Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 3

message: This section is for requests for action and requests for opinions. Post below and start a new subsection as appropriate.
===Location of Transmitter===
Could you guys include the latitude & logitude of the trasmitter of these stations? That would be helpfull in aiming an antenna, or deciding if there is any hope at all of recieving a particular station.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Button_array.png
Table
===UPN14===
UPN14 exists only as a digital subchannel and as a station delivered via satellite and cable. I'd say merge it into it's parrent station's article as a section, but I wanted to get some opinions first. —A 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this certainly won't be "UPN14" after September 2006. I'd be very surprised if this channel gets the CW affiliation over WBUW. Normally, I'd agree with merging a digital sub-channel into the parent station, but this channel seems to have enough of an independent identity that I'd be inclined to leave it alone, at least until we find out whether it will even exist in 8 months. DHowell 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question will come up in 8 months of "Should keep this page of a dead station with a footnote of it getting blown away?" So I  say we should be proactive an get it merged into its parent station's article now. —A 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I think there is an almost 100% chance that WBUW will get the CW affiliation. --CFIF 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Almost 100%" is still not 100%, and we shouldn't be basing merging decisions on speculation. Besides being a broadcast digital subchannel, it is also a cable channel and local DirecTV channel. If "UPN14" does somehow get the CW affiliation, it should keep its own article (renamed to whatever it is called after the CW switch), for the historical noteworthiness alone of a major network choosing to affiliate with a digital subchannel instead of a full-power station. If UPN14 becomes independent, it may or may not deserve its own article, depending on how "independent" it is from the main station (WISC-DT), and on whether cable systems and DirecTV continue to carry the channel. If it gets shut down, of course at that time it should be merged into the main station article as a historical note. DHowell 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with the stations, but yeah, I can see no reason why it should point to WHA (AM). —A 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the redirect. --CFIF 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not actively involved with the project, but I do check here every so often, but am not completely familiar with the naming rules.  Please let me know if I screwed something up. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, thanks for the help. I'll get those changes made to KAIT and KFTY asap (if someone doesn't get to it first). —A 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I beat you to it. DHowell 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Busy day yesterday. —A 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a similar problem also with public television stations in certain states like Idaho and Iowa. The solution is to have redirects from all of the drone sation callsigns. I think that the best course of action would be to move the article to KHBS and to have redirects from KHOG-TV. Within the article I think that it is right proper to talk about the two stations in one situation, but I for consitency sake, IMO we should keep all the TV station articles we can named after their callsigns. —A 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work... but why not just have two redirects -- on at KHBS and one at KHOG, both pointing to the KHBS/KHOG article? Amnewsboy 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's ridiculous that the disambig points to the radio stations. Simple as that. No one probably even remembers (or cares) about WAGA AM/FM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFIF (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2006
===WJCL and WGSA===
Two more pages with contested naming schemes. I think that both are clear cut enough to be located at WJCL and WGSA, but based on his actions, user:Radiojon does not agree. I am inviting him here to discuss this issue. —A 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of WJCL, the FM station mentioned in the disambig page doesn't have an article, and after viewing it's web site kix96.com it looks like it doesn't even use the call sign in it's branding. Someone typing WJCL is most likely looking for the TV station, and so I think WJCL should be the TV station article, with a disambig link at the top e.g. "For the radio station known as Kix 96, see WJCL-FM". DHowell 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of WGSA, the -CA station is just a satellite of the main station, so I think the two articles WGSA (TV) and WGSA-CA should be merged. The AM station no longer exists, and I doubt anyone is going to be expecting to find an article on Women's Golf South Australia under WGSA. If the disambig page should be kept, I say move it to WGSA (disambiguation), add a disambig link to the merged WGSA TV/CA article and move the TV article to WGSA. DHowell 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actions and opinions 

message: UPN14 exists only as a digital subchannel and as a station delivered via satellite and cable. I'd say merge it into it's parrent station's article as a section, but I wanted to get some opinions first. —A 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this certainly won't be "UPN14" after September 2006. I'd be very surprised if this channel gets the CW affiliation over WBUW. Normally, I'd agree with merging a digital sub-channel into the parent station, but this channel seems to have enough of an independent identity that I'd be inclined to leave it alone, at least until we find out whether it will even exist in 8 months. DHowell 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question will come up in 8 months of "Should keep this page of a dead station with a footnote of it getting blown away?" So I  say we should be proactive an get it merged into its parent station's article now. —A 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I think there is an almost 100% chance that WBUW will get the CW affiliation. --CFIF 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Almost 100%" is still not 100%, and we shouldn't be basing merging decisions on speculation. Besides being a broadcast digital subchannel, it is also a cable channel and local DirecTV channel. If "UPN14" does somehow get the CW affiliation, it should keep its own article (renamed to whatever it is called after the CW switch), for the historical noteworthiness alone of a major network choosing to affiliate with a digital subchannel instead of a full-power station. If UPN14 becomes independent, it may or may not deserve its own article, depending on how "independent" it is from the main station (WISC-DT), and on whether cable systems and DirecTV continue to carry the channel. If it gets shut down, of course at that time it should be merged into the main station article as a historical note. DHowell 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with the stations, but yeah, I can see no reason why it should point to WHA (AM). —A 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the redirect. --CFIF 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[UPN14]]

message: Why does WHA-TV redirect to WHA (AM)? IMO, if it is going to redirect to somewhere, it should be Wisconsin Public Television.
:I'm not familiar with the stations, but yeah, I can see no reason why it should point to WHA (AM). —A 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the redirect. --CFIF 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Madison Stuff

message: The following article moves need administratior action for one reason or another. Are there any Wikipedia admins that are involved with the proect that could help out?
*WUPA-TV -> WUPA - done
*KAIT-TV -> KAIT - Will do when the TV station refers to the telescope
*KABB-TV -> KABB 
*KFTY (TV) -> KFTY - Will do when the TV station refers to the airport
*KMPH (TV) -> KMPH 
*KCSG-TV -> KCSG
*KVLY -> KVLY-TV
:I'm not actively involved with the project, but I do check here every so often, but am not completely familiar with the naming rules.  Please let me know if I screwed something up. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, thanks for the help. I'll get those changes made to KAIT and KFTY asap (if someone doesn't get to it first). —A 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I beat you to it. DHowell 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Busy day yesterday. —A 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article moves needing administrator assistance

message: KHBS-TV/KHOG-TV is billed as "Even though the stations have separate channel numbers and call letters, they are referred to by owners Hearst-Argyle Television as one station." What are the other editor's opinions on the name of this article. If nothing else it needs to be changed to KHBS/KHOG-TV, as KHBS has no -TV postfix; but I'd much rather see this as one article with a redirect. —A 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a similar problem also with public television stations in certain states like Idaho and Iowa. The solution is to have redirects from all of the drone sation callsigns. I think that the best course of action would be to move the article to KHBS and to have redirects from KHOG-TV. Within the article I think that it is right proper to talk about the two stations in one situation, but I for consitency sake, IMO we should keep all the TV station articles we can named after their callsigns. —A 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work... but why not just have two redirects -- on at KHBS and one at KHOG, both pointing to the KHBS/KHOG article? Amnewsboy 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[KHBS-TV/KHOG-TV]]

