Talk:CJON-DT

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Canada: Newfoundland & Labrador Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador.

Callsign issue

I just have one question: Since CJON began broadcasting in digital, does this mean the CJON-TV callsign is now officially retired? I am not sure whether or not it will be using the CJON-DT callsign permanently after the August 31 digital TV deadline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattFisher (talk • contribs)

All digital television stations in Canada have the -DT suffix. Since the main CJON transmitter has dropped its analog signal, its -TV suffix is no longer valid. Therefore, the only appropriate name for the article is "CJON-DT". єmarsee • Speak up! 04:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Canada's Superstation"

Although it touts itself as such, is NTV really a superstation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by VanillaDeath (talk • contribs)

Personally I would say no because virtually every Canadian station is now available nationally by cable and/or satellite anyway. NTV's only special status, if it can be called that, is that a few cable companies in the west carry it on regular cable. But that's no different from Global Edmonton or CHCH being carried in a regular-cable package in St. John's and a few other medium-sized Canadian cities. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the late 80s and early 90s a few stations (CHCH, ITV and BCTV) could legitimately call themselves "superstations" in my opinion, thanks to their carriage on the Cancom satellite, so they were carried on a lot of smaller cable systems across the country (I recall the rural systems in New Brunswick had them but not Fredericton, Moncton or Saint John). But these days because of timeshifting, that line is blurred. How widespread was NTV's mainland coverage before, say, 1998? That would be a good determinant of whether NTV was the superstation they claim to be. Kirjtc2 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion to be called a "superstation" you should mainly be an independant station and not a station that is part of a network such as Global's CITV is now and also the station should have a wide distribution across the country on analogue cable. Because almost any station is carried across the country through timeshifting on satelite or digital cable. So it really all depends if NTV has these qualities.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.108.51 (talk • contribs) ...aka Cdn_boi

File:Ntvscreen1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ntvscreen1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NTVHD.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NTVHD.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on CJON-DT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]