Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 1

message: I have created an info-box to use on British Television channels. Whilst I considered adapting the current ones for North America, the way british TV operates is so different (no networks - so no affiliates, almost all channels are nationally available, no call-signs, only 5 "traditional" channels etc) that is seemed best to create a new one from scratch. It is over at User:MrWeeble/British_TV_channel_info_box I plan to add it to British TV channels over the next weekend and I would welcome any comments. MrWeeble 22:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  British TV Infobox 

message: At least Stateside, the same call letters can apply to a television, an AM radio, and an FM radio station. The article WCBS, for example, disambiguates; I think that all such article names should.  The article WTEV, for example, which is about a TV station, should, I feel, be moved to WTEV-TV, with a link from WTEV. (The same for radion stations, of course.) What think you all? —msh210 15:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Canadian stations, by contrast, are always suffixed (except for certain grandfathered CBC TV outlets with four or five letters ending in "T".  I don't know what the deal is in Mexico; the suffixes do exist (and are used on some grandfathered XE- TVs, AMs and FMs, like XETRA-FM, like XETRA-AM, like XETV-TV) but are generally unnecessary since the prefix (XE- or XH-) is enough to specify the band.  The North American call sign article explains all of this in more than adequate detail.  It's important for WP to get this right, because (like citing sources) it's one of those things that a knowledgeable person will spot very quickly and perhaps receive a bad first impression.  (I would note that several important style guides, like the AP's, get this completely wrong.)
I believe that all articles on U.S. broadcasting stations should be titled with the licensed call sign for the station.  Some TV stations have a TV suffix, some don't.  You can look up on the FCC web site to see what the actual call sign is for the station.  If a television station has just a three- or four-letter call sign, then the article title should be that call sign; no TV suffix needed.  If a television station call letters include the TV suffix and there are no other stations using the basic three- or four-letter call letters, the station article should be named for the actual call sign with the TV suffix, with a re-direct from the call letters without the TV suffix.  If several stations share the same basic call sign, then there should be a disambiguate page for that call sign so that the user can choose whether he/she wants to see the television station, AM station, or FM station. --Hillrhpc 15:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: First off, settle down and don't get all ! on us, keep in mind that this is only wikipedia.   :)    If all stations are always suffixed as you claim, then why do some station records on an FCC licence search return the title of -TV but others do not? I present exhibit A:  and exhibit B: . Please note that all records list the actual call sign of the station in the query. For KUEN all records are listed as KUEN, and all records for KBYU-TV, including the digital licence, are listed as KBYU-TV. If your argument was true then the FCC would list all stations as K/Wxxx-TV or as K/Wxxx, but not a mixture of both. A 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "people cant [sic] understand that!" because it simply is not true, as an examination of the relevant government regulations will demonstrate.  (For the US, see .)  121a0012 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names 

message: I believe that authors should be careful that the station logo is not so big as to overpower the appearance of the page.  For example, the WNBC-TV logo in the sample on the right is too big, in my opinion.  Usually a logo that is 200 pixels wide, as this one is, is too big.  Try to keep the logos to 125-150 pixels wide, or even less if the logo is very tall.  --Hillrhpc 15:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station logo size 

message: Hi.  I had started WikiProject radio and television with some similar goals, though not exactly the same thing..  I have some ideas there on how to go about writing station articles, though I know it's kind of convoluted at the moment.  Anyway, maybe they should be merged or collaborate in some other way..  —User:Mulad (talk) 17:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
:This project was renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations in August 2005. —A 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another project