message: Two more pages with contested naming schemes. I think that both are clear cut enough to be located at WJCL and WGSA, but based on his actions, user:Radiojon does not agree. I am inviting him here to discuss this issue. —A 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of WJCL, the FM station mentioned in the disambig page doesn't have an article, and after viewing it's web site kix96.com it looks like it doesn't even use the call sign in it's branding. Someone typing WJCL is most likely looking for the TV station, and so I think WJCL should be the TV station article, with a disambig link at the top e.g. "For the radio station known as Kix 96, see WJCL-FM". DHowell 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of WGSA, the -CA station is just a satellite of the main station, so I think the two articles WGSA (TV) and WGSA-CA should be merged. The AM station no longer exists, and I doubt anyone is going to be expecting to find an article on Women's Golf South Australia under WGSA. If the disambig page should be kept, I say move it to WGSA (disambiguation), add a disambig link to the merged WGSA TV/CA article and move the TV article to WGSA. DHowell 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WJCL and WGSA

message: In addition to the WAGA that I liked to above, there are 5 other stations that are not at the proper article name. I would simply add them to the list above and wait for Reflex Reaction to help me out; but it looks like there are two users in or arround the area that have disagreed with TV station article moves in the past. So I thought I'd post it here and ask them and the other editors of this project to weigh in. The other stations (listed based on what imo the articles should be named) are WGTV, WPXA, WPBA, WATC, and WATL. I've put my reasonings here: Template_talk:AtlantaTV#Article_names. Input please. —A 05:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlanta TV

message: I see two subcategories in Television Stations in Maine for Presque Isle. There is "Television stations in Presque Isle / Edmundston" and "Television stations in Presque Isle / Woodstock". However, there is only one Template being used for Presque Isle stations: "Template:Presque Isle TV", which mentions both Edmundston and Woodstock as sub-markets. Furthermore, both Categories were going empty, because neither was included in the Template. I added "Category:Television stations in Presque Isle / Edmundston" to the Presque Isle template, although if someone thinks the Woodstock one would be more appropriate, I will happily change it. If not, should "Category:Television stations in Presque Isle / Woodstock" be deleted, or should both categories be replaced with "Television stations in Presque Isle" or Television stations in Presque Isle / Edmundton / Woodstock"? X Stryker 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Presque Isle Categories

message: As the title says, do LPTV and Class A stations callsigns go with or without their suffixes in market boxes? I was under the impression that it was without, but User:CFIF rv'ed two edits to the Miami box where I tried to remove them. Other boxes that had the suffixes in the past were removed by other people in this project, so I thought that was the norm. Now, I don't know. Just what is the policy? 
And while I'm here... Links to other markets: keep or remove? To be honest, I'm not at all a fan of them. Kimmykun 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just my opinion, but if they are at the same level of ratings as full power stations, I'd say keep them. If you are in a dense metro and you only need to cover say 100 square miles a LP station is all you need. I'd be interested in hearing the other members of this project's opinion on the subject. —A 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep the suffixes,  it's important to distinguish an -LP/-CA suffix in a station. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to voice my opinion in keeping the suffixes. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's important to distinguish LP stations from the full-power stations ,and keeping the suffixes are a good way to do it. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  -CA and -LP suffixes in market boxes 

message: Hi.  I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months but I still consider myself a newbie.  Long story short is that I'm a broadcaster and I recently stumbled upon this project's existence (via my discovery of userboxes) and wasn't sure if I should "join", or even how to contribute.  I'm not even sure if my writing this right now was the right communication method (would email be better for how-to questions that don't advance the project)? Fife Club 15:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on down! Look at other TV station articles, like WNBC, WCBS-TV, WTVT, WWSB, and WFLA-TV to see what one should look like. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining the project? 

message: A user, Rollosmokes (talk  contribs), has been changing in article refrences from UPN to United Paramount Network, their is at least two articles that he has been doing this to on a regular basis, , and . He put up some kinda argment on his talk paghe, see User_talk:Rollosmokes#United Paramount Network or UPN, but it should be noted that his argument is while in the historic sence correct, currently would be incorect. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CoolKatt number 99999 also has been doing this. It should be UPN. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly IMHO I'd have to half agree with Rollosmokes.  It is totally useless trivia and it sounds odd in there.  However it is still a fact and I don't see any solid reason why it must be deleted totally.  My suggestion is to add a section for "Trivia" and stick it there where it would fit better. Fife Club 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one person agrees with me here. Rollosmokes 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, half agrees with you. CFIF (talk to me) 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But NO one uses "United Paramount Network" in reference to UPN. It's just UPN--it no longer stands for something. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm not a member of this WikiProject, it's clear that although UPN used to stand for United Paramount Network, it doesn't anymore. When you go to the UPN web-site, it says (c)UPN. And the WP article states "UPN (which originally stood for the United Paramount Network)..." In other words, it's no longer the full name. One can't "disagree" about the name: it's a fact. And 'historic accuracy' has nothing to do with this debate: from what I gather, the edits didn't say "formerly United Paramount Network", they said "United Paramount Network", which is not correct. Having said that, editing the article in this manner is not vandalism (as someone stated above). It's a case of a simple mistake, which is not vandalism.--Firsfron 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, does anyone refer to CBS as the "Columbia Broadcasting System". No. You know why? Because that's not the official name anymore and it was shortened to just "CBS". Same thing with UPN. CFIF (talk to me) 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And nowhere on Wikipedia do we put in infoboxes Columbia Broadcasting System. Why should UPN be any different? (Of course, that's about to be a moot point...) Morgan Wick 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPN or Uniited Paramount Network 

message: Rollosmokes on WFTS-TV keeps deleting a piece of text that states it is the largest ABC station on the UHF dial saying "it doesn't belong on Wikipedia". What is your opinions on this? --CFIF (talk to me) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly IMHO I'd have to half agree with Rollosmokes.  It is totally useless trivia and it sounds odd in there.  However it is still a fact and I don't see any solid reason why it must be deleted totally.  My suggestion is to add a section for "Trivia" and stick it there where it would fit better. Fife Club 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one person agrees with me here. Rollosmokes 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, half agrees with you. CFIF (talk to me) 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Rollosmokes stuff

