Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 5

message: I archived the talk page, which was 75 KB. I also copied code from my other project's talk page (talkheader and tocleft templates). TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet! Thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know: when we first had talk pages, they did not have all the templates. I spruced it up the last two times I archived it. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival

message: Since WP:TVS doesn't presently deal with this, a couple of questions about ownership info within Template:Infobox Broadcast:
*Should we bother to list a station's licensee, or just the ultimate parent company?
*If we should list the licensee, what format should we use?
I've always considered the identity of the specific licensee to be important - perhaps not of any direct use to the average reader, but potentially useful for legal or research purposes, and at least as useful as, say, transmitter power. The licensee need only be named in the Infobox, not the main text. But of course, as I am apt to forget myself at times, Wikipedia is not written for broadcast professionals but for the average person, and the average person couldn't care less about, say, WAGA License Inc. when all they need to know is that the parent company is News Corp.
If we agree on that, as to format... Habitually I've listed both the licensee and ultimate parent in the following format: (example would apply to WCBS-TV)
:Owner: CBS Broadcasting Inc. (CBS)
The licensee can be easily verified via the FCC's TV Query. I would put CBS Broadcasting first because it is the company that directly owns the station. This is followed by a short-hand reference to the ultimate parent company, e.g. Disney or NewsCorp (or perhaps NewsCorp/FTSG ?).
The most common alternative format I've seen is this, which gives priority to the parent company:
:Owner: CBS Corporation (CBS Broadcasting Inc.)
Again, this might be slightly less confusing to the average reader. Another potential alternative is separate "Owner / Parent company" lines, although in my view this would just cause more confusion.
Any thoughts? — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to go with giving priority to the parent company. Using Phoenix stations again as an example, it's more meaningful to the average user that KSAZ-TV is owned by Fox Television Stations Group, rather than KSAZ License, Inc., or that KPNX is owned by Gannett, rather than Multimedia Holdings Corporation. In each case, the latter is the actual licensee. dhett 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thinking it over I'm inclined to go the same way. I've just codified this change as an optional template parameter in the Infobox. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  It does seem to make sense to indicate Parent company (Licensee).  What about stations with parent company, operating company and licensee company?  Parent (Licensee/operating) This seems to be the case with WSMH with the FCC record search and WSMH website.  Sinclair is parent, WSMH, Inc. operating, and WSMH Licensee, Inc/LLC licensee companies.   Spshu 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership listings (Licensee + parent) 

message: Do we have any good articles around here? WP:PCP has about 15 plus two FAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DuMont Television Network is a Good Article prepared by various WP:TVs members. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good articles?]] 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: There appear to be many issues with our Wikipedia article on WHYY-TV. The history related in the article does not closely resemble that of external links such as this or this. For example, our article states the station was founded in 1957. The external links say 1949-early 1950. Our article says the station was originally WYBE channel 35; the external links say it was originally WDEL channel 7/12. Our article makes no mention of commercial affiliations, while the external links do. Our article makes no mention of former call-signs WDEL, WPFH, or WVUE. This is rather confusing, and either our article needs a re-write, or there were two seperate stations in Delaware with the same call sign. Any ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, WHYY was originally on 35, then went to 12 when its original occupant went dark. WYBE commenced transmissions on 10 June 1990, according to the first link. You could also write a letter to WHYY: maybe they can help. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WHYY-TV]] help requested!

message: In one month, TV-Ark will relaunch, and I'm thinking that links will change. We will have to get this done when it comes back online on Christmas Day. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: I asked for a SuggestBot list yesterday, and I just got it today. I've trimmed it down to our project:
;Stubs:
:WJXX
:WAWS
:WTLV
:ACME Communications	
;Cleanup
:Telemundo
;Wikify
:OpenTV
:Tokyo Broadcasting System
;Expand
:KVDA
:WBNA
:WAOE
I was surprised at the results in the stub section: all of the stubbed station articles are from the same market; Jacksonville, Florida. I was stunned when I saw this. WTEV is the only one missing.Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm missing something here. By what criteria does this bot select articles? I thought that each section you posted meant that that particular tag is on the article, but some articles have no tag, while others are tagged but didn't appear in this list. (The aforementioned WHYY-TV is a prime example.) dhett 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the query from July. Time to update SuggestBot, ForteTuba! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SuggestBot 

