Talk:WIN Television

message: Selectv has been purchased by Win television therefor it stays in his artical.Future Australian President 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Scottclark, SelecTV does not belong on the WIN Television article, as this article is for channel information only. SelecTV information belongs at WIN Corporation, which is the article for the Corporation/Company, as it is owned by WIN Corporation. Please in future just start a section on the talk page, like you already have, then gain concensus, then proceed with major changes. Thanks. Stickeylabel 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectv 

message: Does anyone at all have a WIN Ten logo?  The company seems to be denying/hiding all existence of the station on its website.  -- Chuq 03:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They might just use a Ten logo, similar to what SC Ten used to do. DynaBlast 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I understand, the WIN Ten logo essentially consists of the WIN logo (no nine dots, when it used to have it) next to the Network Ten logo - in a similar way that Southern Cross did their SC10 logo. An example of usage of the WIN Ten from 2005 can be found here, however the logo would have likely changed now the WIN logo itself has changed. It seems to only be used in local promotion (where the WIN and WIN Ten logos are sometimes used together, as I understand), and for cross promotion for WIN Ten on the main WIN channel. The WIN Ten feed itself is generally all Ten branded, again like SC10 used to be pre-star logo. -Spiky Sharkie [ talk ] 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed WIN has started dual-branding of both network and regional idents with a WIN watermark with a 9 watermark for some programming. PMA 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WIN Ten Logo

message: I'm not clear on why a special table needs to be created, given that a perfectly fine <gallery> thingo exists.  The way it's set out at the moment is much harder to edit and looks a bit ugly TBH, surely something like this (below) would be better:
Another problem with the current table is that it doesn't appear to wrap to the page's width. timgraham 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had already fixed the issue by removing duplicate logos, however User:Westpac1234 seems to be continuosly reverting. Stickeylabel 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also removed Non-network logos, as they do not belong on the network article, and they should instead be at their respective station articles. Also the 1960 and mid-1970 logos are not fair-use as they were stolen from a copyrighted website. I have also replaced the (1970-1979) logo with a vectorised PNG for fair-use compliance. Stickeylabel 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo Gallery

message: "Stickeylabel" The two logo's are different and you uploaded both of them now why would you upload to images the same, because there not. Why are you deleting my information, what's wrong with it.
If any other people disagree with Stickeylabel please leave a comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westpac1234 (talk • contribs).
:You have defied the 3-revert rule, you are vandalising the page, you have blanked your talk page several times. You MUST comply with the rules at Wikipedia. You also need to cite your information. You are violating numerous rules. Revert what you have done, and cease reverting, or further action will be taken. Stickeylabel 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo's 

message: 124.183.155.27, seems to be adding multiple logos, and rendering the size of logos to a point where the article violates Fair-use. I have reverted such changes. Please in future discuss the size of logos and the amount of logos on the talk page, before implementing. Also keep in mind that the logo section and the main infobox is for displaying logos to enhance the article's enclyclopedia value, please do not add logos elsewhere if they have already appeared in either of these locations. Stickeylabel 11:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo's are the same, the logo's are just stylised differently due to different on-air packages. If the logo section was to include every single stylisation and variation of a logo, then the list would be overly long, and it would detract from its original purpose. Stickeylabel 09:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo Changes 

message: If you don't like or like the new layout for bulletins please comment.--Ingleburn 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous layout was a lot clearer, took up less space, didn't interfere with large screen resolutions and offered the same information. Are your changes ever going to be of any benefit to this article, or are you happy just messing it up? You asked for people to comment, so there was mine. I recommend you revert it back. Smacca 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Me too, the blue is very hard on the eyes (like the Seven/Nine news pages) and it messes with the heading structure. Also, you seem to have changed everything to 'anchors' - that's not a term used in Australia. timgraham 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that the previous layout was more suitable as per Smacca's and timgraham's reasoning. Therefore, I have reverted the changes. However, thanks for creating a formal discussion for your proposal, Ingleburn :). Stickeylabel 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I recommend you ask here first, Ingleburn, before you make any changes. That way we can all agree or disagree with your proposal . You have the potential be a good contributor to the TV articles, but at the moment you're not really benefiting them. Smacca 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not support this proposal as it does not benefit the article, and it only clutters it. The current arrangement is concise and is suitable for the article. Please Ingleburn dedicate some of your time on Wikipedia to adding content and expanding small articles, as opposed to rearranging established articles. Stickeylabel 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulletins 