message: I have written on my Talk Page my personal opinions on this subject, which is this: while UPN stopped using its full name several years ago, the acronym (or initalism, if you prefer) still means something.  It has to mean something; it's not like the letters were chosen at random with no meaning to them.  Historically, UPN means United Paramount Network.
I believed that this site took historical accuracy seriously.  But, those of you who believe (incorrectly, in my opinion) that UPN doesn't stand for the above any longer obviously place little value on what is historically accurate.  Instead, you believe what the corporate gatekeepers want you to believe.  To me, that is a sad comment to make.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how stubborn or incorrect they may be.  I guess we'll all just agree to disagree when it comes to this topic.  Rollosmokes 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But NO one uses "United Paramount Network" in reference to UPN. It's just UPN--it no longer stands for something. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm not a member of this WikiProject, it's clear that although UPN used to stand for United Paramount Network, it doesn't anymore. When you go to the UPN web-site, it says (c)UPN. And the WP article states "UPN (which originally stood for the United Paramount Network)..." In other words, it's no longer the full name. One can't "disagree" about the name: it's a fact. And 'historic accuracy' has nothing to do with this debate: from what I gather, the edits didn't say "formerly United Paramount Network", they said "United Paramount Network", which is not correct. Having said that, editing the article in this manner is not vandalism (as someone stated above). It's a case of a simple mistake, which is not vandalism.--Firsfron 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, does anyone refer to CBS as the "Columbia Broadcasting System". No. You know why? Because that's not the official name anymore and it was shortened to just "CBS". Same thing with UPN. CFIF (talk to me) 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And nowhere on Wikipedia do we put in infoboxes Columbia Broadcasting System. Why should UPN be any different? (Of course, that's about to be a moot point...) Morgan Wick 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In My Own Defense

message: The Wikipedia page for the DuMont Television Network lists 150 TV stations as DuMont Network affiliates in the 1950s, and cites references for each station. Many WP TV station pages do not make any mention of DuMont affiliation (in fact, many/most state "none" in the "former affiliations" infobox). I think a mention of the DuMont affiliation, a historic footnote, might be in order. A sentence such as "The station was also a Dumont affiliate from ___ to ___." or "The station also cleared programs from the DuMont Network." might be appropriate. The infoboxes could be corrected, too. Further info could be added, too, to expand the stations' history. I did a quick check, and it seems the majority of Wikipedia pages of former DuMont stations do not mention DuMont at all, and many of the articles specifically state (falsely) there were no other affiliations. I want to go ahead and make the changes, but it's a big project, and I figured I'd mention it here first.--Firsfron 02:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to better verify some of those references first, I think. Morgan Wick 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why. Many references come straight from the TV guide listings of that era, a contemporary source. The very first reference link (for WBRC) is a well-respected expert site on early Birmingham Television  . The second link (for KTVA) is also local, and doesn't appear to be mistaken, either. The third link, for KPHO, comes straight from the The 1950 Broadcasting Yearbook, another contemp source. Fourth link (KEYT), straight from March 1954 TV Guide. Fifth link, from the Early Television Museum, no slouch in early history of the medium. In other words, it's not all of these many sites that are wrong, it's Wikipedia that needs to be updated. --Firsfron 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said some. Some of the later ones are not as respected. Some of them come from , which doesn't come across to me as being too authoritative (you may beg to differ). In Cleveland and Columbus, two stations each are listed as having DuMont affiliations in 1956 and back into the 40s, which doesn't seem right. I know there are probably some other questionable sites as well. At the very least, the hodgepodge of sites used should give us pause. I don't question your aims in general, and you do have a point and I don't mean to question you or try to stop you or anything, though I do point out that you added a number of those stations yourself, many in the last month, so you shouldn't whine too much about DuMont mention being added to station articles right away unless you did it yourself. Morgan Wick 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate feedback, both positive and negative, Morgan, although I do whine an awful lot. The page does use a hodgepodge of sources, true, but sadly, there doesn't seem to be complete, non-fragmentary records of a network out of business for the past 50 years. While one or two reputable sources for the whole list would be preferrable, I haven't found any such reference source. There is a mistake on the Cleveland entry, however. Thanks for the heads-up.--Firsfron 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DuMont Affiliation

message: Should i compose of a list or database or template of television stations with callsigns in Japan (JA-JS) or the Caribbean (VS, Z) (as examples), by city/market/state/province? Raccoon Fox 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Television Stations 

message: Apparently this editor liks to add speculative edits, i have caught him most recently on WILF (see: ), and have removed the txt regarding, this is not the first time i have come across the and from the user, so useres should be on the look out, not edits like the type that he has added fall under WP:NOT, and should be trwated accordingly.
What about freedom of speech? We should be able to predict the future under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. CoolKatt number 99999 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, read the poilcy, you edits violate, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, noe this is not free speach fourm, this is an Encylopedia, content must be verifiable, speculation is not. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 06:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, I give up CoolKatt number 99999 06:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not bound by the US Constitution. If there was that First Amedment rule, you wouldn't be trying and failing to protect your talk page from editing and putting crappy and false information all across WP. CFIF (talk to me) 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any need to resort to names like "crappy" or to exaggerate ("false information all across WP"). CoolKatt has contributed some nice work to WP articles. While users here may not agree with his edits, and may even remove them if they are unsourced, there are many good reasons to follow WP:Civil. --Firsfron 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't understand why he persists to add worthless and cluttering info to WP when others tell him to stop. I had to go through a lot of trouble to revert his "United Paramount Network" additions. Also, what troubles me, is that he does not respond to any of his messages on his talk page, and clears it out only after 10(!) messages which were never resolved. Another thing which disturbs me is him taking up valubale space on WP for these "ultimate group deal" pages which are fantasy, like User:CoolKatt number 99999/WCPO Post-Group Deal, for example. CFIF (talk to me) 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I give up CoolKatt number 99999 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: CFIF, Please stop referring to other editors' work on WP as "Crappy", "Worthless", "lies", "stupid", "dumb", "sloppy", "substandard", "dumbass", "BS", "ridiculous", etc. When you write things like that, in edit summaries, or on talk pages, you are violating WP:Civil. Whether or not you believe the edits to be less than high-quality, or correct, your comments only serve to inflame the situation. You are thus causing problems. I've already asked you once here, only to see you again call another editor's work "worthless" above, where you can clearly see the editor can read what you are saying. Edit summaries are to reflect why you are editing the page or section, not your opinion of other editors' work. A look at your edit summaries list is quite troubling, because it shows a pattern of violating WP policy. Please stop.--Firsfron 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is anyone I do not like being compared to, it is BenH. I even cleaned up some of the articles he created (see WDAM-TV and WSCV). So, please, Firsfron is right, let's stop this. CoolKatt number 99999 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, CoolKat, the edits you made to the articles I was working on, were very much welcome and appreciated. You saved me several hours of work. I don't understand the reason behind the TV subpages, though. What exactly is their purpose?--Firsfron 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't comparing you to him, I was pointing out that you're nowhere near him. But I, too, think this has run its course. Let's move on to more important things. Morgan Wick 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoolKatt number 99999 