message: I plan to send DuMont Television Network to Featured Article Candidacy soon. Before I do, I'd like to run it past the friendly folks here for improvements. Without getting too TV-station crufty, I wonder if more can't be added to this article to make it better. Suggestions? Edits? Ideas?Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: Then, there is this newfound "notion" (courtesy of Spshu) that Prime Time Entertainment Network was a full-fledged "network".
:It certainly wasn't a full-fledged network, but the same applies to MyNetworkTV.
I began editing Wikipedia because I believed I could use my writing talents and knowledge of television and radio history to work in a welcome environment, though I stayed away from being a full-fleged part of the WP:TVS project.  Now, it seems as though the "inmates" have taken control of the asylum.
:Because anyone who dares to challenge your wisdom must be crazy?
Where's the real consensus?
:The consensus in favor of writing channel assignments in numerical format is obvious (given its use throughout Wikipedia), and the discussion that I read showed a clear preference for referring to PTEN as a network (and compelling evidence to back this assertion).  You have decided to unilaterally overrule these decisions.
Instead, I only see battles on editing style, article format, content, and those with an agenda they want to push trying to get their way.
:Yes, that's an accurate description of your behavior.
Now, months after I introduced the proper practice of substituting single-digit numerals with their written forms ("one" instead of "1"), David Levy tells me that the proper way is the wrong way here, as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
:1. You neglected to mention that this dispute applies strictly to television channel assignments (not to single-digit numbers in general).  It is not "proper" to spell out TV channel numbers (for the reasons noted at User:Rollosmokes/Archive 3#Recent changes...).
:2. I just became aware of this issue, but several other editors have attempted to restore the numerical format (at which point you immediately swooped in to revert).  Your changes did not stand unchallenged for months.
So, with this, does it mean us professional writers have been wrong all along?
:1. No, because professional writers do not commonly spell out generic references to television channel assignments.
:2. You stated that "we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias."  I then quoted several entries from the Encyclopædia Britannica (arguably the world's most prestigious printed encyclopedia) containing numerical references to single-digit television channel designations, and you've yet to address this fact.
:3. You also claimed that it was "a load of crap" to argue that a single-digit number in a postal address should not be spelled out.  You then cited the Penguin Handbook, evidently overlooking the portion of your quoted passage that clearly indicates that "most styles do not write out words in ... an address" and prescribes that we "use numerals instead" (at which point you silently dropped the issue and archived the discussion without replying).  As I noted, we're dealing with channel addresses.
:4. It's difficult to take your grammar lecture seriously when you profess expertise via the phrase "us professional writers."
I called Mr. Levy a "kid" who knew nothing about how to write, and someone willing to throw out all reasoning in order to enforce his own will  -- and I stick to those statements.  He called my comments uncivil; to me they aren't as I refrained from vulgar language and stronger personal attacks.  He again proved himself to be arrogant and pompous, and someone not worthy to be an administrator.
:1. I don't know why you believe that anyone who disagrees with you and refuses to defer to your "professional" judgment is "arrogant and pompous,"  but I again direct your attention to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
:2. As I've explained to you several times, I'm not acting in my capacity as an administrator.  At no point in our dealings have I used any sysop tools.  I haven't even reverted a page via the administrative rollback function.
I am trying to be a team player.
:Which part of defying consensus and labeling controversial reversions "minor" (without providing an edit summary) fits the above description?
At the same time, I wish to bring a level of credibility and a certain form of style to Wikipedia's television articles.
:You wish to own these articles, and you won't settle for anything less.  —David Levy 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply by David Levy

message: Bluestone Television sold a bunch of outlets to one Bonten Media Group. We need changes in the articles listed (WCYB is already done), plus an article on Bonten Media. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How soon do we want to start changing these? Although broadcastingcable.com lists the deal as done, the FCC shows that they just submitted the requsts for the FCC to review and grant permission for the sale. I could make a case that we should even wait until consummation, as that's when the buyer officially takes ownership of the station. Myself, I think that now is too soon, but once the FCC approves the sale, then we should proceed to make the changes. dhett 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A little more information on this transaction - it's not just Bluestone Television selling the stations to Bonten Media Group, Bonten Media Group acquired BlueStone altogether - the stations came with it. dhett 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh...I looked at another B&C and... http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6398658.html?display=Deals ...add WCTI-TV to the list of needed changes. TTV|talk|contribs|email 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluestone sale ([http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6396705.html?display=Deals]) 

message: Just thought the community should know about this: administrator  has been removing logo galleries containing (what he sites as) fair-use images from several station articles.
A list of cable network articles he's already handled: Disney Channel. Ronald20 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yeah, we've been arguing this for nearly two months now, since Rollosmokes brought it to our attention. It was a huge brouhaha and there are still some hard feelings over it. Go to archive 4, item 3 (dhett 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess your understanding differs from mine. I was of the opinion that there was no consensus on this, but since I've been mainly working with new articles anyway, I don't encounter many logo galleries. BTW, a point of clarification is probably in order here that only galleries of fair use and licensed images are at issue here; galleries which are comprised of non-copyrighted images, and other images over which Wikipedia excercises control, are still allowed. dhett 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I've been leaving, say, images of the newscopter (assuming they're free images) alone. If I make a mistake and remove a free image, feel free to replace it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see much "grudging acceptance". I've seen a lot of people attempting to reason with you and giving up because you don't argue and defend your point, you simply repeat your same points over and over again. Many are also no doubt intimidated by the fact that you have threatened (and used) administrative action against anyone who dares to revert an edit of yours because they disagree with your interpretation of fair use policy. DHowell 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These images don't identify anything and aren't themselves subjects of significant commentary. Those are the only two reasons you can use a fair-use image on Wikipedia ever. I've threatened users who revert war over inserting non-free images without proper fair-use rationales, yes. Unless the image identifies something not already identified in the article or is itself a subject of significant commentary in the article, it isn't fair use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of logo galleries 

message: Seeing as we are at an impasse on this issue, I have just submitted an RFC about the use of historical logos in galleries at Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries. Please contribute to this discussion and help determine a consensus. Despite the assertions of User:A Man In Black, this issue is not as clear cut as he would like it to be and consensus needs to be determined. DHowell 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on historical logos in galleries 

message: Disavian has created an article describing the in-house cable television network used at Georgia Tech, which was originally tagged as a station needing an infobox. Problem is, our broadcast infobox template doesn't seem to apply well to the article. Does anyone know of an infobox that would be a better match? Thanks in advance.   dhett 08:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, GTCN is both a station and a physical (distribution) network, as it has a few channels that it manages itself. Those aren't broadcast outside of Georgia Tech's borders, but I still think that it qualifies it as a "station." A somewhat comparable, but not identical, situation is how Comcast owns G4 (TV channel). Of course, I'm open to ideas. I get the feeling that GTCN is somewhat of a unique article, although there must be many similar networks out there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody willing to help? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes for cable systems 

message: Take a look at KODE-TV. What's wrong with the first paragraph? It looks like a partial copyvio. I saw it on KLBK-TV/KAMC in Lubbock, too. And it looked eerily similar. Weed out all the Nexstar and Mission stations' copyvio paragraphs (which are easily identifiable by "(station) provides a digital and analog signal to viewers" and items on Shared Services Agreements). At this rate, just like Nexstar treats its stations, it will become a dump. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've got a Mission involving Nexstar: partial copyvios/cookie cutters/clunky paragraphs 

message: http://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar/stations/kode.asp shows the truth:
====Nexstar page====
KODE, an ABC affiliate in Joplin, was acquired by Mission Broadcasting in 2002. Subsequently KODE entered into a Shared Services Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting station KSNF. The operating efficiencies have greatly improved both stations’ revenue share and viewership. KODE and KSNF entered into a Joint Sales Agreement in October of 2004 which will provide for more effective marketing of advertising time for both stations. KODE’s syndicated programming includes Oprah, Jeopardy, Seinfeld, and Spin City. The station provides a digital and analog signal to viewers. 
====KODE-TV article====
KODE was acquired by Mission Broadcasting in 2002. Subsequently KODE entered into a Shared Services Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting station KSNF. The operating efficiencies have greatly improved both stations’ revenue share and viewership. KODE and KSNF entered into a Joint Sales Agreement in October of 2004 which will provide for more effective marketing of advertising time for both stations. KODE’s syndicated programming includes Oprah, Jeopardy, Seinfeld, and Spin City. The station provides a digital and analog signal to viewers.
We are dealing with mass copyvio, folks...and it ain't pretty. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfolding developments

message: KODE was acquired by Mission Broadcasting in 2002. Subsequently KODE entered into a Shared Services Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting station KSNF. The operating efficiencies have greatly improved both stations’ revenue share and viewership. KODE and KSNF entered into a Joint Sales Agreement in October of 2004 which will provide for more effective marketing of advertising time for both stations. KODE’s syndicated programming includes Oprah, Jeopardy, Seinfeld, and Spin City. The station provides a digital and analog signal to viewers.
We are dealing with mass copyvio, folks...and it ain't pretty. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KODE-TV article

message: Special:Contributions/70.242.36.188. That's the contribs of the IP that added the copyvio material. TTV|talk|contribs|email 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More unfolding developments

message: I notice many TV station pages include the names of current news anchors. I believe this is *mostly* inappropriate for Wikipedia for the following reasons:
* WP:NOT#SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox for self-promotion
* WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a TV/Radio Guide, or a resource for conducting business.
* WP:NOTE Inclusion of news anchors is trivia, changes often, and not notable for an encyclopedia
Disscussion? --Bill Huston  (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate articles: If they are notable in their own right, keep them; if not, go through AfD with them.
Station lists: Keep notable anchors, delete the rest immediately from article.
TTV|talk|contribs|email 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the inclusion of news anchors 

message: Today, I was going through CAT:CSD. Well, it went well until I saw KPDF-CA, an article I created under an anon IP, in the bin. I ran to the article. Turns out User:Alan.ca (a Canadian user) had put a G11 tag on it. I removed it, as the article was not G11-worthy. I run to get User:Dhett, also from Chandler and my major partner in maintaining the Arizona TV articles, on the line, and he replies, pointing to issues that happened with KUNP. Well, we need to watch out: our LPTVs in low-power places need a little help. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan.ca has done this before with the G11 tags.  For the most part, he's just doing it for the hell of it and his claims carry no weight at all.  Rollosmokes 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now at AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDF-CA It would be helpful if some references could be added. --Eastmain 06:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why list it at AfD, when an  tag (or similar) would do the job instead? Besides, I'm working on providing better references for the article. dhett 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, again, my mistake. I misread your comment to say that you had listed the article. dhett 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it was more a case of making a good point very badly. KPDF-CA is unsourced and in dire need of improvement (my bad), but a speedy deletion tag was not the correct way to deal with it. I left Alan.ca a polite, but firm, note on his talk page; whether or not it will have any effect is in doubt, as his contribution history includes many AfD references. It seems to be his preferred way of dealing with content he doesn't like. Tracker is right; we'll need to be vigilant with our articles, especially those about LPTV stations. Remember that LPTV as we know it doesn't exist outside the US, so many editors don't understand its signficance. In addition, some of the articles are on shaky ground with respect to verifiability and notability. dhett 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A correction - the other station that had issues used to be KUNP-LP. It's now KPPP-LP, as of Dec. 15th. I didn't realize Fisher Communications had changed the calls. dhett 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LPTV alert: We nearly lost two of 'em, time to stop 

message: DuMont Television Network has just been sent to Featured Article Candidacy. As far as I know, it is the only WP:TVS-related article to have ever been sent to FAC. Please take a moment to read the article and comment on its candidacy. If you can't support, please provide a reason on why, or a suggestion on how it might be improved. This only takes a few minutes of your time, and would be deeply appreciated. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Candidacy