message: Ingleburn, you can't change an article's rating without requesting the page be reviewed. This needs to be done on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment page. Also, I hardly think the WIN TV article is fit for a GA rating yet. It needs some work, which I'm sure you are determined to help with, but the changes are more than just layout. Content is the key, and I don't mean content from other Wiki articles either. Once the article is fit to be reviewed it can then be changed to reflect it's proper rating. Smacca 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating change 

message: There are just a couple of suggestions.  The dropping of key Nine network programmes is mentioned at the end of the Programming section and in the previous section; it only needs to be mentioned once.  The Logos section could be better placed as a sub-section at the end of the History section. The statement about "spanning the largest geographical area in the world" is a little awkward; perhaps it could be reworded slightly.  Maybe "covering a larger geographical area than any other television network" would be an improvement.
I've decided to put this article on hold as the article is very close to GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Johnfos thanks for reviewing the article :), I have fixed the issues raised above. However with regard to the Logo section, I have left it in its current position as it is the structure used by most network articles in the Australian WikiProject and other WikiProject's around the world. There are also GA articles with a similarly placed section. I hope that this is not an issue, and I hopefully the article is now of GA quality :). Stickeylabel 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: Hi Stickeylabel, and thanks for explaining that :)  In terms of a standard format being used across articles I wonder if you have considered the possibility of a Featured Topic (WP:FT) on Australian television.  I've been suitably impressed with the three articles I've reviewed now on this subject.  The breadth of coverage is very good, with  an impressive amount of detail, without the article bogging down in trivialities.  So I would just like to offer every encouragement... -- Johnfos 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for assessing the article and the support :). The Australian television Wikiproject are trying to get the core articles for Australian television up to GA quality, and it would be great to be able to enhance the main article, Australian television, to an FA standard. Hopefully once these are completed, the topic can be nominated as a featured topic. Stickeylabel 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I can see why you would be concernede about the article being too condensed but in my view the changes (that were reverted almost straight away) made the section a bit clearer (the callsigsn aren't used on-air anymore and it's been quite a few years now that the majority of people can see where the link they're hovering over leads to). There were also a number of things completely unrelated to the part which you seemed to take issue with so it'd be nice if they could have been left there.
I don't intend on getting into a lengthy dispute, which is why I've brought it up here - come up with something better (which in my view, the original wasn't), or put it back. timgraham 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed various aspects of the section back to your version :). With regards to the various navbox's that you have changed, please gain concensus first, as the current layouts are consistant with all other navbox's on WP:AUTV, as they suit the small amounts of wikilinks needed. Stickeylabel 07:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  availability section (yes, again) 

message: Would "Across Australia" or "Australia's Largest Regional Network" be more appropriate as the slogan?
They (as well as Nine) have not used Still the One the entire year. - Boochan 07:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.. I haven't heard 'still the one' on either for quite some time. timgraham 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Second thought: is there a citation for either? I think it's reasonable to assume WIN use 'Australia's largest regional television network' these days since it is all over their website and also said by the V/O at the end of WIN News. As for Nine, I'm not sure. timgraham 07:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Australia's leading regional television network , Australia's largest regional television network , Still the one nowhere except here. timgraham 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan 

message: Is there going to be a schedule for SA? We now have Channel 7 programming (ie. Decent television) now, and I would love to do the schedule myself, but the one look at the table code scared me! :o
Douglas 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's one at SES/RTS. timgraham 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel 7 in SA

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WIN Television. 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 https://web.archive.org/20071210090649/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,22251563-30540,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22251563-30540,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070907011603/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,22364267-7582,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22364267-7582,00.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 12:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#WIN and SC Ten.  JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#WIN and SC Ten]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on WIN Television. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070829065945/http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00000280/01/tanner95.pdf to http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00000280/01/tanner95.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion