Talk:The CW

message: The fact that 2023–24 CW affiliation realignment still exists is baffling. I've merged in some of the things that were missing from this article but which that one had. But it's undue to have it in a separate article. Yes, this article is too long and hitting a point at which WP:SIZESPLITs should be considered (the history section screams for one, and we can have a reduced summary in this article). However, that is not a standalone article that should continue to exist. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support – That History of The CW isn't a thing when there's more than enough material to support it is equally baffling. And any future affiliation change mentions, which are going to happen anyway because of the network's new ownership owning or leasing many of the stations affected, should be in said history article. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Support – Also, second the idea of a history article split/ creation.Packerfan386beer here 06:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Support – That article is just way to long for me to handle that isn't it has the subsections in. Also, a history split/creation is a good idea. mer764KCTV(Talk) 11:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Support and also support the creation of a history article. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose: This is a great article about a major event in broadcasting. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Sports Business Journal has stated that Paramount sold its stake in The CW last year, but I've been unable to find any other source for this. And given it's a sports journal and not a TV dedicated outlet, I don't think we should take it at its word without salt. A single source from a sports journal anyway is not enough for a definite proof or reliable enough to mention something as a fact in my opinion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify what you mean about "sports journal." I'm not sure why not exclusively covering TV means that its sourcing is somehow incorrect. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He means that it's not their primary field of coverage. More importantly, there is no corroboration from other sources such as Variety or Deadline that specialize in media business as part of their coverage, let alone mainstream business press like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. Hell, both Paramount Global and Nexstar are publicly traded companies, and any major asset transaction would have to be disclosed.  With no corroboration from any other source, the obvious conclusion is that the Sports Business Journal report is in error, and remove it from the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like deciding that the SBJ article is wrong is simply original research. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Assessing sources for correctness is not original research. Calling for additional corroborating sources is a normal part of the WP:V process. oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did a quick search on Google for "nexstar cw cbs" & "nexstar cw paramount", and I couldn't find ANY news article making ANY mention of Nexstar having acquired CBS/Paramount's 12.5% stake in The CW. So, that calls into question where SBJ got their information from. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if they were confused by Paramount ending the affiliations of the stations they own that once carried the network. That's the only thing I can find. Based on your and my own inability to find any corroborating story whatsoever, I'm removing the SBJ statement outright. If it does actually get confirmed at some point, it can be re-added. oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paramount stake 

message: What does "linear" mean?  The word appears three times (including a section title) with no explanation or link. —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on linear and sports 

message: I think that the history section should be split into its own page. It has been brought up before with no movement, so I am SODOINGIT. I intend to nominate this article for GA but I believe that it would be a far more ataible task if the article were smaller. I am not yet creating a formal proposal I am mearly informing those intrested that I have begun a sand box found here. It is very bare bones just the standered history for now. But I intend to source it throughly and expand the lead. If anyone wishes to work on this with me feel free. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also related I have nominated The CW to be made a vital article. See here to debate it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split history