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Report filed for projects WP:PCP and WP:TVS. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 23:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Every month for more than a year now, I have published television updates to the Phoenix Television page of Radio Info for stations whose signal serves Arizona cities. I have been asked to publish that information here also.
New licenses
*K16FB Globe (Telefutura Partnership) was granted a license to cover the construction of their translator station on channel 16. The station translates KFPH-TV 13 Flagstaff, and although licensed to and located in Globe, the signal can be seen quite clearly in Casa Grande and less clearly (if the antenna is pointed just right) in Chandler.
**Station is listed as redirect to KFPH-TV. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona TV station changes for December 2006 

message: I'm in my namespace, working on a slightly updated version of the Infobox design, that is based off the "old design", but carries the extended information of the other design. I'm even thinking about making it so that we use the colors of the station's logo or news graphics as the colors on the headings on it (I'll be changing my test page to only have infoboxes on it soon, stay tuned...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151/WNBC
ViperSnake151 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox Design 

message: Quick! Copyvio at more Nexstar stuff! KTAB-TV! TRKtvtce 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's back...and to the Nexstar dimension 

message: The KTVX translator subarticle has been nominated both for merge into the main article and deletion. I have presented my defense, but if anyone could help out, I would certainly appreciate it. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now purely at List of KTVX translators: if it were merged, the article would become particularly bulky; KUTV has a list too like this, and KSL and KSTU most likely do as well. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I second this request for comment. This project's insight would be particularly valuable. See also the related discussion at Talk:KTVX#Merge notice. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with KTVX 

message: I've seen multiple articles with long lists of schedule and/or personality information. This stuff is simply non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tv guide. I've cleaned up a few articles from Template:Oklahoma City TV and others, but I'm sure there are more. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, since this is the relevant wikiproject. Thank you for your efforts, Fang Aili talk 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are aware of the problem. Several members of this WikiProject have attempted to remove the listcruft, only to see it get added back again. BTW, "NOT a TV Guide" isn't really even relevant, since even TV Guide doesn't have long lists of station personalities. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, cool. Just wanted to say something. About TV Guide, yes you're right, and I mean that WP:NOT a TV guide or the station's website, etc, etc. Cheers and thank you for your continuing effort! --Fang Aili talk 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks as always, Fang Aili. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV stations with schedule/personality info 

message: List of United States over-the-air television networks is in really bad shape. It currently lists "networks" with only one affiliate (How is a network with only one station a network?), And many columns are filled in with "?" or "unknown" (The information is not unknown; someone obviously knows it; the fact the person editing the page doesn't know it is not the same thing). I've reverted these additions many times, but it just keeps getting added back in. Perhaps we can come to a consensus here about the material included in this list? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting on Azteca América; while I'm counting, I'm also putting the stations into the Azteca América network affiliates category. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of U.S. Networks needs help

message: It seems that not being content at simply deleting logo galleries, A Man In Black is now deleting historical TV station logos anywhere he sees them. Citing WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FU, and probably other policies as well, he now finds any excuse he can to remove this historical (and often difficult to find) information from the encyclopedia. See the latest at the WUSA (TV) edit history (or just look at his recent contributions) and at WP:AN#A Man in Black and WP:AN#Continued Problem. DHowell 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, what MIB is doing is beyond belief. His opinion is that Rules are rules -- period -- end of discussion. If he wants to get rid of old logos, how about ALL old logos? With MIB, the scary Viacom "V" and the old Detroit Tigers logo don't have a chance. In other words, I smell "double standard" here. -- azumanga 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like the "scary Viacom V" is indeed gone, and, surprisingly, AMIB had nothing to do with it. What has happened to Wikipedia in the year between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Viacom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of Viacom? DHowell 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The deletion of historical logos continues 

message: Posted as per request. New licenses, construction permits, applications and license renewal sections are compiled from FCC documents. New programming, returned to air and silent station sections are original research and are included for information only.
: All necessary updates have been completed to the articles. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get people to create and fix these articles? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona TV station update - January 2007 

message: The Phoenix template got a bunch of out-of-metro-area translators. Should these be split off? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sought comment on a few suggestions that I had put into my user space, but nobody seemed interested, so last month, I put a  tag on them, and they're gone now. I like what I saw in another city template: the metro-area stations were presented first, then the outlying area stations, which would cover the stations whose signal doesn't reach the metro area. A lot of these stations are actually not translators at all, but standalone full-service and low-power affiliates. The only ones I know of that are translators are KZOL-LP and K21GC, which are translators of KTVW-TV and KFPH-TV, respectively, and I only recently discovered that; up until then, I thought that they might be standalone affiliates also. Come to think of it, I'm just going to be bold; you can revert it if you don't like it. I will keep both the primary and the repeater if the primary station IDs by the repeater rather than the primary, or if the repeater is a Class A station. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting templates

message: According to the front page of 100000watts.com, KMAS has flipped to PBS from Telemundo.  KMAS (and sister KDEN) are owned by NBC Telemundo.  Now, normally 100000watts.com is pretty reliable source, but I am unsure on this one.  I have made a KMAS page (it is pretty bare) but if someone out Denver way could confirm this cause I have never heard of an O&O flipping a station to PBS before.  Thanks. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are correct. Telemundo had bought KMAS 24 Steamboat Springs as a rimshot to the Denver market and used a couple of LPTV stations to cover the cities. It didn't work out for them as they wanted, so they bought KDEN 25 Longmont and flipped it to Telemundo. Having no more use for a Spanish-language station tucked away in the mountains, they figured that flipping KMAS to PBS would serve the communities better than shutting it down. They sold the station to Rocky Mountain PBS. If you look up KMAS-TV in the FCC application database, then go to the application for the sale, you'll find the whole story. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KMAS...NBC owned PBS station?

message: ...same as the first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.77.209.207 -- azumanga 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BenH -- Second Verse... 

message: Got a bit of a problem and I know this is WP:TVS, but figure someone might know the answer.  There are some of Clear Channel radio stations that are now under "BT Triple Crown Merger Co." (a private company that is pretty much still Clear Channel), should I put the merger company name in small italics under Clear Channel or just put Clear Channel and leave it at that? - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put it under Clear Channel, unless "BT Triple Crown Merger Co." has some significance other than being a license-holding subsidiary of Clear Channel. Even then, I would probably put that information under the history section, and put Clear Channel in the infobox. DHowell 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Infobox_Broadcast template already addresses this issue. Put the main company (Clear Channel) with the owner tag, and the licensee entity (BT Triple Crown Merger Co.) with the licensee tag. The infobox will take care of the rest. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: If anyone wishes to save the American Broadcasting Company logos, Arrow 4 logo, Circle 7 logo and GMA Network logos articles, you had better act quickly. The articles have been nominated for deletion (American Broadcasting Company logos, Arrow 4 logo, Circle 7 logo and GMA Network logos). The noms expire Friday and the nominator states that the articles violate WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N. The BBC One logos and Logos of Viacom articles have already been lost. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV-related articles nominated for deletion 

message: Add RCTV logos, PBS idents and NBC logos to the AfD parade, these expiring on Saturday. The same user has nominated all seven articles, citing violations of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N for each. AfD noms: RCTV logos, PBS idents and NBC logos. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More TV-related articles up for deletion 

message: Again, here is a summary of updates of television stations viewable in Arizona cities. I have removed original research from the summary, which can be seen in full at my Radio-Info Phoenix TV post. I have also added references to this summary.
New license
*KINC 15 Las Vegas NV (Entravision) has been granted a license to cover its digital facilities on UHF channel 16. Grant of license
**Station has been updated. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona TV station update - February 2007 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.77.211.227
And while you're at it -- meet his twin, "Mmbabies":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mmbabies
-- azumanga 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head's up -- BenH's at it again: 

message: Several users are reverting each other on Metromedia. I've protected the page for now (protection is not an endorsement of the current version) to keep the article free of being the subject of a long-lasting edit war. Comments are appreciated on the talk page, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war on [[Metromedia]]

message: The continuing removal of logo galleries by User:A Man In Black has prompted me to submit a proposal to change policy wording, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images. Please contribute to this discussion. DHowell 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy wording proposal regarding fair use historical images (such as logos) 

message: I was looking at the pages for WIBW-TV, KTKA-TV, and KSNT-TV in Topeka, and noticed that some folks have been adding alumni lists... I know that they're nothing new, and appear on many TV pages, but for these particular pages, they're so comprehensive that, in many cases, they're longer than the station articles themselves.  Have the lists moved from historical value to pure ListCruft? Amnewsboy 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni

message: I just proposed a community ban for BenH at WP:CN.  That may be the only way we can stop him and his sockpuppets.  I've had to fix at least two of his screwups (thank God WJZY was the only Charlotte station he messed up), and this may be the only way to head him off for good.Blueboy96 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's fix BenH for good

message: Question. The :Category:Television logos is currently swamped with TV station logos. But in between are also a slew of other logos. I was wondering if people would be interested in helping to sort the actual station logos into a :Category:Television station logos. Because at the moment these images are just a nightmare to naviage. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of the non-free image cleanup, I have created :Category:Television station logos and have been putting images there. Once we're done defending logos from deletion, I'll start going through :Category:Television logos to see what I can pull out. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image categorization 

message: Took the liberty of running most of the IPs of BenH's suspected socks.  Most of them trace to Winter Park, Florida; hosted by Embarq.  Embarq seems to have a pretty tough AUP, which friend Benny has violated several times over.  So now we've got an additional measure once the [[community ban carries--first edit one of his socks or someone that looks like one of his socks makes, fire an email off to Embarq.  I'd post the email addy here, but I'm not sure if that's allowed--could someone clarify.   Blueboy96 03:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BenH ISP info