message: I'm not quite sure how these should be categorized, or indeed how many articles for these exist here.  There are a handful in New York City, which for now I've put with the local broadcast stations for the  sake of convenience.  See Template:NYC TV.--Pharos 08:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  local cable channels 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable articles?  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I have been doing work with some these station articles outside of the project, some of the work as been renaming articles to line up with FCC DB, disambiguate, nav template development, et al. I have come across some things that i figure i would address as possible improvements. Pretty much all of these will concern station based in the Canada, United States, Mexico zone, but could apply elsewhere. Sorry for the breakdowns, i just think it would make an easier read.
===Disambiguation’s and Article Names===
When i build out or work on an nav temp, i try to match up the calls with that of the fcc db, now in doing that you might come across a call that could apply to multiple stations so you build out a disambiguation, well the system that i have been using now is the following examples, if a call refers to multiple outlets licensed in the same place then something, along the like of WPFB, if in different places then along the likes of WCKY. I believe that the extra information on the disambig, though some might believe is extraneous, is needed, epically in explaining what the difference are between the stations for those who are not well versed in broadcasting stations set up in North America. 
As for station names, i believe that all United States stations should line up as close as possible to the respective call letters as listed in the FCC DB. So this would keep many the way they currently are, but if a station is such as WTTT-FM or WRRR-TV and has no other station that would disambiguate that call then WTTT should redirect to WTTT-FM and WRRR to WRRR-FM, which is the standard as current as i see. Also such as WEEE, with WEEE being an AM station, that might have a WEEE-FM and or a WEEE-TV that an appropriate disambiguation page be created and WEEE be named WEEE (AM), which is also in use. I also propose the following, their will be on occasion you will find a FM station, i.e. WUUU, that has a corresponding WUUU-TV which would require disambiguation, on the premise that according to the FCC Db WUUU does not have an -FM suffix that the name of the station should follow the convention for the AM stations of the same way, so WUUU's article would be WUUU (FM) with WUUU-FM redirecting to it. Example would be WETA (FM), WETA-TV, and the disambiguation WETA (while not a true broadcast disambiguation the idea sill is in place). I don’t know how as of yet this would for similar situations in Canada and Mexico (or other countries that use "alpha" calls), but the fcc db does list license information for stations in those countries, though i can not say how accurate they are and they do not all follow the -FM, -TV US standard. 
I think once that a name standard is set on that it might be a good idea to update the information at WP:NC.
I want to expand on one part of the disambiguation that i forgot to mention, current stations that have calls of "significance" that were used by other stations but are no longer used. I think that the precedent should be set that current station use should be listed. For example, a television station currently uses the call WNNN, it is also the only station that currently uses the WNNN call, but in broadcasting history (could be in the same market or in another market) there were other stations that used WNNN call, such as a WNNN AM (WNNN (AM)) station and a WNNN-FM. Now the WNNN (AM) goes by WHHH and the WNNN-FM is now WQQQ-FM. My proposal would be that WNNN direct users to the article of the station that currently uses the call and not to a disambig, for the reason that no other current station uses the WNNN derivative. That at the top of the WNNN article their should be a disambig notice saying "For broadcast stations that previously used the WNNN call letters, see WNNN (disambiguation)", then create a Disambiguation page using the "{call} (disambiguation)" format for title, and then saying something along the likes of WCAU (disambiguation), though the wording is room for improvement. I believe this a better way to disambiguate article of this type to better differentiated between a station that is currently using a particular call from stations that used to use the same call.  --Boothy443 | comhrá 01:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than repeat or summarize what has happened in another discussion, I refer you to that article.  If there is another place where this subject (naming of television stations) is being discussed, please let me know.  A good way would be to post the article link in the above referenced discussion so that others will also be directed to said article. Val42 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: When i build out or work on an nav temp, i try to match up the calls with that of the fcc db, now in doing that you might come across a call that could apply to multiple stations so you build out a disambiguation, well the system that i have been using now is the following examples, if a call refers to multiple outlets licensed in the same place then something, along the like of WPFB, if in different places then along the likes of WCKY. I believe that the extra information on the disambig, though some might believe is extraneous, is needed, epically in explaining what the difference are between the stations for those who are not well versed in broadcasting stations set up in North America. 
As for station names, i believe that all United States stations should line up as close as possible to the respective call letters as listed in the FCC DB. So this would keep many the way they currently are, but if a station is such as WTTT-FM or WRRR-TV and has no other station that would disambiguate that call then WTTT should redirect to WTTT-FM and WRRR to WRRR-FM, which is the standard as current as i see. Also such as WEEE, with WEEE being an AM station, that might have a WEEE-FM and or a WEEE-TV that an appropriate disambiguation page be created and WEEE be named WEEE (AM), which is also in use. I also propose the following, their will be on occasion you will find a FM station, i.e. WUUU, that has a corresponding WUUU-TV which would require disambiguation, on the premise that according to the FCC Db WUUU does not have an -FM suffix that the name of the station should follow the convention for the AM stations of the same way, so WUUU's article would be WUUU (FM) with WUUU-FM redirecting to it. Example would be WETA (FM), WETA-TV, and the disambiguation WETA (while not a true broadcast disambiguation the idea sill is in place). I don’t know how as of yet this would for similar situations in Canada and Mexico (or other countries that use "alpha" calls), but the fcc db does list license information for stations in those countries, though i can not say how accurate they are and they do not all follow the -FM, -TV US standard. 
I think once that a name standard is set on that it might be a good idea to update the information at WP:NC.
I want to expand on one part of the disambiguation that i forgot to mention, current stations that have calls of "significance" that were used by other stations but are no longer used. I think that the precedent should be set that current station use should be listed. For example, a television station currently uses the call WNNN, it is also the only station that currently uses the WNNN call, but in broadcasting history (could be in the same market or in another market) there were other stations that used WNNN call, such as a WNNN AM (WNNN (AM)) station and a WNNN-FM. Now the WNNN (AM) goes by WHHH and the WNNN-FM is now WQQQ-FM. My proposal would be that WNNN direct users to the article of the station that currently uses the call and not to a disambig, for the reason that no other current station uses the WNNN derivative. That at the top of the WNNN article their should be a disambig notice saying "For broadcast stations that previously used the WNNN call letters, see WNNN (disambiguation)", then create a Disambiguation page using the "{call} (disambiguation)" format for title, and then saying something along the likes of WCAU (disambiguation), though the wording is room for improvement. I believe this a better way to disambiguate article of this type to better differentiated between a station that is currently using a particular call from stations that used to use the same call.  --Boothy443 | comhrá 01:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than repeat or summarize what has happened in another discussion, I refer you to that article.  If there is another place where this subject (naming of television stations) is being discussed, please let me know.  A good way would be to post the article link in the above referenced discussion so that others will also be directed to said article. Val42 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation’s and Article Names