message: This page was getting LONG, so I moved a good part of the content over to an archive. Feel free to pick up the slack, or change how much content should be placed in this archive.. Morgan Wick 01:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Appreciated.--Firsfron 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Well seems that he is back up to his old way again, speculation . Is new thing is to put out of market stations into templates and then the templates into the ststions, becaused they are recived by cable, so i guess if were going that way, we should put all of the templats on the superstations and the stations done nationaly by the DSS syatems or being able to be recived by C-band. See: , , , WPHL-TV, KDKA-TV, and others. He will claim WP:Own or something, but maybe he should look at :Image:Tvmarkets.gif to see what tv markets are and why the atations are liset as such. If we are going to go with the CoolKatt number 99999 version of things then i mine as well just start tagging the templats for deletion, as then they are being made useless. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I decided not to re-add the speculation. Two, satellite TV is not important in templates. Three, if a station is on cable in a market (NOT SATELLITE), it should be listed as such. Four, stop this now. CoolKatt number 99999 04:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thing-superstations also not imporatant. CoolKatt number 99999 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if satelight is not then neither is cable, as both provide the same stlye of sevice in different modes. It is alo not uncommon to have stations from out of market ares brough into another area by cable, that does not make them a station in the DMA, their are only a handfull of stations that have exemptions to be in a different assinged markets then they are physicially located in, and the only one i know of is a small station in california, no station that i am aware of is dual-assinged, and if their is one it is not one in the top 50 markets. Also the Sat is decider, as local stations are assinged in sat the same way they are in cable, and it praticlay is possible to get every station in the top 50 everywhere in the US, yet that does not mean that they are assimged to every DMA. Also in Jersey, it is not uncommon to be living in the NYC DMA, ie Mercer County, and recive all of the major stations not only from NYC but Philly to, but that does not mean that the Philly syaytions are are NYC stations. Ok os you didnt re-add it, you added speculation to an article, again. BTW whernt you leaving or something. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the speculation ONCE. I did not add it back. Satellite and cable are 2 different things-satellite providers provide largely the SAME channel line-up across America. Cable providers do NOT. CoolKatt number 99999 05:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah ones the session, either way you still did it. And your wrong, since the advent of digital cable the ir are more similarties between the cable and sat in ther brodcasting packages, not in the way that you by them but in their offering of stations, they pervious, and their is a big simlarity in what OTA brodcast stations that can offer. By law dss providers, i cant say fo C-band, are restricted in what stations OTA brodcast sations can provide in the dowlink to you box dependnet on your physicial location in a specific maeket. Their are simial restricitions on cable providers. All of which are under the must-carry regulations, see , or the real legal wording . . --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cable signals piped in to other markets? I don't think there's a reason to add those in, except possibly in a handful of exceptions. I guess maybe the WOLF/WILF situation? Hard to say. I really don't want to get into mixing cable and over the air stations, as I think that will just generally add confusion (we already have plenty of cable stations with fake call signs, this just confuses the issue further). Whatever we decide, it has to be a standard, so that all the templates are the same. I'm personally fine with status quo (leave things as they were: without cable stations mixed in).--Firsfron 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WILF isn't an exception, it is located in the SWB market yet is closer to State College then to SWB, i think. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been taken too far, especially with Canadian templates (where US networks are available on cable).  had the Buffalo stations, and  had Detroit. You might as well put WXYZ-TV on  since it's on cable here. :p I still think the entire market template system needs a total overhaul. Kirjtc2 15:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: CFIF and myself are working on some kind of new way to censor CoolKatt, who had now gotten out of control with his incivility and insistence on reverting articles to versions that feature his poor, amateurish additions and trivial references.  We know about Request for comment, but it seems like a very slow process.  Already, one administrator (David Levy) has refused to intervene, so it is up to us to build a much stronger case against him.  If any of you, the members of this WikiProject, have had any problems with CoolKatt with regards to: 1) his adding stuff in a vandalizing manner; 2) him referring to your work as vandalism; 3) accusing you of being uncivil; or 4) himself being uncivil towards you, then send me an e-mail.  Rollosmokes 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoolKatt number 99999, again 

message: In recent days, I have noticed WIKISCRIPPS 07 inserting templates for network affiliates in Michigan. For an example, see the bottom of WPBN-TV's page, where he has one for NBC's Michigan stations installed. Personally, I think it's unnecessary. Comment? azumanga1
:I actually like them....they seem useful. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these ones too. The question is what to do with states that only have 1-2 markets...the templates would look fairly awkward then. Kirjtc2 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to help some. CoolKatt number 99999 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: The largest TV market in Florida is Tampa Bay, so, in theory, WFTS (ABC), WTSP (CBS), WFLA (NBC), and WTVT (Fox) would be the Florida "flagship" stations for those networks in the case of feeding live state events. CoolKatt number 99999 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network Templates 

message: Hi guys,
I just want to caution you all to please do not refer to your fellow editors' work as "vandalism", even if you don't agree with it. We're all aware of what vandalism is and is not, and even if something that someone writes is incorrect, could be phrased better, is speculation, or even violates some of the decisions made here, when you revert it, you're NOT reverting vandalism. The past few weeks, I've caught at least five of the editors here reverting "vandalism", and now that we've had several people here ask everyone nicely if we could please stop with personal attacks and talk of "vandalism", we still have a few editors who don't think it applies to them. Now I'm leaving mesages for users, and all I'm getting in response is "Well, he did this..." or "why are you backing him up, when...", etc.
We can be better than this, guys. You don't want to get a three-day block like one editor just did, do you? Come on, guys. Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration. Also, please don't bother to respond to this with, "Well, he did this"-type replies. Thanks in advance,--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:VAND and be sure you know what vandalism is not. "NPOV violations", "bold edits", "mistakes", "bullying or stubbornness", "harassing or making personal attacks" (all verbatim quotes from section headers) are, unpleasant as they may be, NOT vandalism. Morgan Wick 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for including the link, Morgan. I should have done so.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing and "Vandalism"

message: CFIF and myself are working on some kind of new way to censor CoolKatt, who had now gotten out of control with his incivility and insistence on reverting articles to versions that feature his poor, amateurish additions and trivial references.  We know about Request for comment, but it seems like a very slow process.  Already, one administrator (David Levy) has refused to intervene, so it is up to us to build a much stronger case against him.  If any of you, the members of this WikiProject, have had any problems with CoolKatt with regards to: 1) his adding stuff in a vandalizing manner; 2) him referring to your work as vandalism; 3) accusing you of being uncivil; or 4) himself being uncivil towards you, then send either of us an e-mail. Be sure to include your Wikipedia screenname when replying. Rollosmokes 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief. By your own edit history, you're guilty of 2), 3), and 4) yourself, Rollosmokes.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I wouldn't say we are going to censor him (that's sort of uncivil). We are, though, are trying to fix this problem. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is getting really ridiculous, and be sure to read WP:VAND to see what vandalism is not: for example, my revisions. Just leave me alone, and everything will be just perfect. CoolKatt number 99999 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh...leaving you alone isn't gonna help, you're just going to upset people even more. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everything will be just perfect"? Do you have some grander plan you're not divulging, or are you trying to mold Wikipedia in your image? Because a lot of people don't think it's "perfect". We need serious discussion of these issues. By the way, I'm telling everyone to be aware of what vandalism is not, and that includes you. What you're doing, I agree, is not vandalism. But neither is what anyone else is doing. Morgan Wick 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too bad that under your WP CoolKatt, legal threats would be allowed, since it's okay apparently for you to make them and go unpunished anyway. He just wants everybody to throw a pity party for him. --CFIF (talk to me) 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: CoolKatt has filed a pretty-much one-sided Request for Comment against me.  I'm shaking in my boots right now thinking about it!!  Rollosmokes 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I'm not a member of this group (for my own personal reasons), I'd like to put this out to those of you who are: though he has made some decent contributions, CoolKatt's overall behavior continues to be counter-productive to the Wikipedia community at large, With arbitration pending, and a permanent block possibly subsequent, I propose that he should be removed from participating in this Wikiproject until further notice.  Comments?  Rollosmokes 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does being a participant in the Wikiproject even mean, anyway? People can implement the guidelines on here with or without being a member (see: you). Morgan Wick 04:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UPDATE: CoolKatt number 99999

