. This is a new station; I would have thought that their original license would have been good until 2014. Guess not.
  • KDFQ-LP 47 Prescott (Una Vez Mas) has been granted a license renewal. Originally on channel 24, the station was silent after having been forced off the air by co-channel KTVK-DT, but came back on the air recently, broadcasting on channel 47 from Mingus Mountain, threading the needle between a channel 47 in Camp Verde and a channel 47 in Prescott. Although this one is licensed to Prescott, it doesn't reach the city, although it may reach Prescott Valley.
  • KKRP-LP 46 Saint George, Utah (Fox Television Stations Group) has been granted a license for renewal. It is a translator of KSTU 13 Salt Lake City UT.


Expiring construction permits

  • The permit for KBHD-LP 49 Bullhead City (Daystar Television Network) expired on March 22nd; no license application has been filed yet.
  • KAZT-TV translator K55GG Kingman (The Londen Group) has a construction permit to move to UHF channel 20 under calls K20ID. That permit is set to expire on April 14th. No word on whether or not the station is being built.
    • Late update: KAZT LLC applied for a license to cover the move to channel 20, so that's confirmation that the station was built, and although this is original research, I was in Kingman recently and have seen with my own eyes that they are in fact on channel 20 now, and no longer on 55. The KAZT article has been updated to show that they are broadcasting on channel 20 on Program Test Authority, which is automatically granted when a station applies for a license to cover construction. dhett (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dhett (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsvans

[edit]
Newsvan in 2007

I took photographs of 4 newsvans from television stations in Green Bay, Wisconsin and 2 newsvans from Milwaukee, Wisconsin at a recent trial of statewide to national interest. Does this WikiProject want images of newsvans added to articles for the TV stations? I made the mistake of taking photographs of notable locations on state highways without asking the U.S. Highways WikiProject if they want photographs. I ended up wasting several hundreds edits and tens of hours moving them to Wikimedia Commons. So here's my question: Should I upload them at all, and, if so, upload them to the English Wikipedia, or to Commons? I won't waste time uploading them without the consent of this WikiProject. Royalbroil 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this image to the WTMJ-TV article. I have others. What do you think? Royalbroil 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you don't think we're ignoring you - at least I'm not - but I'm not sure how to answer you. I couldn't tell you whether it's better to upload to English Wikipedia or to Commons. While photos of newsvans isn't something I personally value in an article, there are likely others that do. At this point, your question has been posted for more than a week; I'd say just do what you think is best. If anyone has a complaint, you can just point to this post. Thanks for your hard work and your contributions; they are appreciated. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up...

[edit]

There is an IP who has been replacing logos for several stations with different logos. The IP in question is 151.203.115.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and it also made a copy-and-paste move of WTXF-TV to WTXF, changed KFMB-TV's owner to CBS, gave the Fox Television Stations Group ownership of KTVU, and added an ABC 7 logo (the WVII-TV version of the circle 7 logo, to be exact) below WCVB-TV's real logo (WCVB actually broadcasts on channel 5). I reverted most of the edits in question (someone else reverted the WTXF-TV side of the move). Just a reminder for future reference, in case (s)he strikes again. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought Mmbabies was nuts. -- azumanga 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought we had another BenH sock, but this appears to trace to Verizon in Boston. Blueboy96 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the three of you (and others too) for being on top of all this. Up until now, I've tried to keep a very small watchlist, but after these latest incidents, and the fact that it seems that such vandalism has been on the rise, I finally put all major Arizona stations and templates on my watchlist. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any vandalism comes, I doubt it'll come from our "favorite" vandals, Mmbabies and BenH. Haven't heard a peep from them lately ... maybe their ISPs nuked them.Blueboy96 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked at my most-recent comments on BenH and Mmbabies above, they are still very active -- BenH's activity was as recent as last night (4/18); as for Mmbabies, also as recent as last night, AND he made death threats to boot. -- azumanga 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sound like you guys should report them at WP:AIV and have them blocked. No comments on my newvans question above? Royalbroil 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about BenH, but we are trying to do something about Mmbabies -- someone else is helping us out in that department. -- azumanga 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea I've been kicking around