message: I have come across with a concern with cats being used; this mainly applies with geographic categories, the television stations in "blah" (on the city level), and the use of these categories in-line with templates. This applies universal for TV and Radio. When i have built out templates, i have built them out on a per market basis, the information i use roughly corresponds with the market definitions used by Neilson for TV (DMA) and Arbitron for radio, it should be noted that Neilson (210 markets ) and Arbitron (297 markets ) markets are not the same, they are based of the same idea, they group stations geographically by physical location (transmitter), not by signal reach. Arbitron gives us a list of their definitions  where as Neilson does not. As a source for station in markets i have been using http://www.tvradioworld.com/ for my source for list of stations in a given market, so far i have found the list to be fairly accurate, though i have found some discrepancies but very few, also according to their FAQ "Listings are organized by geographical location of the station's city of license or transmitter location. In the USA, listings intend to mimic Arbitron's radio markets and DMA television markets definitions. " I would guess that some people are using http://www.radio-locator.com/ or some local source, the problems i have with these are that in simple major city search on radio-locator gives a 40 mile radius for a city, the problems with this are 2; first their are markets that will be outside the 40 mile radius, and second, in areas like the east coast, the markets are smaller so the 40 mile radius will display stations that are outside market definition (their are some stations that are in dual markets but these are not a lot and usually apply to stations that are on the border between two markets or are major players in multiple markets, an example would be WHFS when it was on 99.1 where it was located in both the Washington and Baltimore markets). So basically the nav templates should, and so far they pretty much all do, to market defs. tvradioworld also list markets for Canada based i suppose on a corresponding Neilson and Arbitron type companies in Canada, who they are off hand i don't know. This leads in to the category issue. 
Markets span multiple jurisdictions (city, county, state/province) but our categories don’t. Most of the categories we use so far are of the (lowest level) "Radio/Television station in (City/Region)", the problem is a lot of stations don’t have their transmitters/studios or both in, usually, said city though they serve the market of the cities name. My first proposal would be not to use the :Category:Radio/Television stations in (City/Region) as the template cat or first cat but use something along the lines of :Category:Radio/Televison stations serving the "Blah" market which would give a broader geographic scope, and i would have no problem linking that category to the category for the central city or cities for the market or a category that groups the media for said city. Another problem is the placement in state/province categories because as stated above markets have a tendency to span multiple state/provinces. If you put the market categories in the "Radio/Television stations in state/province" your associating stations in a state/province with that state/province because it shares a common market that are in the state/provinces in question, it's happened before. Also using the state/province cat on the templates multiplies associates stations with multiple state/provinces though they’re only physically in one state/province, but are listed in multiple because they share the common market. The only solutions i can see are; 1 just leave it as "Radio/Television stations in state/province" in the market categories, 2 individually tag each article with the "Radio/Television stations in state/province", or 3 (kinda similar to 1) create a category like "Radio and Television markets serving state/province" and then put that category in the "Radio/Television stations in state/province" categories. I don't know. 
Sorry for this being long and drawn out and I hope that everyone understands what I am trying to say, these just some observations and improvements that see that can be made, and i figure i bring it up so that it can be across the board rather then one person. I might get into a more ideas later, but I’ll leave it as is. Also i am cross posting to the Television group being that issues here also apply to that group. So i suppose discuss away, and I’ll try to answer questions, if and when they come along to the best of my ability.  --Boothy443 | comhrá 10:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories and Templates