message: The FCC's Media Bureau web page has several pieces of information relating to cable and satellite rebroadcasters, including a list of significantly viewed stationsin each county. These are lists of the stations that get noticable ratings in each county (over 3%, I believe). The lists include in-market and out-of-market stations. If you match counties to markets, and filter out the in-market stations, you can discover which out-of-market stations the FCC believes to be serving parts of that market.
It is important to note that the SV list refers to over the air reception, and does not include cable viewers. It is important for cable, however, as the SV list shows which stations a cable operator can import without worrying about SyndEx, network exclusivity, etc., so it is a fairly good indicator of which stations might have cable carriage in a market. The SV list normally only concerns itself with full-service (or "must carry") stations, as low-power stations are governed by slightly different rules.
I hope this information help to shed light on the out-of-market situation. I am not entirely sure if it is necessary to include OOM stations in the market templates, but if we do, this is probably where we should start. AlexDW 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be the solution...let's see what happens next.  However, I propose that the market templates be protected from editing until a majority consensus is reached regarding this issue.  That's my two cents -- and I'm not even part of this project yet.  Rollosmokes 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds promising. I agree, protection doesn't seem to be far off at the moment. Morgan Wick 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entry for WPHL-TV needs protection as well. There is a revert war going on over that article right now, due to this issue. AlexDW 12:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significantly Viewed Stations - The Solution to the OOM Problem? 

message: We sure have a lot of K*DF stations out there: they have the same programming, Azteca America. I know of 5 so far: KADF-LP (I created a new article), KPDF-CA and KUDF-LP (I created THEIR articles), KHDF-TV (that's next) and KODF-LP. Would they be merged? KPDF and KUDF are a cluster, KADF is owned by some local guy, and KODF by Mako Communications.
Note: If not, would just KPDF-CA and KUDF-LP be merged? They are the same in all aspects except DMA, calls and channel number. -Tracker 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azteca America DF 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions.  Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please consider adding to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Thanks! Walkerma 04:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: has been making many edits on tv stations and shows that make no sense. Not to mention that he is stubbing articles that aren't even stub-sized and is ignoring requests by others to stop doing that and place articles in categories where these articles already exist. This reminds me a lot of , who did similar stubbings to tv stations without listening to others. Something must be done. ErikNY 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had it with this tool, so I complained at the Admins noticeboard and he's blocked for 24 hours to get him to talk. Hallelujah! --CFIF (talk to me) 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he was finally blocked -- but only for 24 hours. We need to take more steps into preventing future "attacks" from BenH. CoolKatt number 99999 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HELLO! Can you not see my above post? --CFIF (talk to me) 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User talk:CoolKatt number 99999#Stopping BenH read this please CoolKatt number 99999 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we got ourselves a BenH-sympathizer: . CoolKatt number 99999 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should we file an RfC against BenH? CoolKatt number 99999 05:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sue Anne were in this Wikiproject, and constantly had to revert his edits, maybe she'd see what a problem BenH is. I have had enough of Ben's lack of spelling and his farce contributions. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BenH - Blocked 

message: Help me get this guy banned so we can help make articles better instead of having to constantly revert his poor edits. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently...the admins don't find BenH a problem 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH. Let's hope the admins ban him! --CFIF (talk to me) 01:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC in progress 

message: While not all are organized this way, for some US states and Canadian provinces the "Television stations in X" categories are further subcategorized by market or region, with TV stations consequently appearing in the dedicated market category instead of the main state or province category. However, there seems to be a reversion war brewing on some of the new "network affiliates in X" templates as to whether those templates should includeonly  or noinclude the "Television stations in X" parent category from the station articles. See  for an example. 
So, my question: has there been any kind of consensus here to permit duplicate categorization (state/province and individual market) in cases where a state or province category is subdivided by market? If there has been, then I'd like to see it  and if there hasn't been, then it's against Wikipedia's policy on duplicate categorization to include that parent category on the templates. Bearcat 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization of television stations

message: I notice a lot of well-developed TV station articles which don't go in-depth into their news operations. Yet some do. Compare the articles of NBC-owned stations WCAU and WVIT: see a difference? WCAU's aritcle goes well in-depth into the station's news operation, but WVIT's does not. We should make this another priority of this WikiProject, don't you think so? CoolKatt number 99999 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying we should expand stubby articles? Sounds good to me. Maybe you could add some infoboxes to articles while you're putting in your state templates and channel X categories... --AlexDW 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going in-depth 

message: I believe the list of low-power transmitters is wrong on KSTP-TV, due to KSAX and KRWF being in closer proximity to the area and both being owned by the same company. --Ksax 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the lists for both KSTP-TV and KSAX/KRWF with information from w9wi.com. This should more correctly reflect which translators repeat which stations. --AlexDW 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[KSTP-TV]] 

message: has been making some reeeaaly poor and ridiculous additions to TV pages. I'm sort of on Wikibreak, but I'm thinkin' we have our next BenH-type editor here. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen this guy a couple times, and even though he has uploaded some images, he's also made quite a few nonsensical edits. I see he also has a tendency to fill blank spaces in infoboxes with "none", which is a big pet peeve of mine. Right now, assume good faith. —Whomp [T] [C] 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isuer is ridiculous . "Now that the cats out of the bag". --CFIF (talk to me) 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. My. Goodness. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's baaaack!  Kirjtc2 13:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another BenH? (not a sockpuppet) 

message: TrackerTV has created a barnstar proposal relating to Broadcasting. I would really appreciate it if interested people could give an opinion here.--Ed 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:This barnstar may be used in assoiation with your Wikiproject--Ed 21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Opinions 

message: -Just wanted to let everyone know I changed the Project Box at the top of the main page. I was marked with a small "p" when it shoudl've been an uppercase, in order to correctly display the box on a user page.
--Rick Abbott 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: . If this is true, we could be seeing a ton of people claim CW affiliation has already gone into effect, possibly even for future My Network TV stations currently affiliated with the WB. I just caught User:AdamDeanHall forgetting that branding ≠ affiliation for Chicago stations, so my mind is on this.
Where could possibly be a centralized place where we could remind unknowing editors (those not part of this project) of this fact? Or will we have to put reminders on every station that will become a CW affiliate?
Or... should we oblige them, and consider stations CW affiliates now, so as to decrease our work load later, as described above? I don't like this option, since it's not really accurate, but it could be easier on us now and when the CW actually launches. Morgan Wick 04:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uh oh...

