Template talk:American broadcast television

message: I thought this was too long to put in the edit summary line, so I'm putting it here instead. First, UPN and The WB are not merging; they're shutting down. The Tribune_Company is not going to have any stake in The CW beyond a 10-year affiliate agreement for its O&O stations. Second, I don't think we should shunt the two networks off onto the side while they still exist, which they will for a number of months. Third, I put them back in alphabetical order. Personally, I'm not sure we should even have anything in the template for The CW beyond the "planned launch" notation. That's the thing about Wikipedia: We can just leave UPN and The WB in the template until the day they actually shut down, and then yank them. --Aaron 02:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the space is actually there, with the current font styling it looks like it says Planned launch in September 2006 following shutdown of UPNand The WB --Bix 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make that latest edit (though I like it), but I have to admit that last line looks awful on the Mac; it's just too small. I'm not sure what would be the optimal way to fix it though.--Aaron 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding latest edit 

message: I added The Tube to the broadcast television template since it's becoming more availiable in the country. Both Tribune and Sinclair will the network (which is 100% music videos) to some of their digital channels this summer. Nemalki 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tube 

message: The table at right, taken from:
:http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-tvratingstext14jun14,0,4837080.story
contains the number of viewers (in millions) that each network averaged per hour of prime time, for the week of June 5-11, 2006 and for the season.
This table challenges the meaning of "major" in the template.  The template can be fixed in one of at least two ways:
# Change "major" to "English language"
# Have a list of general interest networks averaging > 5 million viewers and one for those < 5 million.
I'm changing "major" to "English language" for now, but am curious about what others think.  66.167.136.10 06:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "Major"? 

message: Since this template does not indicate that it only lists currently broadcasting networks, I am assuming UPN and The WB will continue to be listed after September (and if not, they should, IMO, otherwise the template wording should be changed to indicate it only lists current networks). If this is the case, we should also be listing the DuMont Television Network as it was a major network during the first decade of TV. 23skidoo 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct networks

message: This appears to be digital-only, but I'm wondering where it should go, since it's nothing like Weather Plus or The Tube? I think I'll created a "Digital-only religious networks:" section. Any comments? --CFIF (talk to me) 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smile of a Child 

message: Are they on broadcast TV somewhere? Lambertman 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloomberg? 

message: Given the ratings, how long before we can consider moving this down to "specialty networks"? :) Lambertman 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, they have much more clearance than i, A1, ecetera.... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CFIF has a point. Even if MNTV's ratings are incredibly low (and they are), they do have clearance in 95% of the country. Compare that to i's less than 70% or A1's clearance, which is much lower. In other words, MNTV could conceivably achieve fairly decent ratings, while smaller networks could not, not without suddenly gaining dozens of new affiliates. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An argument for demotion could be made in that their ratings are figured weekly and not included in lists such as this one . Lambertman 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think the key difference between MyNetwork and networks like CW is the type of programming, which is clearly specialty and does not resemble that of the major networks. Combined with the fact that their affiliate count is only somewhat higher than that of the i network (which is listed as "specialty") and its viewership is comparitively small compared to CW, I moved it. JMyrleFuller 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MyNet 

message: * Digital doesn't mean "higher prestige", as more people know I than qubo.
* Digital doesn't mean "lower prestige", as more people know NBC Weather plus than ImaginAsian.
* Some areas get CW, My, and even the occasional Big Four net on a digital subchannel.
* This template is very large and combining two categories with little apparent difference makes sense.
That's why I lumped them together and maintain they should return to that way. Lambertman 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The difference is availability-- whether or not the network is available via analog broadcast or digital broadcast. Analog broadcast, at this point in time, is far easier for the average consumer to get, and cable providers have been reluctant to add most digital specialty subchannels thus far. Come 2009, this will of course change. JMyrleFuller 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I don't think Digital specialty nets should be separate 

message: CSN is a Regional Sports Network, not a nationwide sports network  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.65.123 (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus Sports Network (CSN) shouldn't be on this Template 

message: Thought it is mentioned in the Ion Network article, I think that PAX TV does deserve a mention in the "defunct networks" section of this template:  It lasted several years and featured original programming.--Kevin586 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry for PAX TV 

message: First, The Tube Music Network and AZN Television have ceased operation, so I think they should be categorized under defunct networks. 
Second, I think it might help the organization of the template if networks were grouped by language first, then by type. The page could be clearer if all the English-language networks were listed in categories such as major, specialty, religious, then all the Spanish stations were divided likewise, then put the defunct networks in a separate group. 
Third, the specialty networks category should list PBS KIDS Sprout. TomStike (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing and misplaced networks 

message: That is incredibly confusing wording to have the two groups named major and other major. Either throw them all together and get rid of having two groups, or come up with something better than other major to name the 2nd group, would be my advice.76.226.106.167 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Other general intrest networks seems awkward, but covers the idea. I'll be bold and make the change.oknazevad (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major and other major?