message: I orioginally dropped a hint here before, but he's since became a royal pain in the a** --"Mmbabies", who has used about 35 IPs to cause literal destruction of various articles (including those of Houston TV stations, which explains its relevancy here), by deliberately adding falsehoods, as well as taunting and even threatening those who oppose his views. For more on his trail of destruction see User talk:Mmbabies. Personally, I think he's in dire need of a Community Ban, too.-- azumanga 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw some of the diffs on the TV articles he hit.  As childish as BenH's edits, if not more.--Blueboy96 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I counted the socks--it's closer to 40.  After looking at some of the non-TV related edits, I figure I have to move for a ban myself ... the nature of the threats put the entire project in danger.  --Blueboy96 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing I found amazing is that Mmbabies is a fan of Christian children's programs The Gospel Bill Show and Superbook, and is an avid viewer of the Daystar and TBN networks -- isn't what he's doing contrary to Christian beliefs, especially The Ten Commandments? -- azumanga 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should talk to his Father. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's officially banned.  Blueboy96 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad news -- he's still at it: 66.139.9.37 -- and he's asking for Mmbabies to be unblocked. Time to write a friendly e-mail to AT&T, I suppose. (Sorry -- didn't check the date -- that was yesterday, before the ban went into effect. But you never know.) -- azumanga 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last edit was at 3:42 am GMT on March 30.  The ban wasn't enacted officially until 7:07 pm GMT on March 30.  But wouldn't you know, the kidiot actually gave his password to the admin who blocked him!.  Oh well--at this rate, he'll be at it again soon.  Blueboy96 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right -- see his latest "work" after the ban. -- azumanga 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked at what he did to KRIV.  Good Lord, what a mess.  I hope this guy realizes that what he's doing could get his parents' Internet access nuked (I'm assuming he's in high school).Blueboy96 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and he's not going to stop: look at this. -- azumanga 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked.  Blueboy96 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...for now. You can bet that he'll be back under yet another IP address. Whoever reports this moron to AT&T will be a hero. -- azumanga 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reported him to the Ailef ISD, SBC Global and Southwestern Bell. Blueboy96 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, losing his internet account or being suspended from school means nothing to him: have a look at this. -- azumanga 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No comment about this one: User talk:75.6.214.82 -- azumanga 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only do I want action taken on this a**hole (sorry, but I meant "a(bleep from KETH)hole" (and yes, I'm being sarcastic)), I want him behind bars -- look at this. -- azumanga 12:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bigger nuisance than BenH? Yes 

message: The community ban on BenH has carried--whoopee!  I take it this means there are no restrictions whatsoever on reverting his edits.  --15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't you know--we have another BenH sock.  This one's hit Philadelphia, New York, D.C., Toledo and at least one in Cleveland so far.  This is going to Embarq.Blueboy96 05:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it looks like he's hit the List of programs broadcast by CBS (see this diff.  Gonna need some help creating a WP:LTA page for him ... he's already got a listing there, but after this, he merits his own subpage.  Blueboy96 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he still lists shows that were syndicated as "on syndicated", rather than "syndicated". He refuses to recognise that there's no such "network" as "syndicated". It's just as annoying as someone referring to the Price is Right's Showcases as the "Showcase Showdown". -- azumanga 18:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported this clown to the sock page.  Blueboy96 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blocked, finally ... Blueboy96 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look who's on Mmbabies' home turf -- no other than BenH himself, now wrecking Houston in his own way: click here. -- azumanga 03:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strangely, some of this one's edits have been fairly decent.  Too little, too late ... Blueboy96 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed Benny vandalising some Mid-Michigan TV articles -- look at this. -- azumanga 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BenH banned!