message: Just to let you guys know, one of our articles is up for deletion. The article for KTFL, the FamilyNet affiliate in Flagstaff, Arizona, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTFL. Do you belive that this station deserves an article? Can anyone expand it beyond its current stub? --AlexDW 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I did think the whole thing was rather silly, especially as we have articles for stations that haven't been on the air in years! --AlexDW 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the guilty party for one of those. KQBN-LP was a mistake and if I had it to do over again, I would not have written it. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion (Tracker?) I wouldn't be offended. --dhett 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[KTFL]] nominated for deletion 

message: After seeing what I thought were some stylistic problems with the "Fox affilates serving the state of New Jersey" box in WNYW and WTXF-TV, this led me to question this: since New Jersey has only two network stations licensed within its borders (WMGM-TV and WWOR-TV), are network templates needed for this state (or, for that matter, other states which lack affiliates of a certain network)?
If the consensus is in favor of them, I've used the basic template format and revamped the Fox template box, and created others for New Jersey.  They are:
 /  /  /  /  /  / 
Of course, since most of the stations are in the NYC and Philadelphia markets, all of them (with the possible exception of the PBS template) may be unnecessary.  Of course, the UPN and WB templates will become obsolete inside of the next month and will be replaced with CW and MNTV.  Comments?  Rollosmokes 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly like the idea of network-in-state templates to begin with, but I especially don't think they're needed if there are no affiliates in a state (like DE for all networks; NH and NJ for most) or only one affiliate (RI, CT, VT, UT, NM or HI). Kirjtc2 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a network template could be made for New England? Just a suggestion, as I'm not attached to any of the state templates at all, but it would eliminate the need for seperate templates for RI, CT, MA, VT, NH and ME. It still wouldn't address single-affiliate templates in NM, UT, or HI, though...--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Question 

message: We have a little problem regarding the entries for Boston's WHDN-LP and Miami's WHDT-LP (repeating WPB's WHDT) -- a person, going by the user name "WHDT" insisted that the low-powered calls ended with "-DLP", then later "-LD", citing his FCC license. However, the FCC database still uses the -LP calls. We changed then back to what the database said, but WHDT insited that they end with -DLP / -LD. Personally, I don't think he represents the station at all. Comment? azumanga 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper suffix for a low-power digital station would be -LD, but you're right — CDBS shows it as -LP. Unfortunately, CDBS is not authoritative and, even more unfortunately, is the best we've got. IMHO, the article should stay at the -LP location until CDBS shows it as -LD. As far as WHDT being the licensee, I would personally be skeptical of that. Similar problems exist at W10BM. --Alexdw 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading user WHDT's comments on his rap sheet, I tend to concur that he's here only to start trouble. He's even double-guessing CFIF, for Pete's sake. -- azumanga 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: CDBS may not be authoritative, but the FCC Rules are.  The format of call signs is specifically defined in 47 CFR 2.302, which doesn't even mention "-LP" and "-CA" which are long-established.  (The former by statute, IIRC.)  The rule for requesting assignment of a call sign on a broadcast station is section 73.3550, and it only mentions "-FM", "-TV", "-LP", and "-CA".  The general LPTV station identification rule at 74.783 specifies "-LP".  However, there is a specific rule for digital LPTV call signs at 74.791, and being the most recently-enacted rule, we must assume that it controls.  That rule specifies, for seminumeric call signs, a suffix of "D" (e.g., W02AAD), and for all-alphabetic call signs, suffixes of "-LD" and "-CD".  I'll go update the relevant background articles.  121a0012 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've been seeing in CDBS, that would actually be W02AA-D, although that may just be "for display purposes". With reference to the -LP/-CA prefixes, those get used interchangeably throughout CDBS, unfortunately. Usually, a non-Class-A station will get listed with a -CA prefix if they have a Class A construction permit (or sometimes just an application). I assume that Class A stations with -LP suffixes just didn't want their station idents. There are also pseudo-suffixes, like -DT or -DR, whose statutory legitimacy I am unclear on. To make matters worse, usage in the field often differs from the fairly simple regulations. Indistriminate use of the -TV/-DT suffixes, contraction of translator calls (like K18AJ in Montana), even stations making up totally new call signs for themselves (normally LPs). Just thinking about it is giving me a headache... --AlexDW 12:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "-DT" doesn't exist.  You'll see "DR" (not "-DR") in CDBS as a pseudo-service class; it indicates that the record you're looking at is for a rulemaking proceeding.  Similarly, you will occasionally see "TA" as a vacant TV allotment and "TR" for an old analog TV rulemaking (and likewise "FA" and "FR" for FM).  The CDBS download README file explains many but not all of these codes (and a lot more which are only used internally to the database schema).  121a0012 04:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WHDN-LP]], [[WHDT]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of myNetworkTV affiliates. A user who I don't particularly care for after he stalked and harrassed me has decided to put this list up for deletion with no solid reason. --CFIF ☎ 04:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning appears to have been really flimsy, and I do not believe it was meant as a good-faith nomination. I have blocked the user for three hours for violations of WP:POINT and disruption. It does appear to be harassment.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article, BTW, has been speedily kept. Apparently everyone else thought the reasoning was flimsy, too.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MNTV affils list up for deletion 

message: We should spruce up the CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX affiliates lists to The CW and MyNetworkTV standards. They, honestly, look like crap and are outdated. --CFIF ☎ 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but would like the improvements to be extended to America One, i, etc.--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. I have been updating them here and there, but they really need a complete re-write. Now that we have (at least) stubs for all the "real" stations, maybe I should start working on this stuff, eh? :-) --AlexDW 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Initially I thought maybe we should keep a second, parallel set of lists in the current style for casual readers who may not have a good idea where their market ranks in the list of DMAs, but, besides being very unwieldy (and the fact that people can use "Find in this page..." in their browsers anyway), the networks themselves maintain the latter style for lists on their own websites - perhaps as long as we link to those? — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do agree with that idea, in fact I've been working on a "DMA" style affiliate list for ABC, and plan to do so on other networks. I copied and pasted the list code from the Fox affiliates list and I haven't been finished with it yet, though the top 25 markets are complete. You can add stations to the list (include satellite stations!) at my sandbox. --grejlen - talk 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spruce up affiliates list 

message: I have created a lists of Salt Lake City translators on my user page and would like feedback before posting to the main workspace. Most of the Salt Lake City television stations have so many translators (35+ to 110+), listing them in each station's article would be far too unwieldy. User:Dhett/List of Salt Lake City translators lists the translators in a separate space; each station can include a link to its section of the list. KUPX, KTMW, KPNZ and KUTH were not included, since none has more than five translators; KUTH has none. All of the other Utah stations also have a manageable number of translators, if they have any at all. The list has a talk page - comments and suggestions welcome there.  --dhett 05:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt Lake City translator list 

message: To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Newscast_schedules.2C_redux, where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of newscast schedules?

message: ....some think newscast titles and times violate WP:NOT. Based on my readings of the policy, Wikipedia is also not paper, and sometimes, to help put information into an article and make it a quality article, you have to sometimes Ignore all rules. --CFIF ☎ 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So apparently.... 

