Talk:List of The CW affiliates (table)

message: Are we sure that WPIX New York will be the flagship of The CW? I ask because KCOP Los Angeles (though it was owned by Fox) is UPN's flagship, and WGN Chicago is the WB flagship station. Mhking 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the news reports say Channel 11 will get The CW, while Channel 9 will be left out in the cold (here's one example). --Aaron 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a better link: CBS's own press release which says the Trib station in NYC gets the CW. --Aaron 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Newsday: "Tribune Broadcasting, one of the nation's largest TV broadcasters, will air the new network's programs, which means WPIX/11 will become the so-called flagship station of the CW. Meanwhile, WWOR/9, which is owned by News Corp. and has been the flagship of UPN, lost out in what amounted to a big game of musical chairs yesterday." --Aaron 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What do missing numbers from the market column indicate?? Georgia guy 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market numbers 

message: Confirmed via this article. And yes, they are a dual WB/UPN affiliate; the chart is not wrong to list both networks in that column. --Aaron 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's jumping the gun to list them at all - the general manager at that station said he doesn't expect things to change for his station, but he did not state they were an affiliate yet - I can assure you that NOTHING has been signed yet - all of the stations were blindsided by this. Yes, his station is a good candidate for the CW, but it is by no means a done deal yet. Only the Tribune and CBS Corp. stations are confirmed for now. TheRealFennShysa 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I called them. I was told "We're staying with whatever they give us." So unless The CW itself is not going to happen (and after all, it isn't on the air yet, and anything could happen between now and September, so perhaps we should just kill the entire article?), this station is going to be a CW affiliate.--Aaron 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't confirm anything. Of course they're going to tell someone caling them that, as they don't want to alarm their viewers. But the plain and simple fact of the matter is, and this is coming from someone in the industry, they are NOT an affiliate yet. No one is, past the Tribune and CBS Corp. stations. NO agreements have been signed with ANYONE else, yet... Until such time as editors have verifyable confirmation about an entry, such as official press releases (as opposed to "well I heard..." or somesuch), we should keep this to verified information. TheRealFennShysa 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I didn't just speak to the first secretary on the phone. Second, you're not the only person here involved in network television. And third, by the rationale you're using to try to keep all non-CBS/Trib stations off the page, this list shouldn't even exist yet because we don't have any iron-clad guarantee that any of the stations on it are going to actually end up airing CW programming. There's no particular reason this entire deal can't fall apart between now and September. If a station says they plan to be a CW affiliate, that word should be more than enough. --Aaron 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we do. The Tribune stations have already signed 10-year affiliation agreements with The CW. That's pretty binding. I'm pretty sure (have to check) but the listed CBS stations are in the same boat, as they were listed as such in the original press release. The process has already begun for the dismantling of both networks. It's happening. But there's a major difference between a station having officially signed on, and them telling something to a caller. I still hold to the position that if it's not officially confirmed, it shouldn't be listed. TheRealFennShysa 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WHCP-TV]] added 

message: A new article on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine's website  says that initial affiliation agreements are set to go out via land-mail this week. It also confirms that the Fox-owned UPN stations in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Baltimore & Orlando will not seek CW affiliation, despite there not being a Tribune or Viacom-owned station in any of those markets. Mhking 02:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the agreements themselves, but the conditions for winning agreements. 67.150.212.131 04:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update on the fate of the WB 100+:  I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article. 67.150.89.129 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliation agreements 

message: Please hold off from adding place-holders on the main list until there is some sort of confirmation. --Mhking 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing the adding, but I believe the anon in question is simply following the lead of List of My Network TV affiliates. If you wish, you may remove the placeholders there as well. 67.150.223.229 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding to main list

message: I know that alot of editors have worked on this article, so I'm going to ask for their help with this. There is entirely to much speculation in this article. I will remind all editors of this wikipedia policy and this wikipedia policy. There are waaaay too many factors at play with this whole merger to be listing any stations on this or the MNTV lists until there is a press release from a reputable source about a certain station. Please remove all speculation from this article including the Potential affiliates section. —A 08:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright it has been a day, with plenty of activity, and no signs of anyone removing the speculation. I am going to do so now. Per the Wikipedia policies above, do not add any speculation back into the article, everything added should be factual and have a source. A LOT of things could happen between now and September and Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of speculation. —A 07:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation and predictions 