message: Only verifiable information is published. Please consult Radio-Info for the full update with original research.
New licenses
*KDOS-LP 50 Globe (Telefutura Partnership) has been granted a license to cover its new station. It had been operating under automatic Program Test Authority since last month as a translator of KTVW-TV Phoenix.
*K23HB Flagstaff (Prism Broadcasting Network) has been granted a license to cover its new station. It had also been operating under automatic Program Test Authority since last month. Still no word on its programming.
*K16GB Kingman (Smoke and Mirrors) has been granted a license to cover its new station. According to a recent CP modification filing, they are supposed to be retransmitting K27EC Lake Havasu City, a Cornerstone Television Network station.
*KVCW-DT 29 Las Vegas, Nevada (Channel 33 Inc.) has been granted a license to cover its new digital station.
Sales
*The FCC has approved the sale of construction permits for Laughlin, Nevada, stations K57JO and K63HJ from Mojave Broadcasting Company to 9th Island Broadcasting Inc. Both stations are to serve Laughlin and Bullhead City. The permit for K57JO is set to expire in August 2007; the permit for K63HJ is set to expire in August 2008.
New construction permits
*Class A station K36DU Lake Havasu City (Richard D. Tatham) has been granted a construction permit to build digital facilities on channel 36 and to flash cut to digital when finished.
*KLVX translator K02FN Mesquite, Nevada, (Clark County School District) has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station on channel 25. Its new callsign will be K25JR-D.
*KBYU-TV translator K36FT Santa Clara, Utah (Brigham Young University) has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station on channel 53. Its new callsign will be K53JQ-D.
*KSL-TV translator K11QQ Hildale, Utah (Bonneville International) has been granted a construction permit to build a digital companion station on channel 15 to serve Hildale UT and Colorado City, Arizona. Its new callsign will be K15HS-D.
Special Temporary Authority
*KMCC-DT 32 Laughlin NV (Cranston Acquisition) has been granted STA to operate a low-power digital television station to serve the Las Vegas metro area and parts of Arizona from the antenna farm in Henderson, Nevada. KMCC is currently operating by STA in Laughlin on channel 32, but their permanent digital station, which is actually located near Dolan Springs, Arizona, is supposed to cover the Las Vegas metro area as well as Laughlin/Bullhead City and the Mohave Valley.
*K42EZ Santa Clara, Utah (Larry H. Miller) has been granted a six-month extension to their STA, to September 26, 2007. The station has been operating under STA since September 2000 while awaiting grant of application. This seems to be the same situation under which KSAZ-TV translator K07YJ Bullhead City operated. Given the owner of K42EZ, it is highly probable that this station is a translator of KJZZ-TV 14 Salt Lake City UT.
Applications not yet granted
*KPAZ-DT 20 Phoenix (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has applied for a license to cover their digital station. They had been operating under Special Temporary Authority.
*K54FW Tucson (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has had their application to move to channel 7 listed as a grantable application if no petitions to deny are filed. K54FW is a translator station of KPAZ-TV 21 Phoenix.
*KWWB-LP 45 Mesquite, Nevada (Entravision) has applied for a license to cover their transmitter location move and modification to their broadcast pattern. KWWB-LP is a translator station of KINC 15 Las Vegas NV.
License renewals granted
*The three LPTV stations owned by the Navajo Nation, K44BB Window Rock, K40AP Tsaile and K51AV Chinle, have been granted a license renewal. I have never picked up a signal from any of these stations; yet they claim to be on the air.
*K30ES Globe (Globe LPTV LLC) has been granted a license renewal. I have never picked up a signal from this station, either, but they claimed to have been on the air. At the ERP for which they're licensed, their signal should be easily receivable in Globe.
*K07OJ Snowflake (KSAZ License) has been granted a license renewal. The station had been owned by Porter Mountain Antenna Club, and KSAZ had invested some money into getting a watchable signal out of it. At first Porter Mtn didn't renew the license, but then KSAZ must have gotten wind of it, because the application for renewal was filed, and shortly thereafter, Porter Mtn donated the station to KSAZ (technically, sold it for $1 per FCC rules).
*K51IO Bullhead City (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has been granted a license renewal. This is a new station; I would have thought that their original license would have been good until 2014. Guess not.
*KDFQ-LP 47 Prescott (Una Vez Mas) has been granted a license renewal. Originally on channel 24, the station was silent after having been forced off the air by co-channel KTVK-DT, but came back on the air recently, broadcasting on channel 47 from Mingus Mountain, threading the needle between a channel 47 in Camp Verde and a channel 47 in Prescott. Although this one is licensed to Prescott, it doesn't reach the city, although it may reach Prescott Valley.
*KKRP-LP 46 Saint George, Utah (Fox Television Stations Group) has been granted a license for renewal. It is a translator of KSTU 13 Salt Lake City UT.
Expiring construction permits
*The permit for KBHD-LP 49 Bullhead City (Daystar Television Network) expired on March 22nd; no license application has been filed yet.
*KAZT-TV translator K55GG Kingman (The Londen Group) has a construction permit to move to UHF channel 20 under calls K20ID. That permit is set to expire on April 14th. No word on whether or not the station is being built.
**Late update: KAZT LLC applied for a license to cover the move to channel 20, so that's confirmation that the station was built, and although this is original research, I was in Kingman recently and have seen with my own eyes that they are in fact on channel 20 now, and no longer on 55. The KAZT article has been updated to show that they are broadcasting on channel 20 on Program Test Authority, which is automatically granted when a station applies for a license to cover construction. dhett (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona TV station update - March 2007 

message: I took photographs of 4 newsvans from television stations in Green Bay, Wisconsin and 2 newsvans from Milwaukee, Wisconsin at a recent trial of statewide to national interest. Does this WikiProject want images of newsvans added to articles for the TV stations? I made the mistake of taking photographs of notable locations on state highways without asking the U.S. Highways WikiProject if they want photographs. I ended up wasting several hundreds edits and tens of hours moving them to Wikimedia Commons. So here's my question: Should I upload them at all, and, if so, upload them to the English Wikipedia, or to Commons? I won't waste time uploading them without the consent of this WikiProject. Royalbroil 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this image to the WTMJ-TV article. I have others. What do you think? Royalbroil 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so you don't think we're ignoring you - at least I'm not - but I'm not sure how to answer you. I couldn't tell you whether it's better to upload to English Wikipedia or to Commons. While photos of newsvans isn't something I personally value in an article, there are likely others that do. At this point, your question has been posted for more than a week; I'd say just do what you think is best. If anyone has a complaint, you can just point to this post. Thanks for your hard work and your contributions; they are appreciated. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsvans

message: There is an IP who has been replacing logos for several stations with different logos.  The IP in question is , and it also made a copy-and-paste move of WTXF-TV to WTXF, changed KFMB-TV's owner to CBS, gave the Fox Television Stations Group ownership of KTVU, and added an ABC 7 logo (the WVII-TV version of the circle 7 logo, to be exact) below WCVB-TV's real logo (WCVB actually broadcasts on channel 5).  I reverted most of the edits in question (someone else reverted the WTXF-TV side of the move).  Just a reminder for future reference, in case (s)he strikes again.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought Mmbabies was nuts. -- azumanga 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I initially thought we had another BenH sock, but this appears to trace to Verizon in Boston. Blueboy96 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks to the three of you (and others too) for being on top of all this. Up until now, I've tried to keep a very small watchlist, but after these latest incidents, and the fact that it seems that such vandalism has been on the rise, I finally put all major Arizona stations and templates on my watchlist. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If any vandalism comes, I doubt it'll come from our "favorite" vandals, Mmbabies and BenH.  Haven't heard a peep from them lately ... maybe their ISPs nuked them.Blueboy96 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you looked at my most-recent comments on BenH and Mmbabies above, they are still very active -- BenH's activity was as recent as last night (4/18); as for Mmbabies, also as recent as last night, AND he made death threats to boot. -- azumanga 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound like you guys should report them at WP:AIV and have them blocked. No comments on my newvans question above? Royalbroil 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know about BenH, but we are trying to do something about Mmbabies -- someone else is helping us out in that department. -- azumanga 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a heads-up... 