[edit]

I was thinking earlier today of creating a template along the lines of the network templates for stations that have substantial viewership in Canada. Was originally gonna do one just for the PBS stations with substantial viewership there (like WNED, Prairie Public Television, VPT, WTVS, KCTS, KSPS) but then I figured, "Why stop at PBS?" Thoughts? Blueboy96 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly free to do as you choose, but the first thought I had was, "What purpose would it serve?" And if such a template is created, shouldn't there also be one for Canadian stations with significant viewership in the United States? What about American stations significantly viewed in Mexico, or Mexican stations signficantly viewed in the United States? dhett (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an infobox for TV syndicators?

[edit]

Lots of articles about TV shows have a long list at the beginning of which networks air them in different countries. Shouldn't we have an template to arrange them into a table? Squidfryerchef 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMD new affils

[edit]

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6435890.html

KKIC and WHMM are Telemundo affiliates in Boise and New Orleans. The latter will launch in mid-May: KKIC is already on air. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article stub and talk page for KKIC-LP, have added the station to the Boise TV template, and have updated the station list for Cocola Broadcasting, owner of KKIC. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "city of license" thing in the infobox

[edit]

Am I the only one who doesn't like this? I thought the format we used before was fine. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either ... it's totally unnecessary. Blueboy96 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add me as a "no" vote - I understand that it's to provide a place for the city of license while the market takes the featured location spot, but I think that the city of license should get the featured spot. The TV market/primary cities served should go in the opening paragraph, not the station infobox. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmbabies at it again

[edit]

Gridlock Joe and I have been trying to swat another Mmbabies sock here. I wonder if he's editing from someone else's house ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If he was, then his friend probably has SBC dial-up or DSL too. That, or he dials and hangs up until he finds a suitable IP to chew on. Nevertheless, Mmbabies lives in an imaginary world -- one that he forces us to be part of. And I'm sick of it. -- azumanga 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get aload of tonight's crap: Sock #54. Keep in mind that I am a MAN, not a "lady". -- azumanga 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he threatened another Wiki user with death -- see 66.139.10.104; are there any more steps beyond this one that can keep him off for good? -- azumanga 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network logos in station infoboxes

[edit]