message: I have added a list of US television stations as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles wikiproject. The goal is to help organize creation of articles about stations between these two projects.  If you can help by either pruning the list of existing articles or creating new articles it would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some recent updates to the page including reorganizing by red and blue links as well as adding comments for those stations which need infoboxes.  Search will be added in the near future.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of television stations 

message: These major overhauls of the market templates need to stop and need to be discussed. First of they add a major confusion to the average person, who all articles and templates should be directed to, by separating the terrestrial brodcast into three different types, it looks as if their are digital only uhf only, and vhf only stations, and the adding of the future digital or analog stations only adds to the confusion. Also their should be no links to other markets in the template unless you plan to put every market that borders on the market in question, in the US its usually about 4 other markets that border onto one market, more in ones epically in the east when market size in terms of physical size is smaller. The addition of one market is subjective, epically since these were designed to be one market only templates. Stations that are listed as bing in multiple markets, which is few, should be listed in the templates. These overall templates need to be seriously overhauled and simplified before they continue to clutter up articles. I propose a workshop so come up with a simpler version of these templates. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaull of the market templates

message: All 210 TV DMAs in the United States now have their own templates.
-- Denelson83  04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great now we can work or trying to get the artciles to fill out the templates, and work on compleating a standard. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All markets completed 

message: Is it possible that we could get someone to purchase this wall map and use that to categorize any TV stations not yet in a DMA category, such as KCFW-TV in Kalispell, Montana?  Denelson83  07:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this page, KCFW-TV is in the Missoula, Montana DMA. Granted, it probably belongs there as much as KHIZ, a station in Barstow, California which no one in Los Angeles can receive without a satellite dish, belongs in the Los Angeles DMA. DHowell 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: tv.backchannelmedia.com seems to be a good resource. It says KQUP-TV is in the Spokane, Washington DMA. It also says KLEW-TV is in the Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick DMA, though through a Google search I've also found FCC documents that say it is in the Spokane DMA (guess this one's not so clear). DHowell 07:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FCC documents citing a Nielson DMA? Is this common practice? --A 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as a part of SHVIA et seq., and also the must-carry rules under the 1994 Cable Act.  121a0012 02:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the situation with KQUP is that KQUP-LP is what broadcasts into the Spokane market, KQUP-TV does not. Perhaps a merge? I wish that backchannelmedia link could search based on callsign-TV rather then just callsign. --A 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: KADY 63 is now KBEH, and I believe is now considered to be in the Los Angeles DMA. It served the Santa Barbara DMA when it was a UPN affiliate, but it is now a Spanish station. DHowell 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those TV stations not in a market 

message: While searching for descriptions of each market (list of counties) from a public infomration site, I found this interesting file on the fcc.gov site.  It lists 7 stations that are "physically located in one DMA but are assigned for reporting purposes as local to another DMA." There are changes (KNTV) as this file is from 1999, but I wanted to get this information onto our project talk page to make sure it is handy. Add or remove others to this list, but please cite the source. —A 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KADY 63 is now KBEH, and I believe is now considered to be in the Los Angeles DMA. It served the Santa Barbara DMA when it was a UPN affiliate, but it is now a Spanish station. DHowell 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV stations OUT of market 

message: While name checking some PBS stations this eve I came across a very cool bit of information on KLCS. An IP user from 71.109.30.183 added information on all of the sub-channels for the digital transmition of this station. While this is effective and I like how it looks, I think that we should start preparing for the much talked about digital transition (NTSC cutoff still 2009?). Subchannels will be a large part of the digital TV experience, at least at first while everyone gets used to having more then one "channel" where they are used to seeing just one. 
I think that as a long term project we should attempt to get this information onto as many channels as we can. I am not sure the best way to handle this, (another infobox perhaps?) and I'm sure that everyone in the project will want to provide input, so that should be the first step. The next step will be data colection. Either with a digital tv/tuner by an editor who lives in that market, or by checking webpages. Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? A 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other station pages that have information about the digital subchannels: KFOR-TV KETH-TV —A 07:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital TV information 

message: I found a great website that has maps of all the DMA regions, click on the individual DMA's on the US map to enlarge. DMA Maps. --CFIF 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, great find. It does support that KCFW-TV is in the Missoula, Montana DMA. If anyone finds an error please make a note of it here. —A 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That site is a copyvio; we should not be linking to it. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMA maps 

message: I have created a new category, specifically for television stations that do not have the official infobox to help clean up articles. Please add to this and once the infobox has been added, remove it from the category. Thanks. --CFIF 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Category

message: Markets like Detroit-Toledo, Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle, and Toronto-Buffalo should have links to each other in my opinion. I get nearly all of the Toledo stations clearly Over-The-Air, and on cable, so that's my argument for this.
Raccoon Fox 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markets that border each other