Talk:CTV 2

message: There is a minor edit dispute over content on several of the individual A-Channel stations (specifically, CFPL-TV, CKNX-TV, CHRO-TV, and CHWI-TV at present). 72.60.128.187 added the following text to the article for CKNX-TV:
"On July 12, 2006, CTV owner Bell Globemedia announced plans to purchase A-Channel owner CHUM Ltd. for $C1.7 Billion, with plans to divest itself of the A-Channel and Access Alberta stations." (similar text was added to the other articles) 
Ardenn is reverting the edits, summarizing as follows:
"Why do we care? How is this relevant to this article?"
An additional comment from the ensuing discussion was:
"The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles."
I think it's relevant, but I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. So, the question is, should this information go in the individual articles, or just in the main A-Channel article? Your thoughts? --Ckatz 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is relevent, IMO.  While I do not believe it has happened with the A-Channel stations, the Citytv network pruned 300 jobs the day the sale was announced, devastating several local stations.  A change in ownership, even if it still requires regulatory approval, is very important to a station, and therefore to this article. Resolute 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, reverting the edits on this proposed sale because it has not yet gained regulatory approval is a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.  The sale has happened, the approval is not.  This is relevent.  Speculation about what the CRTC may do is not. Resolute 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In all honesty, the information is relevant. However, without a reliable source, the information must not be included. Ardenn is right for all the wrong reasons Captainktainer * Talk 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No question about reliable sources - for starters, the CBC story used as a source for the same information in the A-Channel article. (Here's the code:  - I'll enter it on the respective pages later tonight [Tuesday PDT]) Thanks! --Ckatzchatspy 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ckatzchatspy 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I must still disagree wholeheartedly over its inclusion per WP:NOT-crystal ball. Ardenn 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT doesn't apply here, in my opinion, because it's not saying that this deal with go through for sure, but rather that it's been proposed (and yet to be officially approved). Therefore, it is stating that "the deal has yet to be approved" rather than "the deal will go through," and thus wouldn't fall under the Crystal Ball ruling. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a crystal ball situation. It would be crystal-ballism to make predictions about, say, the CRTC refusing the acquisition or imposing new conditions on it that aren't currently part of BGM's announced plans — but it's certainly not crystal balling to state that a proposed transaction has been proposed. The disputed text quite clearly sticks to the established facts and doesn't speculate, so I don't see what the problem is. Bearcat 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute regarding the individual station articles 

message: Recently I split off the "former" Craig Media A-Channel into a new article located at A-Channel (1997-2005). While I previously unified the former NewNet and A-Channel articles when each rebranded last August, I no longer believe it's appropriate to discuss both in the same article. My rationale is that despite the identical brand name and current ownership, the current A-Channel is not a continuation of the original A-Channel, as it had a history (as NewNet) separate from that of the Craig A-Channel prior to 2005, is carried on a completely different set of stations and, for the most part, has different programming. Additionally, even though WP:NOT a crystal ball, given that the current A-Channel stations may change branding yet again (as a result of CTV's plans to sell the stations), maintaining a unified page may cause further confusion.
User:69.198.108.51, aka User:Musimax (formerly aka User:Cdn_boi), reverted my changes to the original article, asking for a discussion. I have temporarily reset the new (former A-Channel) article to a redirect to the original.
Notwithstanding the template, please note that in this case I believe a top-of-page disambiguation, not a separate dab page, is warranted at this time, since there are only two entities in question. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to splitting this, if there's a way to do that properly; a proper and legitimate split would not include using "(1997-2005)" in an article title. Better disambiguators might be "(historic)", "(original)" or "(Craig Media)". Years of existence should never be written directly into a title as a point of disambiguation, because they create too much complexity and make the article exceedingly difficult for a person to find if they don't already know the correct years. Bearcat 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So here's a formal proposal, then: undisambiguated A-Channel becomes a brief dab page; old pre-2005 A-Channel goes to either A-Channel (former) or A-Channel (Craig Media); current A-Channel goes to either A-Channel (current) or A-Channel (CHUM Limited). But I do think stickguy is right that the split should happen; in hindsight I agree that we probably should have handled the changeover differently than this in the first place. Bearcat 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the idea of having A-Channel (Craig Media) and A-Channel (CHUM Limited).  I found it strange to find the former discussed on the same page as the former NewNet, when I clicked a link for NewNet. Dunro 06:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that we should have two separate articles, possibly even branch NewNet off as its own article, but we should wait until Bell GlobeMedia/CTV eats A-Channel and CHUM, Ltd. Once CTV gives a definite decision on what they'll do with the extra stations, then we should act.  RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: I was reading the paper today, and somehow they mention Rogers Communications buying A-Channel.  Can someone confirm this?  DanCBJMS via 134.117.168.246 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogers to buy out A-Channel?

message: Does every individual station in the A-Channel system need to contain WP:CRYSTAL speculation about the possible rebranding of the A-Channel system as "MuchTV" or "CHUM TV" in addition to inclusion in the primary A-Channel article? I don't believe so, but an anonymous editor persists in re-adding it. What say the rest of ye? Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. It does violate WP:CRYSTAL. GreenJoe 20:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree - this only needs to be mentioned in the main article. Mindmatrix 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Colour me surprised that they wouldn't roll CKX-TV in too... Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CKX-TV already airs some A-Channel shows, and occasionally displays the logo during primetime.  I'm surprised it includes ACCESS and especially ASN though. This seems to be a television network with an identity crisis... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A

message: When A Becomes Offically Launched this Fall Is someone Going to Create a new Page For The A
to refelect the new Name  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.59.58 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing article will be moved to the new title and updated appropriately. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't give you a specific date. Sometime over the course of the summer, when there's enough properly sourced information about what "A" is actually going to look like. These things aren't actually planned out that far in advance; it'll happen whenever somebody decides to take on the project. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Page 

message: A-Channel AND ASN WILL BE OFFICALLY CALLED "A" at 12:00mid night on AUGUST 11th,2008 on Monday
(99.224.42.232 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Channel Launch Date 

message: Hello Bearcat or anyone  can create a General Page simular to A-Channel Morning. also can  A-NEWS have it own page
just like A-Channel Morning too
let me know
(Dongwong (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In due time, lad, in due time. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-News have it own General News page Simular to A-Channel Morning 

message: A Atlantic is can be received on satellite as well. - techietim (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Satellite is a type of cable. It's not traditional cable in the sense of being delivered through wires, but it really, truly is the same thing — it's just a different technological method of delivering the same service. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cable-only? 

message: "A (TV system)" seems very odd as a name, why not "A (TV network)" or "A (channel)", as system really does not make sense? --  14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, in fact, a TV System, not just one station - techietim (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to AxG, this particular sense of "system" is a uniquely Canadian term which is going to be unfamiliar to many non-Canadian editors. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: System might not make sense to you, AxG, but it is the proper legal term in Canadian broadcasting for this type of thing. It's seven separate channels in different parts of the country, not just one, so "channel" isn't the appropriate term, but it's not a full-fledged network, either. Please see the article television system. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: What Wrong with the new logo from CTVmedia Site that has "A" Logos
(Dongwong (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing on that website even remotely implies that your version with the grey and white artifacts behind it is a more "official" version of the network's logo than the plain A-with-triangles. In fact, the logo version that's actually downloadable from the CTVglobemedia website you linked exactly matches the existing file, and has no grey and white markings behind it at all. We're under no obligation to give that image preferential status over the existing one just because the website looks like that, any more than we would be obligated to create a 3D animated version of the CTV logo just because CTV has network ID bumpers which feature TV stars treating the red C like a ball.  Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating "A" New Logo  