message: I was thinking earlier today of creating a template along the lines of the network templates for stations that have substantial viewership in Canada.  Was originally gonna do one just for the PBS stations with substantial viewership there (like WNED, Prairie Public Television, VPT, WTVS, KCTS, KSPS) but then I figured, "Why stop at PBS?"  Thoughts? Blueboy96 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly free to do as you choose, but the first thought I had was, "What purpose would it serve?" And if such a template is created, shouldn't there also be one for Canadian stations with significant viewership in the United States? What about American stations significantly viewed in Mexico, or Mexican stations signficantly viewed in the United States? dhett (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea I've been kicking around

message: Lots of articles about TV shows have a long list at the beginning of which networks air them in different countries.  Shouldn't we have an template to arrange them into a table? Squidfryerchef 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have an infobox for TV syndicators? 

message: http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6435890.html
KKIC and WHMM are Telemundo affiliates in Boise and New Orleans. The latter will launch in mid-May: KKIC is already on air. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created an article stub and talk page for KKIC-LP, have added the station to the Boise TV template, and have updated the station list for Cocola Broadcasting, owner of KKIC. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TMD new affils 

message: Am I the only one who doesn't like this? I thought the format we used before was fine. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it either ... it's totally unnecessary.  Blueboy96 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Add me as a "no" vote - I understand that it's to provide a place for the city of license while the market takes the featured location spot, but I think that the city of license should get the featured spot. The TV market/primary cities served should go in the opening paragraph, not the station infobox. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "city of license" thing in the infobox 

message: Gridlock Joe and I have been trying to swat another Mmbabies sock here.  I wonder if he's editing from someone else's house ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was, then his friend probably has SBC dial-up or DSL too. That, or he dials and hangs up until he finds a suitable IP to chew on. Nevertheless, Mmbabies lives in an imaginary world -- one that he forces us to be part of. And I'm sick of it. -- azumanga 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get aload of tonight's crap: Sock #54. Keep in mind that I am a MAN, not a "lady". -- azumanga 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And he threatened another Wiki user with death -- see 66.139.10.104; are there any more steps beyond this one that can keep him off for good? -- azumanga 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mmbabies at it again

message: I just put up a fair-use rationale for :Image:The CW.svg because it was threatened with deletion; if someone could look it over for me please. Also, fair uses need to be added for MyNetworkTV. Nate 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The CW

message: I have restored the Azteca América logo and have created a fair use rationale for each article in which the logo is used. If anyone adds the logo to an article, please be sure to add a fair use rationale for that article. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in the interest of avoiding duplicate non-free images, I only uploaded the 150px logo. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo restored 

message: http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6441181.html
New Azteca affil in Sacramento set to launch July 1, owned by same company as four local radio stations.
70.176.127.235 (User:TrackerTV) 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And speaking of Azteca America... 

message: Template:Birmingham TV contains a link to GEB.  Somehow I don't think there's much of a TV market for Godel, Escher, Bach (alas).  I suspect it that the link should be to Golden Eagle Broadcasting.  Hopefully someone in this project can confirm that and correct the template. --J Clear 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed ... thanks for the tip.  Blueboy96 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Birmingham TV and GEB link 

message: I cannot find it anywhere, and I know there are more than 6 listed on this website.
70.119.101.141 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need the full list of major-network stations without a newscast 

message: I just wanted to get a second opinion on whether we allow pirate television stations within lists of local television stations. I just changed the San Francisco template because someone inserted a channel called Pirate Cat TV within the template . I know there's also a Star Ray TV in the Toronto area that also operates as unlicensed, but I haven't changed that because I'm not living in that area and feel it's more appropriate for a Canadian editor to make that decision. However, my opinion is that only FCC-licensed stations and cable networks should be placed within local templates, though I remain neutral on the concept of pirate broadcasting since I'm in an area where it's never happened (although my local radio dial shows a pirate would be a breath of fresh air, but another argument for another day). I especially don't want to see templates bogged down with PTV stations that maybe only broadcast a couple hours a day at most, because it would be like clogging the templates with disperate local Internet TV efforts. Nate 22:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing I know of on the project page about only covering FCC-licensed stations, but rather, we're covering broadcast TV stations. Pirate Cat TV and Star Ray TV are the only pirates I know of; it just doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem. Remember, too, that there still needs to be notability. Pirate stations won't show up in the FCC database, so unless the pirate gets other coverage, it's non-notable. Your example of a 2 hr/day broadcaster most likely would fall under that scenario, but that's just my opinion. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, if a pirate station was getting alot of press or notoriety (such as in the case of Star Ray TV), then it should be included in the template, whether it's licensed or not). -- azumanga 02:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Strongly suggest that pirate TV stations be included.  It would be pretty involved to set up something like that, so they won't be clogging up any lists even if they broadcast for only two hours a day; they are pretty rare.  Also if we start doing templates for cities in developing countries, there's a lot of unlicensed stations that have significant viewership and we'd be remiss not to include them.  ( of course i'm speaking of transmitters, not online streaming what-have-you ). Squidfryerchef 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirate television stations in templates