Talk:WBNX-TV

message: I re-inserted the info on WCOT-TV.  While normally I would agree that a CP for a channel allocation warrants a separate article (if, indeed, it warrants any article at all!) from that of the station now occupying that channel, WCOT-TV was to be located in the same place, and effectively operated by the same company that would put WBNX-TV on the air.  Unless this info turns out to be unverifiable, I say we keep it in the article. -- SwissCelt 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, perhaps I was a bit ambiguous in my thoughts.  Though I admit I haven't seen the (new) article yet, I believe at this time WCOT should be merged into WBNX-TV.  I highly doubt there's enough to say about the old (and never-on-the-air) WCOT to warrant a separate article.  More importantly, though, WCOT is integral to WBNX-TV's history, and would make an excellent section for the latter article. -- SwissCelt 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Where was WCOT to be located?  I got the impression that it was at what was later Ernest Angley's broadcasting studios; that is, at the former Cathedral of Tomorrow.  If this is true, I really think there's as much a continuum here as there is with WABD-WNEW-WNYW as it changed hands from DuMont to Metromedia to Fox (respectively).  Just because a station has new call letters and a new owner does not necessarily mean it's a different station altogether.  (Besides, do we really need a separate article about a TV station that never aired??) -- SwissCelt 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think, at the very least, the info you provided deserves the chance to be heard... er, read.  I'll do nothing about it for now, and I eagerly await the article.  You may be right:  This article may well be worthwhile. -- SwissCelt 16:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Article should've already been available. I'm looking into what happened to it. Maybe it was already deleted. It wasn't much to read, but I've seen less written about subjects. Broadcast Today, 21 February 2006.
Please note that there's also a WCOT-FM in Jamestown, New York, which is actually broadcasting and therefore has at least as much right to the title as the never-launched predecessor of WBNX. If you feel strongly that the old WCOT deserves its own separate article, put it at WCOT-TV; the unsuffixed WCOT has to be either the station that actually is broadcasting with that call sign, or a disambiguation page. Bearcat 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you Bearcat. No, I don't feel strongly that the never-actually-aired WCOT-TV should have its own page. The way you have it is appropriate. Broadcast Today 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the way it is now (Nov. 12,2007) with a brief mention of a proposed WCOT and the fact that it never aired is sufficient. The "history" of what WCOT was to be has no place in the WBNX page since, first of all, it is pure conjecture and unsourced, and second, it is a seperate identity with the only connection being the unused license being sold from one party to another. This has been discussed in length (see above) and it was agreed upon to keep the "histories" seperate as one has nothing to do with the other except the change of ownership of the FCC license before anything actually went on the air. Broadcast Today 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even after trying to correct the timeline, I agree that it should be removed. WCOT currently exists in another state and therefore it could have it's own page on Wikipedia. There is erroneous material in a blog I found, therefore that can't be sourced either. The FCC shows the ownership of WBNX-TV. Therefore, this article, without the conjecture (probably innocently based on the erroneous blog someone read), should be removed. The history of WBNX-TV is what this article is about and it began in 1985. GoGeo (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited that section according to consensus. I also added a brief detail about WCOT's current status as a government access channel in Florida because it was mentioned in the "Early Days" section. I believe that should suffice and add clarity.GoGeo (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: WCOT

message: :Image:Wbnx CW HD.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 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wbnx CW HD.PNG

message: While it's true every station tries to keep within the FCC lines, WBNX takes/took it a lot further.
They edited out words such as "damn", "hell" and even non-profane, but not exactly pretty words such as "crap".
Obviously, the Christian nature of the ownership group is the biggest reason for this.
Keep in the mention of Angley's ownership in regards to the editing, because he takes it further than the average UHF Fox/CW/My Net station.
Thank You.
Vjmlhds 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of profanity