message: I've posted this dispute to WP:CWNB. The question is which of these two images — JPG format with patterns in the background which are meant to appear 3D or SVG format comprising only the A-with-triangles — is the more "official" representation of A's logo, that should be used here in our infobox?
Note that the user who uploaded the jpg image also attempted to circumvent this discussion by uploading an alternate version which erased the patterns, leaving the logo surrounded by whitespace, but keeping the image proportions the same — which had the effect of causing the infobox to display a very large halo of whitespace around a much smaller rendition of the logo. This despite the fact that the patterns he erased were the basis of his entire argument that we should be using that image instead of the SVG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that the the SVG version of the logo should be used. --Emarsee (Talk • Contribs) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Clearly, the svg version is the logo and the other is simply a design element using it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'll just update the SVG and change the greys to black, since that seems like the colour they're using now - techietim (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The SVG. logo is clearly the correct one to use. The image in the info box is to be used for a the exact logo of the channel, not a screen shot. musimax. (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The image :Image:Logo NewVR.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Logo NewVR.gif

message: A Launched at 6pm during their news hour and should be mentioned as technically before 6pm 'A' was A-Channel (72.1.206.186 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Laucnched at 6pm  

message: I think that when the offical relaunch from A-Channel To A on August 11th,2008 it should be noted in the article to that the name offically took place yes on the same day but at 6:pm , during the relaunch of there newscast.
as technically A-Channel did not become A at strike at midnight but at 6:00pm
(99.224.112.64 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With only very rare exceptions, the exact time of day that something happens is pure trivia that Wikipedia does not need in our articles. An example of where exact time is actually important would be the time that an airplane hits a building in a terrorist attack — the A rebranding isn't even within the same galaxy of importance as something like that. The date itself is all we need here. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Launch 

message: I was wondering how i could become a main Editor on here
I can see why not that many people use wiki as it not a reliable
:The only person that is making it unreliable here is you. A is not a television network, never has been.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't claim to be perfect, but maximum reliability is maintained by following the rules on here, not by whinging about it when somebody calls you out on not following the rules. And just for the record, one becomes a "main" editor by actually building up a history of reliable, useful and valuable contributions. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with proposing a rename for discussion. But that's not what you ("this person", pfffft) were doing — you arbitrarily moved it several times to illogical, objectively incorrect, unnecessarily complicated and/or misspelled names, and had to be ordered to come to the talk page to establish a consensus for your changes. And your name changes weren't based on expanding the abbreviation "TV" to "television", either; they were all about magically reclassifying it as a network. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do editors on here that revert my stuff no so much 

message: The stations use the stylization 'A' when representing the network's name in text on their various webpages.  Just because you can approximate their logo using ascii-art (/A\) does not make it a stylization.  Can you show any use of that stylization by the stations themselves?  --  Thinking of England (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be marginally fair, the slashed A is how CTVglobemedia refers to the system in its corporate press releases. Though obviously nobody else, or at least nobody else who's remotely sane, uses that. Agreed that it shouldn't be in the article. Though as you can probably see from past discussion here, the editor who insists on having it there — and who'll probably put it back in five, four, three, two — is someone who can induce migraines in sufficiently high doses. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  An IP user just pointed that out as well in the RfD for various redirects, pointing me to [CTV's website]. Hmmph.  -- Thinking of England (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For some odd reason, a report that aired today during a local newscast here used "/A\" in a L3. ViperSnake151  Talk   23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylization 

message: The 'A' Logo is the exact same one as the one used for Craig Systems  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.112.64 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost the same, but not quite. This shows the creativity at CTVgm doesn't it?  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not exactly the same, no, but it is pretty similar. I pointed this out ages ago when somebody was making unsourced claims that they were about to get sued by Fox for copyright infringement... Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'A' Logo 

message: Perhaps someone could add in why A was moved from CTV Ltd to CTV Corp. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: All that means is that CTVglobemedia did an internal reorganization of its corporate structure, changing which division of the company was the formal licenseholder for various subsidiaries. It's really just a pro forma procedure that doesn't have any documentable impact on A's day-to-day operations; for our purposes, it's essentially just trivia. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTV Corp 