I don't want to freak anyone out too much, but it now seems that with the non-free content policy (that's the new name for the fair use policy) becoming ever stronger every day, it becomes clear that more and more of our images are at risk for potential deletion. The latest instance is that Iamunknown (talk · contribs) is disputing how logos for networks such as HSN, Univision, Telemundo, ION, RTN, and pretty much all of the other smaller networks, qualify as being fair use (you know, if their fair use rationales apply to all their uses -- of course, most of them don't have any rationales, which is probably yet more worrying). The problem seems to be the usage of the network logos in the infoboxes as the "station logo". Since I don't want to get into hot water about non-free content (that's why I stopped adding to logo galleries months ago), I felt I needed to warn you. I also now feel that we should just excise network logos from station articles (excepting network logos within station logos, obviously, as seen in articles like WABC-TV, WQEX, and pretty much all MNTV affiliate articles, among others), as seen in the articles for WMFP and WSAH (they don't contain the Shop at Home or Jewelry Television logos, although they make up the vast majority of those stations' program schedules). Does anyone else agree? (I apologize in advance if this causes anyone to leave; I'm just assuming good faith here.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Please stop removing logos. If you look at the non-free content policy, item use criterion #7 requires that an image be used in at least one article. The fact that the policy uses the words at least proves that it is acceptable to use a non-free image in more than one article. Using network logos in TV station articles does not violate non-free content policy. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The content of the policy was not changed significantly in the renaming process. My interpretation may be stricter than others'. I feel that the use of the logos in affiliate station articles is a mere decorative use and adds little to the article to justify using non-free content. Incidentally, many of the affiliate station articles I examined appeared to contain unreferenced and unverifiable information. Would a merger of the relevant information into tabular format in a single article be in order? --Iamunknown 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where the article displays a station logo, I would agree with you that the network logo is merely decorative. However, for articles without a station logo, the use of the network logo provides a quick visual reference that mere prose cannot. As for merging station articles into tabular format in a single article, one could easily make a case for doing so, but it would come at the expense of stations that have notable history - I'm not sure how that would be preserved in tabular format.
It's true that some articles are unreferenced and unverifiable; we're slowly working on correcting that. If you still have the article names, it would be a great help. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note to those who have undertaken to remove network logos from television stations: many of these TV stations are O&O's, so the network logo also identifies the owner of the station. These logos should not need to be removed. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those stations (like 3ABN affiliates) aren't just O&O's, they are full-time repeaters. The network logo is often the only logo used by these stations, and as such identifies them best. However, I (personally) have neither the time nor the inclination to write individual fair-use statements for dozens, or possibly hundreds of these little repeaters, and that is what the policies seem to require now. I also do not wish to risk the deletion of these logos from the main network page, so it seems we have little choice but to comply and remove them from the individual station articles. Personally, I wish they had simply left the templates alone, and allowed us to use the old fair-use rationale. That would have saved us a lot of time and grief. --AlexDW 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but it's a matter of picking your battles. 3ABN stations and the like that are owned by other licensees are a gray area, and IMO it's better to allow them to go without a logo for now until we can get a better understanding of fair use policy, and then someone will need to take the time to add them back. That's low-priority, in my book. However, I see no gray area with the O & O stations. These are owned by the same entity that owns the logo, so the network logo should be appropriate for use for these stations as well as for the network. As I get the time, I plan on adding fair use rationales for each O & O in AZ first, regardless of network, then will move on to adjoining states (NV, UT, NM). I plan restore the network logo if it has been deleted, but not until a fair use rationale is provided on the image page. I do not plan to touch the third-party affiliates, at least not for now. In the meantime, I wouldn't bother deleting any logos. If the image police want them gone, let them go through the articles themselves, since they seem to have nothing better to do.
One thing we can do, since there are many of us in the project, is to go through each article in our home markets and ensure that each logo used has a proper fair use rationale for that article. If enough of us get involved, the task won't be so daunting. dhett (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The saga continues with the copyright police. I just noticed that a large number of station logos have been listed as missing a fair use rationale, specifically the ones uploaded by Thistheman. As that editor doesn't seem to be particularly active these days, I thought that I should alert the project that these images were being targeted. ESkog issued these notifications, check his/her contributions to see which images are being targeted.