message: --CFIF ☎ 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the new DMA ranks don't technically go into effect until September 23. Should we wait until then, or just make the changes now so we don't have to worry about this later? —Whomp t/c 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to get it done now than forget about it later. --CFIF ☎ 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to update [[List of television stations in North America by media market]] 

message: On 8/16, the 11PM newscast on WHDH-TV in Boston was cancelled after the first few minutes, due to persistant technical problems. This has made the news in the industry, both in Boston and nationwide. However, someone has been repeatedly removing the paragraph regarding this event. I had no choice but to lock the article due to persistant vandalism. I had to lock it because I'm sick and tired of reversing the article over and over again. Any comment? -- azumanga 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading what the tag involves, I had to take the protection off, as, apparently, it deals with more than adding a tag. But still, something needs to be done. -- azumanga 04:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it might have helped to read the Wikipedia:Protection policy carefully first. If he attacks again, and won't discuss, go to WP:AN or WP:AIAV and try to get him blocked. Morgan Wick 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHDH-TV, and the 8/16 "Meltdown" 

message: I think we should officially discourage the use of the JPEG format in logo images. It makes sometimes already poor-quality images worse, and also just makes images worse with the compressing. Try PNG. --CFIF ☎ 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JPEG format 

message: I've been having alot of reverts/talk warnings lately with this user, who has been adding nonsense slogans to station pages (see WJZY and WDJT) and making CW/MyNet changeovers way too early; they also tried to assert that KBWB was San Francisco's My affiliate based on a relaunched website alone, and has been creating incorrect show lists on station pages. The user hasn't been responding to any messages left on their talk pages, so any guidance about how to proceed with this user would be useful. Nate 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AIAV. It'll only result in a short-term block (damn IPs) but you'll get him/her off your back for a while. Or leave out commented-out messages for the user in the articles themselves near where reversions will occur for persistent areas of friction (if that made any sense). Morgan Wick 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and filed a report, but they had a 3RR block earlier in the week and were back to their old tricks in no time. Maybe they'll get the point now. Nate 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:24.7.77.145]] 

message: Hey guys,
DuMont Television Network is up for article improvement. Please vote for the article's improvement, and please add whatever you feel might help the article. Some of the voters made the point that Wikipedia has a ton about recent TV pop culture, but not that much about TV history. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#DuMont_Television_Network_.284_votes.2C_stays_until_1_September.29|DuMont article improvement drive]]

message: I have made some changes to the article on WHEC TV (AKA News10Nbc) For starters I have used a better version of the station logo, the old version of the logo was a bit muddy. Secondly I conversed with Jack Allen, webmaster of  regarding the statment in the page that the station might be re-aquired by Gannett. He says he does seem to recall such a rumour but not very clearly, and there seems to be no way to verify it. Also, the Wikipedia should not report mumbo jumbo, but facts.Johnzw 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHEC-TV 

message: The wraps came off of KSAZ's new website today, and I quickly found problems, specifically plagiarism: right here. Hey, if KMAX and KOVR could pull it off for CBS, why wouldn't Fox? I am contacting the station immediately about the use of content from WP. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that they say about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery? Morgan Wick 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KSAZ and Wikipedia 

message: I stumbled across this site, it is TV/FM/AM query all in one, and compiles data directly from the FCC database. It is a lot better than the FCC database, showing former callsigns, a contour map, and other vital info all on the same page....is there any way we can replace the TV/AM/FM query with this? CFIF ☎ 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recommend it. Although it does compile all of the information on one page, there aren't any links to more substantial information, such as parties to assignments of license or transfers of control. Their contour maps, like CDBS, require a separate link, but the CDBS contour maps are much more accurate, taking into account directional antennae, whereas the RecNet maps do not. RecNet's other info isn't always accurate either; they had a KSL-TV translator listed in Bemidji MN, when it was actually in Mink Creek ID, and any inaccuracies in CDBS are also in RecNet. I prefer that we continue to cite the FCC site. --dhett 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction: RecNet takes directional antennae into account, but not terrain. --dhett 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace FCC database TV Query? 

message: has just gone through the painstaking work of creating tables for WBLU-LP's primetime schedules for the past seven years. Should this be deleted, or what? —Whomp t/c 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it twice, I don't think it adds much to the article except making longer than it needs to be and meets WP:NOT. I sympathize that it's good research, but for a small LP in Lexington, I don't think people are looking for back schedules for one station. It's basically redundant of the back network schedules for each season anyways besides local programming hours. Nate 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And just a few hours ago  readded them again, and left a rather thought-provoking message at his/her talk page. I did reply by stating the obvious, but I'm not sure that will help much. —Whomp t/c 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WBLU-LP]] cruft 

message: This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.
*CoolKatt is banned for one year from articles which relate to US television stations. He may continue to comment on talk pages.
*CoolKatt is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. After the expiration of any ban imposed by this decision that ban may be re-imposed should he resume tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans.
*All of CoolKatt's subpages that do not comply with Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages? shall be deleted.
*Should CoolKatt violate any ban imposed on him by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans
For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999]]

message: I've been watching this article for months. It contains useful information, but I question the way it's worded. It seems to me that it doesn't conform to an NPOV; almost like it's being edited by an employee of the station. It reads more like a commercial than a Wikipedia entry. --AKA, 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  tag to it. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[KXLY-TV]], Spokane 

message: Recently there was a discussion among the Wikipedia television community on whether or not newscast schedules belonged in station articles.  I happen to believe that they should, as it constitutes a highlighting of that station's locally-produced programming.
In contrast, I do not believe that TV station articles should contain lengthy listings of syndicated programming, either past or current.  For one, such listings -- especially of current programming -- is trivial information at best.  And also, whole articles would run long as other editors scour the old TV Guides and newspaper listings to find the shows missing from the list.  This could go on and on and on...
While it would be feasible to highlight certain shows as they relate to the station's ratings performance or for any other notable reason(s) (such as pre-empting network programs), extensive listings of syndicated product shouldn't be included.  On this basis, I removed such material from the following station entries: WSOC-TV, WLOS, WVEC-TV, KOCO-TV, WYFF, KFOR-TV, KOKH, KWTV, WHNS, KOCB, KAUT-TV, WYCW, WGXA, WAGT, WJBF-TV, WRLH-TV, WTKR, WIS-TV, WTVD, and WSPA-TV.  That's enough for one late Saturday night/Sunday morning.  I'm sure there are other articles that still are as these were, but I'll save them unbtil I get some feedback.  Rollosmokes 08:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently added to this list: WKBS-TV (Philadelphia), WECT, WMYA-TV, WGGS-TV, South Carolina Educational Television (the list of British sitcoms also fit the description here), WRCB-TV, WTVC, WDSI-TV, WDEF-TV, WBBJ-TV and WRAL-TV (though I would try to squeeze a mention of the station's continuous airing of The Andy Griffith Show into the main text).  Rollosmokes 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A few more: WBTV, WFTC, WTOG, WTVT, WINK-TV, KSTC-TV, and WUCW.  Rollosmokes 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Syndicated Television programs 

message: http://www.tvnewstalk.net/forum2/index.php/topic,6827.0.html
The page reads "Today, legal papers were filed and we're in the process of taking actions against Scott Brown to hopefully put him away for a long time... or at least get him offline." This is from TVNewsTalk.net. Some of our users (CFIF, Spotteddogs) go there. This could finally mean that those AFD nominations we have had to put up with may come to a close. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spotteddogs big break 