message: The list is fine the way it is now. Please do not change it. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6313692.html?display=Breaking+News
:I saw that - there are four other affils in addition to Kansas City that were added as well. --Mhking 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of them being a digital subchannel of KVIA-TV in El Paso. Does anyone know what this channel was/is previously carrying, or if it even existed (exists) before this point? Morgan Wick 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a new digital station. Doesn;t exist right now.Davodd 03:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KCWE added 

message: Please only use quotes around the call letters of a station using a non-actual call sign as an identifier.
i.e. "WBCB" is in quotes, because it is merely the on-air moniker used by WFMJ-DT 20.2's WB-to-be-CW affiliate in Youngstown.  "WRWB" is in quotes because it is merely the on-air name of Time Warner cable channel 16 in Rochester, which is not a broadcast station at all.  Don't put quotes around actual call letters, please! MPWard 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting/convention 

message: I've begun the process of matching the external links with the stations to which those articles refer.  Ultimately, we should have a reference for each station on the list, thus making the list easily verifiable.  I could use quite a bit of help with this, though. -- SwissCelt 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Why is this tagged as documenting a current event?  Is it because they are regularly adding new affiliates?  I'm just wondering...  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: WWMB's been on the list for a while, but the only evidence I can find is that the station article said that their website said so - a likely affiliate, but no announcement. Can anyone prove me wrong before I remove it? — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold and removed it. It really needs to stay off, as that proclamation preceded both 1) the announcement of My Network TV and 2) all of the official affiliation announcements, including some WB 100+ affiliates, suggesting the cable-only WB in that market might not be doomed. Morgan Wick 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.wpde.com/viewarticle.asp?view=559 <-- the announcement that WWMB will be a CW affiliate. - Davodd 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is the "website" reference I was referring to. The station made a unilateral statement - likely on the day of the network announcement - but there's no evidence of an agreement. Thank you, Morgan. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now there is. Morgan Wick 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWMB 

message: I won't add it to the article, but whoever does, could you go from this  instead of this ? Broadcasting and Cable has been okay thus far, but this time they brush off the 19 digital stations and completely ignore some broadcast stations, including at least one in a top 100 market. We want to be as accurate as possible. Morgan Wick 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then a bit of addition shows that CW coverage is just over 75%. Almost home... Gatorman 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also: WQOW in Eau Claire and WAOW in Wausau each have a satellite station: WXOW and WYOW, respectively. The satellites operate on digital channels 14 and 28, respectively. Gatorman 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New affiliation announcement! 

message: I added WLYH onto the list, however, I can't find a press release or article specifically saying WLYH will become an affiliate of The CW.  That having been typed, I remember reading in the Patriot News that they would become an affiliate of The CW.  The problem I have is finding that article.  If anyone can help in finding it, that would be great.  Also, on the WLYH website, they make a broad reference to UPN becoming The CW, which suggests that they are becoming a CW affiliate.  --myselfalso 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. No reference to WLYH in any official network announcements I've seen. As noted above and elsewhere, just because a station is dual WB/UPN doesn't automatically mean it'll be CW; it has to reach a new affiliation agreement first. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All official network announcements have appeared in Broadcasting and Cable and TV Week; the former especially is readily available to the public. Any references anywhere else (unless you have a press release from the network itself that will soon be verified by those places anyway) that aren't verified in either of these two places, especially those from January (right after the announcement and well before the announcement of My Network TV) is purely speculation. Very logical speculation, but still speculation. Morgan Wick 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WLYH 

message: In this list, WVIR/Charlottesville VA is listed twice, once as "DT6" in Harrisonburg and once as "DT7" in Charlottesville, both on the same signal.  Am I missing something, here?  As far as I know, WVIR only has one DT signal, and as far as I know, they don't have 5 other subchannels... MPWard 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this site and this site, CW will be on neither DT6 nor DT7, but on DT3. Monty Barker 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WVIR 