message: here is the proof if you dont believe me. plus in bell media press release the CTV Two network will launch offically when the stations go HD... so I havw two sources
for the video source go to time index 3:06   http://anewsvideo.ca/videos/426/monday-may-30,-2011-anews@6-webcast   they confirm hd signal sTRTS SEPTEMBER THE FIRST.
SECOND SOURCE.   http://adsalescdn.bellmedia.ca/Press%20Releases/Conventional/0530-CTVTwo.pdf
LET ME QUATE WHAT BELL MEDIA said and you can confirm it on the pr
The debut of the new identity is strategically scheduled to coincide with the launch of the network in High Definition,
this will back up my first source.
Thanks
p.s meaning 'A's will never ben in HD just when they launch in HD on CTV TWo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.191.57 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up the June 19th newscast on CFTO, where they mention CKVR's digital transmitter will launch on a Tuesday. You cannot simply assume that the network will launch on September 1. Bell does not give a definite date in their PR, and if they did, we could use that. As it stands right now, Fall 2011 is the only logical launch date from the sources we have here. As far as we know right now, the digital transmitters for CKVR are being installed, and they can come online at any moment, meaning an HD broadcast. This does NOT necessarily mean CTV2 will launch, as the station will have to undergo periods of testing.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'A' Barrie Confrims former 'A' stations to go HD on september the First 

message: Hi There. I thought I would share a source for the August 29 launch fate of CTV two.
I just found it on youtube from one of the media guys professional youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/prckay?feature=mhee
I thought you might be interested.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.2.175 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTV Two Promo 

message: Hi there.
I would love to upload the latest logo and logo indent that the CTV Two will offically use. can you help me out
Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoTelevision (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTV Two Logo 

message: Can we call the site in the article yes CTV Two... but in the article Write Canadian Television Network Two  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.2.175 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: butwhy.jpg. Seriously though, CTV doesn't stand for Canadian Television Network. There's not reason for it to be called that since there is only ONE CTV Two here, and just so happens to be the most common usage for it.  █ EMARSEE 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

text: CTV Two isn't any more of a network than Citytv is.  █ EMARSEE 05:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTV TWO Name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CTV Two. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090209233350/http://ca.news.yahoo.com:80/s/capress/technology_rogers_ctvglobemedia to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/technology_rogers_ctvglobemedia
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520141159/http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/08062007/3/canada-crtc-tells-ctvglobemedia-sell-5-citytv-stations.html to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/08062007/3/canada-crtc-tells-ctvglobemedia-sell-5-citytv-stations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CTV Two. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927182017/http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles06130703.asp to http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles06130703.asp
*Added  tag to https://survey2.securestudies.com/wix/p17142820.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706175241/http://www.ctvmedia.ca/achannel/releases/release.asp?id=10564&yyyy=2008 to http://www.ctvmedia.ca/achannel/releases/release.asp?id=10564&yyyy=2008
*Added  tag to http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2301992/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124349/http://ctvmedia.ca/ctv/releases/release.asp?id=13828&yyyy=2011 to http://ctvmedia.ca/ctv/releases/release.asp?id=13828&yyyy=2011
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on CTV Two. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622184528/http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2005/21/c3383.html to http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2005/21/c3383.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927031232/http://www.channelcanada.com/Article1879.html to http://www.channelcanada.com/Article1879.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530005959/http://50yearsofnews.ctv.ca/ to http://50yearsofnews.ctv.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323010123/http://50yearsofnews.ctv.ca/index.php/background/ to http://50yearsofnews.ctv.ca/index.php/background/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622162722/http://50yearsofnews.ctv.ca/index.php/about/ to http://50yearsofnews.ctv.ca/index.php/about/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CTV Two. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611002250/http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php?id=10&historyID=29 to http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php?id=10&historyID=29
*Added  tag to http://micro.newswire.ca/release.cgi?rkey=1507269890&view=39118-0&Start=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was looking at bell media trade marks from govt of Canada. I came across a logo for /A\ that they seem to have retained but they have abandon the original /A\ that was used 
Makes you wonder if they are gonna bring it back as the /A\ Network
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/opic-cipo/mc-tm/rd-dr/?fn=1397514&ec=0&lang=eng&from=ctd 96.21.110.141 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A logo