# Talk:KPNX

Article had already mentioned commercial stations, so it was not necessary to include KAET. In the listing of news, Live with Regis and Kelly was not necessary, as no other individual syndicated shows are listed.

Image:KPNX circa 11-2006 HD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:KPNX circa 1970.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:KPNX circa 1973.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In the "Chris Matthews Show" example given, the ID shown said "KPNX/DT". Aren't they supposed to express themselves as "KPNX/KPNX-DT", per FCC rules? If not, they might still be breaking the rules. Comment? -- azumanga (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This was the intro to this article. "KPNX, channel 12, is a television station licensed to Mesa, Arizona, serving as the NBC affiliate for the Phoenix, Arizona television market. KPNX is owned by the Gannett Company, with studios and offices in Phoenix, and transmitter located on South Mountain. 
It sounds more complicated then it needs to be and also leaves out that this station serves the Phoenix metro area which is phoenix and all its suburbs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 

Um, no.  How is that complicated, oh pray tell?  It's very simple, given that KPNX IDs itself as "Mesa-Phoenix" and not "Mesa-Phoenix metropolitan area".  Give me a break.  Stop nitpicking, and start signing your posts.  Rollosmokes (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not true, Oak. KPNX serves all of northern Arizona, except for the immediate Flagstaff area. The Phoenix television market includes much more than the Phoenix metropolitan area.  Meadview, Arizona, served by a KPNX translator, is over 250 mi from Phoenix, way outside the metro area.  dhett (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Dhett--I stand corrected Oak999 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It really seems waaaay excessive to me and makes the article look more like a list than an article.  Comments?  dhett (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following text:
Station identification
Over the years, KPNX has used a legal station identification that did not comply with FCC regulations, which require that in the legal identification broadcast aurally or visually, a station must state its call sign, followed by its city of license. For many years KPNX identified as "Phoenix/Mesa" rather than "Mesa/Phoenix" as required. but beginning in 2008, has begun using a new, FCC-compliant station ID on its analog and primary digital channels (shown at left, top). On its Weather Plus programming on 12.2, KPNX still identifies using non-compliant ID, and does not air separate ID at the top of the hour (shown at left, bottom).
OK, where are the images referenced?  They have been removed, with a claim that they violate WP:NFCC#8.  Removing the images makes this section useless.  The text references the images; the images do not violate WP:NFCC#8.  dhett (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.  how is the omission harming the understanding of the article as a whole and the topic of the article? βcommand 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The policy says nothing about the topic of the article.  The topic being discussed is that of the section; the non-compliant station identification.  The images were meant solely to increase the understanding of that specific topic and are clearly referenced in the text.  The images are fully compliant with WP:NFCC#8.  dhett (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
NFCC#8 applies to the whole article. not each section. βcommand 18:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say the whole article?  It doesn't.  You're reading policy where none exists.  dhett (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of non-free content refers to the whole subject, see all 10 points, specifically 3 & 8. images must have importance to the whole subject not just a subset. βcommand 18:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly familiar with the policy, and you're reading into policy what is not there.  From your reading, no non-free image can be used unless it applies to the whole article; that makes no sense.  Different sections of an article cover different topics about the subject as a whole.  Removing the images is detrimental to the discussion of the station identification.  dhett (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Sems to me that the discussion of non-compliant station identification enhances understanding of the topic. I'd be interested though to know whether the station has ever been sanctioned or had its license threatened. That would cross over into "significantly enhance" understanding. I'm talking about the text at this point - if the text significantly enhances understanding of the topic and the images are essential to understanding of the text, they're OK. (As opposed to "the lines in the parking lot are yellow", with a NF image of the parking lot). The questions are: is the text relevant? can the text sufficiently describe without use of images? If the difference is solely "Mesa/Phoenix" vs. "Phoenix/Mesa" - why are images necessary? Franamax (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The images were meant to provide verifiability to the subject matter.  At the time they were added, an editor was insisting that the station's "legal" top-of-the-hour ID was actually not legal.  There had also been discussion of the ID in other forums, so in order to verify that the ID was now legal, the screen shot was added.  dhett (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, thx for the background info. Did this insistent editor provide RS to show that other (non-wiki) parties considered the ID to be not-legal, or did they just offer a personal opinion? Maybe the article has changed since then so that I'm not able to find a relevant source? Was the non-legality a subject of external comment? Did those sources feel the need to show the disputed logos, or were they able to describe the problem using text alone? Bottom line - does this mini-subject have notability within the subject? Franamax (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering this sooner; for some reason, I missed the change on my watchlist.  There was no evidence presented; just his opinion.  However, per FCC rules, the Phoenix-Mesa ID was non-compliant, as Mesa is the station's city of license, and in a legal top-of-hour ID, nothing is supposed to come between the call letters and the city of license.  That includes any other cities.  There was some discussion at User_talk:Oak999#RE: KPNX Station ID and User_talk:Dhett/Archive 2#KPNX Station Id concerning legal top-of-hour IDs, but those occurred after the Chris Matthews Show screen shot had been posted.  There was external discussion at Radio-Info.com, and there had been earlier discussions at Radio-Info, but much of the site's history had been purged following an ownership dispute.  dhett (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on KPNX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011013154/http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/dish-customers-may-lose-gannett-programming-including-12-news-kpnx-over-autohop-feature to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/dish-customers-may-lose-gannett-programming-including-12-news-kpnx-over-autohop-feature
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823103916/http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/bio?section=resources%2Finside_station%2Fnewsteam&id=5744031 to http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/bio?section=resources%2Finside_station%2Fnewsteam&id=5744031
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on KPNX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220223234/http://news.ktar.com/?nid=6 to http://news.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1092013
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:KPNX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 06:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. A preliminary check shows that the article does not meet any immediate failure criteria, and it is quite close to GA status already. Steelkamp (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
#### Criteria 1
 Well written