message: This threw us all for a loop...no announcement in B&C, yet KHWB did request the KHCW calls, and the station is showing off the calls on its website.  Gatorman 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring solely to the call sign change, I wouldn't expect a mention; they didn't mention KBEJ beocming KCWX. If you're referring to affiliation, that's old news. A TVQ says calls are still KHWB. Look for local media coverage. Morgan Wick 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And now I'm not seeing mention of the new calls on the web site. Morgan Wick 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one mention, at the top of the web browser: HoustonsWB.com | KHCW-TV | Houston's WB. But yes, I suppose it COULD wait... Gatorman 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The station logo now shows KHCW beneath the WB logo. Nate 06:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And according to the FCC, KHCW is now the official call sign.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KHWB to be KHCW 

message: The CW's new web site contains much of the information on this page: . There's probably nothing new, but I thought everyone here might like to know. Morgan Wick 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This web site is causing a number of problems. I have removed two stations from the list; the adders of both cited this web site as their source, but the web site contains neither station's call letters. Biloxi's addition was probably guilty of misreading the web site, but it's possible KNOE was listed at one time. Specifically, there are a number of place-holders for markets where the CW does not yet have an affiliate, listed as "Check Local Listings". The bad news, compared to the site's launch, is that digital stations now look the same as markets with no affiliation at all. The good news is that thewbpass.com has been removed from the website category for stations with no website per se. As a rule of thumb, if you think the CW's web site is stealthily introducing a new affiliate not announced in B&C, TV Week, or elsewhere, check for two things: call letters, and website. If neither are present, wait for an official announcement in one of those two places. I'm changing the commented-out notice to reflect this new threat to anti-crystal-ballery. Morgan Wick 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New CW station web site 

message: Please do not add this station until there is some mention in Broadcasting and Cable, TV Week, or until the station shows up on the CW web site, linked above. All I have so far is a site reporting a rumor that it's nearly a done deal, and one anon's word that they are "advertising the CW" on WFFF, which is probably being done on all WB affiliates in preparation for the CW. If not from one of the above sources, we need a source that is verifiable and  reliable. Morgan Wick 03:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that they actually don't have any sort of deal, and they are actually thisclose to a deal, to the extent that they have it and there is no doubt that they will have the affiliation, but not quite there. Wait for confirmation on Monday or Tuesday. The trade magazines may have abandoned keeping track of affiliations, but cwtv.com should be considered largely infallible. I would at least look for coverage in local newspapers, if only to inform the public. Morgan Wick 04:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WFFF 

message: :I contacted WBFG (a The WB 100+ Station Group cable channel in Fargo, North Dakota) and they said that they are launching a digital subchannel on co-owned WDAY-TV (21-2) in September 2006 and possibly WDAZ-TV (59-2) at a later date to carry The CW network. It will still will be available on cable TV systems with different imaginary call letters (not WBFG).--grejlen - talk 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without an official announcement, that's unverifiable by independent onlookers and original research. Morgan Wick 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WDAY-DT2 (WBFG) added 