message: We were having a dispute on navboxes at WT:PCP. I brought up this project, and the user came back:
"WP:TVS has a poor record of cluttering pages with ugly, useless navboxes. I strongly urge that we not repeat their mistakes. We should not be adding the kind of commentary that is useful for lists to every single Pokémon article, nor should we be cluttering pages when categories were designed to serve this exact purpose. - (posted by )"
We need to review our category and navbox structure: A Man In Black is so right. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should convert all market boxes to the "Show/Hide" version, like , so if people don't want to see the "cluttering navboxes", they don't have to. Personally, I don't think categories are good for our purposes. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean something like Greenwood TV or Meridian TV? Lee359 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category clutter 

message: Just wondering if we should remove these from station pages now that both networks will be defunct as of Monday. I don't know if we keep them up for historical purposes or not. Nate 03:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: the caegories should be deleted, but the lists should stay. I propose they be moved to List of former WB network affiliates and List of former UPN affiliates. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:UPN network affiliates|UPN]]/[[:Category:The WB network affiliates|WB]] network affil categories

message: Recently, a user named "Scrabbleship" created new templates featuring the new CW and My networks, but for digitals, has been using PSIP channels instead of actuals. For example:
Template:MNTV Texas
I changed one of these from PSIP to actual, but Scrabbleship changed them back, citing "conventions".
Do we have standards on how we treat subchannels? If so, do we use PSIP or actual (or both)? -- azumanga 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been going with virtual channels working on some of the Midwest templates since most stations have gone to advertising as 'watch Channel 5 on HDTV on Channel 5-1 and our weather channel on 5-2'; Most TVs usually tune by the virtual channels anyways so it only adds more confusion. Nate 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Network Templates -- PSIP or Actual? 

message: On Sept. 18, Clear Channel moved the KUCW call letters from its station in Coos Bay, Oregon to KUWB in Ogden, Utah, giving the Coos Bay station new call letters KMCB. I moved the old KUCW article to KMCB, but cannot move the KUWB article to KUCW, as there is now a redirect blocking the move. I submitted a request to WP:RM on Sept. 19, but there's a backlog, so I don't know when the move will take place. Vegaswikian started a survey and discussion on the KUWB talk page, but it's not exactly what I would consider a controversial move. Can anyone here help out? If not, consider this a heads up that the article for KUCW still resides at KUWB. --dhett 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be patient about the request, it's about the only thing to be done for now. As long as everything is set before the pagemove, once it's taken care of it'll be a fast process. Nate 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it. Incidentally, if there are other UPN or WB-to-CW call signs that need to be done, let me know and I'll perform them without the long backlog request process. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, any registered user can move articles - I was able to do the KUCW → KMCB move - but because KUCW still existed as a redirect to KMCB, it blocked KUWB from being moved. Putting a WP:RM on the article was the suggested method of dealing with it, but in reality, I think it would have been easier to just request a WP:RfD on the KUCW redirect, and then when that was gone, move the article. Oh well. Thanks much for your help!! --dhett 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Dhett, I wasn't very clear. Yes, I'm aware that regular users can't normally move articles on top of existing pages. But I don't have that problem. You are of course welcome to post the problem on the backlogged WP:RM, or wait days for a consensus on WP:RfD, but I try to check here regularly, and if you know of an uncontroversial page move (like a call sign change) where you can't perform the move, you can post it here or on my talk page, and I'll be glad to move it, and save everyone a little trouble. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you were clear. I put that first sentence in, not for you, as I knew you already knew all that, but for any readers who may not have known. I knew that there were people here with administrative privileges that might take a special interest in keeping TV station articles current and accurate - and since I'm not the most patient person in the world, as accurately pointed out by Nate, I thought putting a request here might expedite things. I will be more than happy and grateful to avail myself of your assistance in the future, as I've seen the backlog on WP:RM and don't see the need to discuss uncontroversial and obvious changes ad nauseum in forums such as WP:RfD (almost like the Wikipedia equivalent of the U.N. at times, in my opinion). Again, thanks for all your help, and for your offer to help out in the future. --dhett 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one who has drawn parallels to the sometimes frustrating bureaucracy, Dhett. Thanks for explaining (I get dense sometimes)and happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming KUWB to KUCW 

message: You may have noticed how I've included in several pages meanings of old callsigns, such as those for WWMT (WKZO), KWQC (WOC), WYFF (WFBC), KBWB (KTZO), WNWO (WDHO), and KMYQ (KTZZ). I have started a new user subpage to catalogue meanings for all the callsigns, listed by market. I will probably break it up into smaller pages, since putting all the markets into one page will be WAY too long. Any thoughts/advice? Gatorman 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Callsign Meanings Subpage 

message: I would like to suggest adding the Tentative Channel Designation to the info box. This is the channel the station will most likely be operating with come the analog cutoff date (or sooner for some stations that elect to do so with FCC permission). In many cases the TCD is the digital transition channel (stations presumably electing this to not have to buy or retune their transmitter and antenna). In many cases the TCD will be the original analog channel (perhaps because the stations feel their channel number market branding is that important despite DTV's ability to translate channel identities). And in some cases the TDC is entirely different than either the digital channel or the analog channel. Many stations will have to flash cut to the new channel or new transmitter with little or no testing opportunity on the big day so many TV sets "quit working".
Between now and the big day, some of these TCD assignments may change, so someone needs to be on top of things to keep them up to date as info is available (usually from the FCC), as the big day approaches.
I have no idea how to change the template.  So if I can convince you guys to adopt this idea, I hope someone can add the TCD to the template.  But I do have one suggestion when doing so.  Make it use a name (that editors would use) that implies it is not so much "tentative" but more along the lines of meaning "final digital channel".  The reason for this is that on that big day (between 2009-2-17 and 2009-2-18) merely changing the template to display the channels in a different way, putting the "final digital channel" first and no longer calling it TCD or Tentative Channel Designation, and changing the old analog and digital channels to either display "old analog" and "old digital" respectively, or maybe even not display them at all, would allow the info box to reflect all the final changes on the big day, without having to edit thousands of individual pages.
The latest info from the FCC on Tentative Channel Designations can be found on the page I created for it. Skapare 06:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea. Anyone else? Kimmykun 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tentative Channel Designation - suggesting it for the info box 

message: I've seen editors adding info on news music packages lately. I really think such a list is completely crufty (99.9% of people couldn't name one music package if their life depended on it), and have considered removing them. Any comments before I start doing so? Kirjtc2 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Total cruft. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Christian Masta 1024 was the one who added most of them, so I would suggest leaving a message on his/her talk page before removing anything. This person also added lists of stations who used each music package (see The CBS Enforcer Music Collection for an example). My opinion: get rid of it all. —Whomp (myedits) 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree here. The only people that care about the music are "news geeks" (like me), and it's just trivial information. We have Southernmedia's NMSA for this. I don't really have a problem with pages for the music packages, though as long as the listings for each station aren't there. Ntropolis 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News music packages