What does this mean: co-owned with the Harkins Theatres chain and other movie theaters owned by Harry Nace and owner of Mesa radio stations KTYL (1310 AM) and KTYL-FM 104.7? It is confusing to read. Should it be co-owned by the...? I am having trouble understanding what it is trying to say. Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The first mentions of Phoenix, Mesa and South Mountain in the body should be linked. Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think telethon should be linked. Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
What does a primary NBC affiliate mean? Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Steelkamp, in the early days of US television, it wasn't unusual for stations to have multiple network affiliations. I've revised this because KTYL-TV never had any other affiliation, but a station like, say, KEDD (TV) would have aired programming from multiple networks with a stronger business and program relationship with one. I've also revised the three bullets above this one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Steelkamp (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Is the Republic the same thing as the Arizona Republic? If so, you should use the full name each time. Also, "the" should be italicised. Steelkamp (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes; I think there's a gap in MOS:THETITLE. I've pinged you on a discussion on its talk page about that. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm saying that "the" should also be italicised. Not that it has to be capitalised. If the Republic is a shortening that reliable sources use, then It is acceptable to be in this article. Otherwise, it should be at the Arizona Republic at each mention. Steelkamp (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 2
 Verifiable with no original research

Spot checks of random references shows that the material on the page is contained in the references. All references look reliable. This article passes criterion 2. Steelkamp (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 3
 Broad in its coverage

I question the relevancy of in part via a major grant from local business entrepreneur Bob Parsons. I think this is too much detail on something that is not about the television station. Plus having a large sentence in brackets makes the text's flow worse. Steelkamp (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 4
 Neutral


#### Criteria 5
 Stable
Article is not subject to an edit war or a content dispute. This article passed criterion 5. Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 6
 Illustrated, if possible
Images are good and relevant. Images are tagged with their relevant copyright statuses. I was a bit suspicious as to whether the logo in the infobox is in the public domain, but it seems to be the consensus on common that those types of logos are in the public domain. This article passes criterion 6. Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


### General
I am happy to pass the article now. Congratulations. Steelkamp (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)