This copyright paranoia is getting out of hand. Just to be on the safe side, I think that we'll need to check all of our images and verify that our fair-use BS is in order. If we don'tdo this, we run the risk of having all of our images deleted by over-zealous admins. --AlexDW 14:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring these images to follow the same fair-use rationale rules as any other images is not "copyright paranoia" - it's following our policies and common sense. If there is no critical commentary on the images in the article, they should be deleted - especially those in the galleries of old logos. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these images already hade a fair-use rationale, provided by the former wording of the Tvlogo template. This sort of boilerplate fair-use rationale was deemed unacceptable, and was removed from the template. Unfortunately, this means that images that were uploaded and tagged with what was, at the time, believed to be a valid fair-use statement, now lack the proper rationale. This, combined with the (apparent) crackdown on non-free images, means that countless images that we considered "safe" are now in danger of deletion. I'll grant you the logo galleries; although I and others here think they add valuable information to the articles, the Power That Be have declared that old logos are not to be used, unless the logos themselves are notable and are discussed in the article. These seem to be slowly disappearing, as various editors work to eliminate them. --AlexDW 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sick of the "Image Nazis". It's like they have absolutely nothing better to do except tag images all day. Some stations don't even mind their logos on WP. (see WJXX, who actually provided me with a decent logo for WP use). --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the Azteca América logo, the other shoe has dropped: it has been deleted by ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Other images are probably gone too (or will soon vanish), but its removal from WFXZ-CA is the only edit to show up in my watchlist about this matter. I'd say this is worrying news for most of our images. (Luckily, all the logos I've uploaded in the past few months have rationales, and have no problems as a result.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these images have had no fair use rationales or descriptions at all. I've added rationales to several images - TBN, 3ABN, Telefutura - but haven't been able to get to any others. And apparently, good-faith efforts mean nothing to our impatient image police. dhett (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I found the deleted Azteca America logo and will restore it shortly with proper documentation. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also saved to my hard drive the rest of the TV-related logos tagged as disputed, along with the source locations, where available.
Note to admins: I understand the concern over non-sourced non-free images, but it's a lot easier for you all to tag the images and delete them than it is for us to provide the proper documentation for them, since you're requiring that all uses are documented before you'll remove the disputed tags. Yes, you're allowed to delete the images, but it would be much easier to believe that you're acting in good faith if you weren't so quick to do so. We're making the effort to bring our images into compliance; some patience on your part would be appreciated. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that use of the images in the articles of all Owned-and-operated stations is a fair use; the use is far too many, is unnecessary, decorative and is not addressed in the articles I have viewed. A fair use rationale cannot address the issue of so many uses. --Iamunknown 05:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a WikiPedia policy that limits the number of uses to be considered fair use? As I stated earlier, non-free content criterion #7 states that the image must be used in at least one article. No maximum usage is specified. Criterion #3(a) only deals with minimal use in one article; we agree to disagree on the necessity of the logo. Same with criterion #8: the images are not purely decorative; they serve a legitimate purpose as a visual reference. In addition, the network logo is only used in television station articles when no station logo is available; station logos are preferable. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I also noticed that even the stopgap "no logo" logo is gone -- they were automatically used when no logo, for the station or the network, is available. However, even though it was an original composition, someone here didn't like it. -- azumanga 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to keep an eye out on individual current station logos like that of KNTV; I just had to readd and appropriately license it after it was taken off twice in the last 30 days ([8] & [9]) under fair use and unknown source. Nate 10:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the midst of adding fair use rationales for all of the major Charlotte stations ... hopefully I can get to the other major North Carolina and South Carolina stations before the copyright police nail it. But anyone else willing to help (especially if you're in the Carolinas--I wonder if I'm teh only one from the Carolinas here), it would be much appreciated.

