Talk:CTV 2 Alberta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

shrugs Still seems sensible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

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)[reply]

Logos[edit]

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)[reply]

  • agree: I agree they should stay, they serve a purpose, they give a visual of the stations identity throughout the years and let readers better understand the article. MusiMax 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagree: in order for the logos to stay, the article needs to be stated why the logos are important, must have critical commentary and not serve as decoration. They were serving as decoration and they will be removed according to our criteria on using fair use images, specifically point 8. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion Zscout370 references is copyright policy, which cannot really be trumped by consensus. We cannot have a consensus on Wikipedia that we should break the Foundation's mission or break the law. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Access Television.png[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

I note that there's been an absurd little edit war going on for the past few days regarding whether to use the .svg or .png version of the network's logo. Could you please come to an agreement on the talk page instead of continually reverting each other? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The SVG logo is the newest logo used by the station, however both are used frequently, and i guess they can be considered interchangable. I don't mind if the SVG one is put on the bottom and the older put up top instead, but it (the SVG version) should remain SOMEWHERE on the page, such as in the station presentation below. I had no idea there was an edit war going on until you notified me of this. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The .png version looks just like the logo displayed at the station website. Wouldn't that be the best one to use, at least until they change their own site? Franamax (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, friend. that's why i said to at least have the SVG version on the bottom, with the PNG version being prominent (on the top). RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the .svg version of the logo used? Can you point us to a source? Franamax (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The .png logo is the main logo that is used for the station. I don't care if the logo is in a svg or png version, I care about the right logo being used, the png logo is the correct one, I guess you could call it the quote on quote "official" logo of the station, it's even the one used on their website. Is it possible to create an svg version of the png logo? If possible, try that, there's no point in using both of them in the article either. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issue is the storage format svg/png (maybe it is, but that's easy enough to fix). The issue seems to be that the png version contains the text "the education station" and the svg version does not. If RTF can give us a reference to where the logo is used without that extra text, it would be fair to show it farther down in the article. I don't watch TV in Alberta and even if I did, saying "I saw it on TV" doesn't qualify as a reliable source, so we need to see and verify where that version of the logo is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franamax (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If i knew how to convert the PNG version to SVG, i'd put that up, and the one without the text as a secondary logo and i'm pretty sure that would solve the issue. Let me try something on my end. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, looking further into the provenance of the svg image, it seems it's taken from a Star Choice welcome kit which surely is not a reliable source. It is in the wrong colour in the original source document and could just be a bad copy of the official logo. Is it actually used anywhere other than in that specific document? Does access have a registered mark that doesn't include "the education station"? Where is the svg-version of the logo actually used? That's what we have to answer here. Franamax (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't have the answers to any of those questions... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe the best course here is to use the logo we know for sure is the one that is trademarked? Then we could scrap the other one, we don't want to present incorrect logos and mess up anyone's trademarks. I'm not up on whether .svg is the preferred storage format, I'll try to do the conversion if you haven't already. Can we agree that the logo should include that "the education station" text no matter what? Franamax (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I agree to that. i wasn't trying to start a flame war, and i feel bad that one took place. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More of a skirmish than a war :) I see at Help:Image#Supported_file_types that PNG is the preferred format, so really, is there anything wrong with the way the page looks right now? If it's fine, we can leave the .svg image orphaned and ask for this page to be unprotected. Franamax (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the phone a second. I see now there are two .svg images, a good one that you made and a bad one which you perhaps inadvertently were reverting to. That seems to be what the IP editor had a problem with. So the correct solution is to use the good .svg, is that closer to the truth? Franamax (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Yes! I was trying to allow an SVG version of the logo on the top of the page. I'm actually trying to replicate how i did that, because i'm thinking it was a fluke that actually worked. I'm having a bit of difficulty making other SVG logos from the PNGs here. The one with "The Education Station" should be given prominence. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there's not really a dispute here (the IP editor isn't contributing and I'm just trying to figure it out. Certainly the current .svg version isn't too good, it's 112 KB which would be pretty mean to the dial-up users. I'll try to sum this up in a new section, if you agree, then we can ask for unprotection. Franamax (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair. Would you also be able to tell me how to convert a PNG image to an SVG image? i can't seem to get them to work well, and i'm using Inkscape and adobe illustrator...both are kinda.... well, the results never seem to work out, and unfortunately, i can't seem to recreate the success i had with the ACCESS TV logo. x.x RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are on the second floor, you could try dropping the computer out the window, that often works for me. Otherwise, you might need to ask at the help desk to be pointed in the right direction. I'm not a big image guy. I would question though, whether you had "success" with the ACCESS logo, it's turned out bigger than even a plain bit-map would be, so you must have had a compression or vectorization setting wrong.
The agreement is below, sign up if you're OK wity it and we can ask for un-protection. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user is substituting .SVG images right now, maybe that would be a good place to ask for hints. They write excellent fair-use rationales too. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on (non-)Dispute[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Agree I just have a question. Will it be shown on the bottom of the page with the other former logos? if it could be possibly shrunk down to a reasonable size (under 25kb or so?), would it become an acceptable SVG logo? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same image being used in the infobox and at the bottom of the page right now, so I would say yes, the new version would go in both places. I'm no image expert, but I would say 25KB is an acceptable size. Did you see my pointer above to a user who could maybe help you out with those things? Franamax (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Article name[edit]

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)[reply]

  • So I will change it over in a couple of days, then. Ground Zero | t 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image on this page may be deleted[edit]

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)[reply]

Website[edit]

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)[reply]

Looks like http://www.ctvalberta.ca/ has been updated. 117Avenue (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CTV_2_Alberta&oldid=1201266030"