Talk:The CW/Archive 1

message: Are there any media reports about them?  I heard Tribune's myself and have seen message board posts about CBS's, but we need something we can cite for the article. --David Bixenspan 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources to cite Re: Conference Calls

message: I think it should be noted which stations will be closing and/or going independent as a result of the merger. I assume in areas where both WB and UPN affiliates operate, only one will go to CW. 23skidoo 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a station that loses out on the CW (in a market with both WB and UPN) isn't going to close up shop... they may be shit-out-of-luck, but they won't close, as too much money is at stake - they'll go independent for a while, at least... and if that fails, there's always PAX, i, or whatever *they're* called now...  TheRealFennShysa 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I could whip up a section on the repurcussions of the merger (for Fox, Tribune, and the other station owners)? --David Bix 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. --CFIF 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  There's a little bit of redundancy from other parts of the article, but I couldn't really think of a way to get certain points across without a brief reiteration.  I think it's fine, but if anyone is able to work some magic to clean it up, I'd love their input. --David Bix 01:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Stickguy did a nice job revising what I wrote up.  Kudos. --David Bix 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if the latest edit, by 69.230.120.107, should stay or be reverted.  The article had several sentences removed without any reason given. --David Bix 11:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the other stations

message: People keep trying to add a logo image. Where is this coming from? None of the articles I have read mention or show a potential logo. 209.51.77.64 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Tribune conference call I listened in on this afternoon, there was an logo shown at the announcement, but they stressed that it was NOT a final logo - only temporary, and *would not* be the final network logo... until there is an official logo announced or shown, this unsourced logo people keep trying to add should not be included. TheRealFennShysa 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's noted as a proposed logo, it's perfectly appropriate to use here. --Aaron 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added inline text to the image. Anyone who hovers over the image will get a little popup noting that it's an interim logo, not a permanent one. --Aaron 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, that image was something like 25K when I started on it! (The program I was using to resize it didn't have a "save as PNG" function, heh.) --Aaron 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo Image 

message: The only affiliates that are for sure right now, according to CBS Corp., are the 28 that are a part of Tribune and CBS Station Group. 
Media reports from other areas (check out http://southflorida.bizjournals.com for example) are stating that non-affiliated stations are going to go independent. One executive in South Florida told me his three stations were going independent.
Syfymichael 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-affiliated stations 

message: Past names are listed in the sidebox as "United Paramount Network" and "The WB."
I believe "United Paramount Network" as an actual moniker was dropped when Chris-Craft was bought out by Viacom, and later was known simply as "UPN." While I think "United Paramount Network" works as a past name, but so should "UPN."Syfymichael 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, no one ever called it United Paramount Network in the business - it was always UPN... I say list it as such in the infobox... TheRealFennShysa 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree. When you see the merger of AOL and Time Warner, you still say that they were formerly AOL and Time Warner, even though the two old companies no longer exist to form a new company. Assets from both were merged together, including station affiliations, management, and even shows. I believe the line should be restored of "Former names" to include United Paramount Network, UPN and The WB. While "United Paramount Network" may not have been a name that was used commonly when it was still active, it was still a name, just as not everyone says "Cable News Network" for CNN.Syfymichael 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No. I completely disagree. While stock swapping and such was not discussed as part of this merger, there is nothing to indicate there wasn't. A merger is a combination of assets, sometimes forming something news. When GTE and BellSouth merged, they combined their assets and created a new company, Verizon. In this instance, Warner Bros. and CBS Corp. combined the assets of two of their subsidiaries and created CW. The new company has combined assets of both previous companies, including personnel, station affiliates, and programming. While stock swapping is common in a merger, it is not NECESSARY as part of a merger. And I'm sure there were some stock swapping on this issue anyway. There could've been some stock exchange that just has not been announced, and is not yet available in either company's SEC filings. However, like I said before, it does not have to contain a stock swap in order to be considered a merger. How would this NOT be considered a merger? if the two networks were disbanded, the two companies decided to work together, but with completely new assets, including personnel.Syfymichael 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Off-topic: GTE and Bell Atlantic merged to form Verizon.  BellSouth is the only Baby Bell that hasn't merged. --Closeapple 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Sorry, wrong Bell, hahaha! Thanks! :) But my point is still there. :)Syfymichael 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were an actual merger, then Tribune would be an equity partner - they're not... also listing "United Paramount Network" and "UPN" together is saying the same thing twice, essentially... if someone *has* to list them, it should only be as "The WB" and "UPN" - otherwise, you should also list the WB as "The WB Television Network", which is just overkill, especially in an infobox... TheRealFennShysa 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past names 

message: The logo lists it as "The CW Television Network". I think the page should be moved. --CFIF 22:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although it is doubtful the full name will be used much, the article should be listed under the technical name. 209.51.77.64 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree since The WB is under WB Television Network, etc. I suggest going with whatever the press release states is the official name of the network. 23skidoo 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreement here. Syfymichael 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: Everyone keeps assuming that WPIX New York will be the flagship station (most likely because it is in New York) - nothing was said in the press materials that pointed to this. The other things that come into play are the facts that Tribune-owned WGN Chicago is the WB flagship, and KCOP Los Angeles (despite being owned by Fox) is the UPN flagship station. Mhking 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Nothing in the press release from CBS Corp. at least states that WPIX is giong to be the flagship. In fact, the press release states that "Moonves added: "This idea becomes a reality only when a great station group like Tribune comes on board with us and delivers the powerful reach a new network requires. With formidable flagship Tribune stations in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, a great CBS line-up of owned and operated UPN stations, and strong affiliates from every available market, The CW launches as a strong competitor to the Big Four, and that's good for our business, for the viewing audience, and for free, over the air broadcasting." At least from what I am reading, there are three flagship stations currently. Sure, it will most likely reduce to one .. but it hasn't done that yet.Syfymichael 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that may have just been a typo, or an overzealous Californian writing the annual report. WNYW's own site lists them as Fox's flagship, as do dozens of other sites. There has long been the concept of "West Coast flagships", though, which are generally (if not entirely) the LA stations. In any case, it may be sort of a moot issue. I mean, come on, we're talking about the WB and UPN here. They could pick a station in New Mexico as the "CW flagship" and it wouldn't really mean anything. They're all still operated as independent stations that just happen to carry a couple of hours of programming off the satellite in the prime time. What does it really mean to be the flagship of a real network, anyway, other than that it was either first on the air or located in the same place as corporate HQ, or both? --Aaron 17:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One wonders if the who idea of flagship stations still even applies these days. CBS, NBC and ABC may well have flagship stations, too, but it really has zero impact on programming. 23skidoo 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Flagship article covers this in its "Broadcasting" section, FWIW. --Aaron 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flagship

message: In my idea we should create an article about ex-WB/UPN stations. What is your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.162.56 (talk • contribs) 
No, I don't think it's worth it. --CFIF 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was keep at the "The"-d variant. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article about ex-WB/UPN stations? 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose (Keep), who authorized the first move? CFIF 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the WSJ story did it imply that? I read the story about how the Fox-owned affiliates were caught off guard, but I missed the part where it implied a name change ... although I'm sure it's definitely possible. :) Syfymichael 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Vapid, silly comment. Here, bots, chew on this: The The. Ha, I laugh in the face of danger. --Aaron 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You get a vote! All users get to vote on stuff like this, regardless of newbieship or membership in dirty secret cabals like CP. --Aaron 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: If I read things right, KTLA, WSBK and WPIX are all going to be part of the same network come September. Does anyone know what impact that may have on their availability as superstations via cable and satellite in Canada and elsewhere? Having 3 identical superstations on a satellite feed (with maybe minor local differences such as news programming) could result in one or more of the stations being dropped from cable packages like Shaw Cable. Thoughts? 23skidoo 18:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that WGN the "Superstation" bears little resemblance to WGN Channel 9, which is a WB affiliate. Other than simulcasting the Channel 9 local news, the national cable version is, for the most part, a completely different feed from what you actually see in Chicago; they certainly don't offer any WB programming. Perhaps a road like that could be taken by those other stations, if it isn't already. --Aaron 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the live broadcasts of Cubs baseball, White Sox baseball and Bulls basketball games are simulcast on both feeds.--Desmond Hobson 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, WSBK-TV is going indie. As for WPIX/KTLA, well, those are east coast/west coast feeds respectively, and most digital cable/satellite providers (in Canada) provide dual feeds for the other U.S. networks as it is. — Stickguy 19:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the Superstation feed of WGN has been carried in Vancouver for many years, as opposed to the Chicago feed. I'm guessing it's the same elsewhere in Canada too. - Hinto 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: TBS is an exception because it doesn't have local programming (at least in terms of the satellite feed). But point taken. The only reason I pay for WPIX and KTLA is to see their news programs and local broadcasts. 23skidoo 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the Superstations?

message: What is this merge going to mean for the Saturday Morning lineup? What does this mean for shows like "Pokemon", "Yu-Gi-Oh!", or "Loonatics Unleashed"? 71.111.209.99 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the new Kid's WB on the CW lineup on the Kids' WB! page.--Dleav 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturday Morning Lineup? 

message: Did Warner Brothers and CBS really hint at programming Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars together?  It's unsourced, which means that you should tread carefully and remember that it may be untrue.  Is there a source on this?  Is it just a rumor that is unencyclopedic?  Just wondering.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tribune rep did during their conference call, and Les Moonves did during CBS's. --David Bixenspan 02:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A conference call, by itself, is considered original research.  Is there a source, available to the public, which repeats this info? -- SwissCelt 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, no.  I'll take it out. --David Bixenspan 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming facts 

message: If the people at CW really want to compete with the other networks, they won't primarily limit themselves to prime time once more.  They'll invest in some daytime programming as well.  Morning/afternoon news and talkshows.  Perhaps even some soap operas as well. Dtowng 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daytime programming 

message: In New York The channel to be chosen to be the CW Affiliate is WPIX(WB11).During the CW announcment about the merger they didn't explain anything about the news. I Knew i said something like this above but news is different. Willl the CW force WPIX to change newscasters or will it be the same.
:Networks do not dictate to local stations who anchors their news. Mhking 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newscasts