Fortunately, one of our comrades (User:Firsfron) is an admin--hopefully he can keep them at bay.Blueboy96 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America One has also had its logo (which was also default for most articles for its affiliates) deleted from all articles if someone wants to try to recover that one; that was another Eskog deletion. Nate 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With America One, they have several logos of different sizes to use. They welcome people to use them , but ask that they not be resized. The previous logo was far too large, and had to be resized on every page, which was against the terms of use. If anyone does restore the image, I'd recommend the 150px logo for use on individual television stations, and the 200px logo for the network article - just a suggestion. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:ESkog has now deleted Image:ION logo.jpg, with the comment "disputed fair-use reviewed: no rationale for any use"? What? Reviewed by whom? This seems like a blatantly out-of-process deletion. It is obvious that this project is attempting to fix whatever is required by fair-use policy, though frankly I find the idea that Wikipedia fair-use policy requires such bloated description pages such as on Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg insane. DHowell 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each image had been tagged with {{non-free use disputed}} for well past the 7 day period which is required - at least 2 weeks in the shortest cases. That tag asks for review by another admin after that time period, so as far as "reviewed by whom?" that would be me. Perhaps you could develop something like the {{hangon}} tag to indicate that you intend to pursue a good-faith effort to create reasonable fair-use rationales for all uses of each image, if you argue that you don't have time to do it within the 7-day period, but images with questionable fair-use status can't just sit forever in hopes that someone will do something with them. In light of the conversation here (which I was not, admittedly, aware of), I will do what I can to bring future disputes to this page instead of deleting them outright, at least when I am reviewing the images. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you finally, ESkog. I can't believe that you didn't know about this conversation since you contributed to it earlier. I was also beginning to question your good faith when you didn't even answer my request for time earlier. You guys could avoid a lot of problems with projects if you could take a little time to keep us informed. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that you all are doing good work here, but check out the size of disputed fair-use images and images with no fair-use rationale and try to put yourself in our shoes. It just isn't reasonable to expect us to take a lot of extra time digging through each of the images' related articles, chat with all the major contributors on all of those articles, and take time to notify WikiProjects which we may not even know exist. Additionally, nothing which is done is irreversible; image deletion can even be restored. A message on the talk page of the deleting admin (which, in fact, was what precipitated this conversation) can often solve a lot of problems. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it - in fact, I've depended on it. That's why I was able to save the logos I did. Once I saw your backlog, I realized that you're not singling us out; there are a lot of other improper fair use images you're working on. I get that. But remember, too, that it takes more time to fix logo problems, which have been years in the making, than it takes you to remove an image and its usage in articles. I don't just slap a mindless boilerplate fair use rationale on every image; I'm taking the time to verify the source of each image, and trying to fix other non-policy uses of non-free images, such as images in user namespaces. I don't know what mandate you're under, nor do I understand the seeming rush to remove non-free images all of a sudden, but I didn't think you or other admins were interested in our efforts to preserve the images. Apparently, I was wrong, and I guess I'm also at fault for lack of communication. Just know that we are taking the issue of fair use very seriously. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: the ION logo, ESkog is correct; it was flagged for review and seven days passed without a fair use rationale being put on the image, so it immediately became a candidate for speedy deletion per criterion I4. I didn't have time to get to all of the network logos, so I copied them to my hard drive and a list of all the pages that used them, so when I get the chance, I can restore the images with proper fair use rationales. Problem is, I'll also have to restore the images on all pages on which they were deleted. That will take time. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, let me know here, and I'll provide the necessary details.
We're still really vulnerable. I've gone through the Phoenix, Tucson and Imperial Valley templates, and just started on Las Vegas, and it's bad. A lot of logos without even an attempt at a fair use rationale. In addition, a lot of logos cite just the main website as their source instead of the actual image, and in many cases, the image cannot be found on the site cited. I don't know what kind of mandate the admins seem to be under, but it doesn't include waiting one moment longer than possible.
RE: TBN, yes, I suppose it was insane, but I wanted to use an accepted, established template, rather than trying to create something on my own, just to have it rejected and everything deleted anyway. I don't think the admins were expecting that anyone would actually try to do that, but it's amazing what one can do with a programmable text editor. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you reupload the logos under appropriate licensing/sourcing, can you make sure to transfer it into a PNG format (transparent if possible), as has been discussed with other logos earlier? This might be a good opportunity to convert smaller network logos into PNG. Nate 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CW

[edit]

I just put up a fair-use rationale for Image:The CW.svg because it was threatened with deletion; if someone could look it over for me please. Also, fair uses need to be added for MyNetworkTV. Nate 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo restored

[edit]

I have restored the Azteca América logo and have created a fair use rationale for each article in which the logo is used. If anyone adds the logo to an article, please be sure to add a fair use rationale for that article. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the America One logo and have create a fair use rationale for the network only. Currently, the logo is only used in the network article, but I will be adding stations (and station rationales) in time. I thought I had the list of stations using the image before, but I was wrong. The stations can be found at List_of_America_One_affiliates, which, by the way, needs cleanup. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the interest of avoiding duplicate non-free images, I only uploaded the 150px logo. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of Azteca America...

[edit]

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6441181.html

New Azteca affil in Sacramento set to launch July 1, owned by same company as four local radio stations.

