Talk:CTV 2 Alberta

message: CJAL-TV → Access Alberta — to be consistent with other Canadian educational channels with multiple callsigns, i.e. TVOntario or Télé-Québec. Kirjtc2 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support. This is also consistent with the practice for US public mini-networks (e.g. Maryland Public Television, Oregon Public Broadcasting) which air a consistent schedule across multiple callsigns with no local variance. Though of course both CJAL-TV and CIAN-TV should stay in place as redirects. Bearcat 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: shrugs Still seems sensible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support. This is also consistent with the practice for US public mini-networks (e.g. Maryland Public Television, Oregon Public Broadcasting) which air a consistent schedule across multiple callsigns with no local variance. Though of course both CJAL-TV and CIAN-TV should stay in place as redirects. Bearcat 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Is it known as Access Alberta in common parlance? The branding and logo simply say ACCESS. The secondary station also broadcasts the identical signal based on what the article says, so I don't see a problem with its current location. Jibbajabba 23:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: shrugs Still seems sensible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *:Access (TV channel) → :ACCESS (TV channel) — The official name is in caps —74.109.62.238 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this request from Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals because it goes against our naming conventions, in particular Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), which states, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." -GTBacchus(talk) 08:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] 

message: I thought since there is a debat on whether or not to keep the logos of ACCESS in the article, I should create a dissucssion for it in the talk page. Until there is a concenus on whether to keep them or not, they should stay since they were there in the first place before the debate occured. So below this, add whther or not u agree to keep them or disagree and remove them and give an explaination for either response: MusiMax 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: :Image:Access Television.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Access Television.png

message: 1. The logos as shown in the current version of the article are correct in content and layout.
2. It may be desirable to replace the .PNG storage format of the currently used station logo with the same image in .SVG format.
3. The .SVG file used in some previous versions, for instance here is an incorrect copy of the station logo, as it does not contain "the education station". It will not ever be used and will be left as an orphaned image for eventual deletion.
4. If a .SVG version of the correct station logo can be made of an acceptable size, it may be substituted in the article. The current "correct" .SVG version of the logo is unacceptably large and will not be used.
*Agree Franamax (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i did. i'm awaiting a response. I'm also testing other things out here, too. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 02:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, guys. Weird that the anon IP never came back to participate. But at any rate, the page protection is off now — I set it to autoexpire after 24 hours anyway, since this wasn't exactly a major dispute in the grand scheme of things. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on (non-)Dispute 

message: Should the article be entitled "ACCESS (TV channel)" or "Access (TV channel)"? The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is clear on this: standard English capitalization is preferred over corporate styling. So, the article should be called "Access (TV channel)" in keeping with Wikipedia style, rather than the all-caps version perferred by the corporation. The channel can capitalize its name in whatever way it wants in its marketing materials, but Wikipedia style is to use standard English capitalization. The article, of course, should make reference to the fact that the corporate style is to use all-caps. See Space (TV channel) to see how this can be done. Ground Zero | t 12:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name 

message: This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image :File:ACCESS TV former logo.gif, found on :Access (TV channel), has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator.  STBotI (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An image on this page may be deleted

message: What should be used as the official website for CTV Two Alberta? http://www.ctvalberta.ca/ is currently listed in the infobox, it should be the one that is specifically for the Alberta feed, but it only lists two of its programs. http://www.ctv.ca/two is currently listed in the external links section, and appears to be the one endorsed by Bell Media, but it isn't Alberta specific. 117Avenue (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like http://www.ctvalberta.ca/ has been updated. 117Avenue (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website