message: For the sake of consistency, I'm wondering whether we should begin implementing a similar style of list to this one (I call this the "DMA" style) for other networks, i.e. List of NBC affiliates, List of CBS affiliates, List of Fox affiliates, List of ABC affiliates. As with CW and MNTV, I can see this type being useful for people looking for info on station/market-size ownership at a glance. I've already started on one version of this at User:Stickguy/New Fox List. 
The question for me is what to do with the existing versions because most casual viewers probably would search by state, not by DMA. So I can see four options:
*convert ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox to the DMA style,
*convert CW and MNTV to the state-city style,
*keep both styles for each in separate articles (but then make sure the two are kept consistent), and
*keep the status quo.
Any thoughts? — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's just been proposed here earlier today that the A/N/C/F lists be updated to the DMA style. Great minds think alike and all. :) However, you do have a point about the casual user wanting to look up the lists by City/State. I guess we could provide both types of lists. But let's keep this conversation centrally located, if possible.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Portions of original comments withdrawn; see discussion linked above. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: With two weeks left until the launch of The CW, it'll be curious to see if they'll get some last-second clearances or do something to get on in the markets they're not on in. The lack of anything viable in Hawaii or Northwest Arkansas has to hurt given that unless they get someone to put them on a subchannel, they're losing audience right off the bat. Even with WPIX's cable coverage in the market, the WFFF-TV rumor (if right) is not a good move for all involved.
: The WFFF "rumor" is right.  It has been confirmed to me twice by the programming VP of the station. Verotrep 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is an awful, awful move on The CW's part. I know with WWBI and WGMU off the board they had no real option, but if The CW can get cleared in pattern in North Platte why would they settle for a delayed clearance in Burlington/Plattsburgh? Is the possibility that Anglophone Quebec may watch THAT much of a reason to not get a subchannel affiliate, especially when WFFF has wanted to launch a 10:00 p.m. newscast? Bad, bad move. Scrabbleship 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for me and for several others I know (and others I don't know), it is a really good move, because I live in Quebec and I'm not even anglophone, but I do watch several American shows.  And the WFFF becoming a CW affiliate was the only way that I would be able to watch my favorite shows.  So, maybe it's not a perfect move and I understand your point, but for people like me, it's a great move! Verotrep 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Minute Pickups?

message: In the second paragraph, there is a note on how many affilates carry the network. I have taken the liberty of checking the edit history, and I can say that more have been added. I don't have the time, so someone should count how many there are now, and the percentage of households in the US the network is seen in. ErikNY 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating the number of affiliates

message: How can I get my my wikipage, User:Mnw2000/TVAffliates, implemented as a formal wikipage? user:mnw2000 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new wikipage with ALL Major US Networks 

message: (See discussion here.)  I've begun updating the table in List of CW affiliates to be based on metropolitan statistical areas, rather than Nielsen Media Research designated market areas.  For now, I'm listing the city in which the affiliate is primarily headquartered in.  I still have a ways to go, filling in the metro area population ranking numbers, and eventually linking to the new media market articles as they are rebuilt.  I've created a StarOffice spreadsheet, which has the basic wiki table markup; I'm working from that.  When I want to try out the code, I just save as csv with the save filter set to no field and no text delimiter.  Unless somebody else wants to beat me to it (please, I'm begging you), I'll finish with The CW and then go on to ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC...    user:j    (aka justen)   07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about listing them alphabetically by state? I think our broadcast-geekdom is blinding us somewhat to the reality here, which is that anybody who isn't a media junkie doesn't know their local Nielsen market's ranking from a hole in the head. To anybody who isn't actually afflicted with our particular brand of geekdom, listing them strictly alphabetically by state is the only genuinely helpful way to organize such a list. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree; one of the great things about using the sortable table, though, is that if somebody wants it listed by city, by metropolitan area size, or by what the affiliate's network was before the merger, they will now be able to do that (or at least they'll be able to once the table is complete).  The default sort could be anything we want it to be; if nobody objects, I can change it to sort by states when I finish putting in the metro area rankings later tonight.    user:j    (aka justen)   22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that the List of CW affiliates is the only list of any broadcast network that isn't using the DMA rankings. Is it just that none of the other lists (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS) have been switched away from the DMA listings? If anyone begins to switch those, I again recommend the CSA rankings instead of the MSA because the MSA tends to leave out huge areas that these broadcast stations reach into with their primary signals. It is important to use a list as close as possible to the DMA list and that would be the CSA list [Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas]. Geekified 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a discussion on wp:an/i in which there seemed to be consensus that Nielsen data be replaced proactively from articles, even those that weren't covered by their takendown notice.  I guess I'm the only one who began doing that, and I started with this article because it was the first one nominated for deletion.  I haven't had a chance to finish the table yet, but I will switch to using CSA instead of MSA rankings, thank you both for the recommendation.    user:j    (aka justen)   23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Those were not the Nielsen rankings, but the CSA rankings which is public domain information. But, I think it is better to leave out rankings all together, as you have done, because it is always changing and way too hard for anyone to consistently keep up with unless they can study all population studies in every Combined Statistical Area. Best to leave as is, or allow sorting by city alphabetically. Geekified 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nielsenless affiliates table