70.176.127.235 (User:TrackerTV) 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Template:Birmingham TV contains a link to GEB. Somehow I don't think there's much of a TV market for Godel, Escher, Bach (alas). I suspect it that the link should be to Golden Eagle Broadcasting. Hopefully someone in this project can confirm that and correct the template. --J Clear 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ... thanks for the tip. Blueboy96 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing use

[edit]

Why is Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg (which needs its resolution reduced, if someone's up for that task) needed in over 50 articles, when we can use Image:NBC logo.svg (which needs some rationales, but those oughtn't be too hard) in only 2? The boilerplate claim that "Use of the logo visually identifies the stations' programming in a manner that mere prose cannot" is simply false - the TBN logo doesn't identify programming, it merely identifies a network. Is it that important that every station, including those who are too subnotable for a unique logo to even be findable, have some picture at the top? (ESkog)(Talk) 01:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because while most NBC stations independently produce their own local programming, TBN stations (and many affiliates of other smaller networks) for the most part only feature network programming. So the TBN logo does indeed identify each station's programming. Nevertheless, while each TBN station may broadcast identical programming, each local station usually has a unique notable history, which justifies the existence of an article separate from the network article. DHowell 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it DHowell. The rationale I provided in the templates was not false. Apples and oranges, ESkog. And as I told Iamunknown, it you can find a Wikipedia policy that limits the number of uses to be considered fair use, please cite it. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all,
There is no Wikipedia policy which limits the number of uses an image may be used for fair use. Non-free content criterion #7 states that the image must be used in at least one article. No maximum usage is specified. Criterion #3(a) states that "as little non-free content as possible is used in an article", and says nothing about the reusablity of the image in another article. In fact, an argument could be made that the reuse of an image would reduce the number of Fair Use images, as alternate images would not have to be uploaded for each usage. U.S. copyright policy states that the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" must be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. Reusing the same image does not affect the amount of the portion used. There is no set number of times the same image can be used, either in U.S. Fair Use policy, or in Wikipedia policy, and some good admins have become confused over the difference between keeping the number of Fair Use images in an article to a minimum, and the number of times a Fair Use image may be used. In fact, if there was an official limit to the number of times a Fair Use image could be used, Wikipedia could not allow its material to be mirrored on other web sites. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, and I agree with you that our policy does not (for good reason) set any maximum number of articles in which an image can be used. I just felt that this was worth questioning, but it seems you have a reasonable answer that, while not the decision I would come to, is not obviously outside policy or consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Zscout370 already took care of the image resolution. Thanks, Zscout! dhett (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. The image was pointed to me by ESkog in IRC and it took a few minutes in photoshop to take care of. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need the full list of major-network stations without a newscast

[edit]

I cannot find it anywhere, and I know there are more than 6 listed on this website.

70.119.101.141 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate television stations in templates

[edit]

I just wanted to get a second opinion on whether we allow pirate television stations within lists of local television stations. I just changed the San Francisco template because someone inserted a channel called Pirate Cat TV within the template [10]. I know there's also a Star Ray TV in the Toronto area that also operates as unlicensed, but I haven't changed that because I'm not living in that area and feel it's more appropriate for a Canadian editor to make that decision. However, my opinion is that only FCC-licensed stations and cable networks should be placed within local templates, though I remain neutral on the concept of pirate broadcasting since I'm in an area where it's never happened (although my local radio dial shows a pirate would be a breath of fresh air, but another argument for another day). I especially don't want to see templates bogged down with PTV stations that maybe only broadcast a couple hours a day at most, because it would be like clogging the templates with disperate local Internet TV efforts. Nate 22:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I know of on the project page about only covering FCC-licensed stations, but rather, we're covering broadcast TV stations. Pirate Cat TV and Star Ray TV are the only pirates I know of; it just doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem. Remember, too, that there still needs to be notability. Pirate stations won't show up in the FCC database, so unless the pirate gets other coverage, it's non-notable. Your example of a 2 hr/day broadcaster most likely would fall under that scenario, but that's just my opinion. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if a pirate station was getting alot of press or notoriety (such as in the case of Star Ray TV), then it should be included in the template, whether it's licensed or not). -- azumanga 02:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly suggest that pirate TV stations be included. It would be pretty involved to set up something like that, so they won't be clogging up any lists even if they broadcast for only two hours a day; they are pretty rare. Also if we start doing templates for cities in developing countries, there's a lot of unlicensed stations that have significant viewership and we'd be remiss not to include them. ( of course i'm speaking of transmitters, not online streaming what-have-you ). Squidfryerchef 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Television_stations_task_force/Archive_5&oldid=1146654134"