Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

TfD nomination of Template:Pennsylvania TV Stations

Template:Pennsylvania TV Stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • November 1, 2008 @ 00:00

Rollosmokes appears to have gone rogue

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat, it looks like Rollosmokes has gone rogue. He was revealed to be running two sock accounts--one of whom was a sleeper. Deeply disturbing--he was once a very good contributor, especially for our project. Blueboy96 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This just floored me. I remember him being a solid contributor from some of the TV station articles. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A shame too -- I think Rollo switched from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde, following the edit war with TV9 over The CW at the WGN-TV article. -- azumanga (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Smokes was editing disruptively long before the CW The CW the CW - related nonsense and engaging in many revert wars. He was given the benefit of the doubt a few times too many because he has some previous edit history which appears legit, but the WGN9 edit war was not his first. He got worse after he was indef-blocked, repeatedly asking admins for unblocks and then returning to the same abusive pattern; he also discovered the joy of sockpuppetry around that time. However, WGN wasn't the first of this - it was just the one case where he managed to annoy enough users, who eventually had the sense to bring in outsiders instead of trying to deal with the matter themselves or bring it to Rollo's few remaining allies here. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the WikiProject

I have a suggestion. The current name of this WikiProject, although it is straight to the point, I have thought of a better name for this WikiProject. How about we rename this WikiProject to WikiProject Local Television? I think WikiProject Local Television is a better name as this WikiProject does indeed cover local television. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a better name would be WikiProject US Television Stations, as we tend to focus more on US television stations then any other country. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 21, 2008 @ 09:32

WikiProject North American Television Stations would be even better, as Canadian television is occasionally discussed here as well. -- azumanga (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about WikiProject North American Television as we also have tv network discussions here. Powergate92Talk 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for changing the project name myself, but if we just have to, then WikiProject North American Television most closely describes the project. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Canada nor Mexico should be being lumped in with the US; the local conditions for broadcasters are significantly different in these countries. It's not just a later timetable for digital; there are huge differences in terms of concentration of ownership and in the number of actual originating stations vs. repeaters. For instance, it's possible to go through a hundred stations without finding one that is anything other than a rebroadcaster of XEW-TV. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree -- even though Canada and Mexico may have different legal standards, they should be included in this group, not only because they are frequently talked about here, but they are viewed along the border as well. And in the case of San Diego and Brownsville, they have stations focused on those cities that are based in Mexico, especially, of course, XETV. -- azumanga (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That editors on this project seem to consider XETV and XHRIO-TV to be the sum total of all Mexicano broadcasting is exactly why the non-US stations shouldn't be being lumped in with the US group. The majority of Mexico stations rebroadcast Spanish-language content from Mexico City or other large domestic sources, not Entravision content. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I stick with my recommendations -- we realise that there is more to Mexican TV than what's along the border, regardless of how many times it is discussed here. -- azumanga (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Galleries, yet again

Although this is rather a cable television station, not a OTA television station, User:Betacommand has removed a gallery of logos, citing WP:NFCC from The Movie Network. The logos aren't historical as some of the previous arguements have been about, but rather logos for seperate feeds of the television channel. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta needs to let the whole NFCC thing go. Godwin has already said galleries are OK under Fair Use, something Beta is trying to go against. Revert and warn. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 03:38

I can't warn Beta (past instance, I am not allowed), but I did revert to previous on the The Movie Network page per Godwin's "OK" of galleries. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 03:41

(Unindent) Beta has yet again removed galleries from several articles like KDKA-TV. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just galleries, all images he doesn't like, using a claim that they violate WP:NFCC#8, then if you disagree, he threatens blocking, hiding behind WP:3RR. He then insists you discuss on the station's talk page, but when he tires of the conversation, he just quits, knowing that his edits are the last on the page, and that he will have you blocked if you revert again. Actions like that make it very hard to assume good faith. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that Betacommand has been blocked several times for misinterpreting WP:NFCC. Blueboy96 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I'm trying to maintain an assumption of your good faith here, but this is seeming to be deliberately missing the point. Mike Godwin said that the images are likely legal. That is not in dispute, and I would have likely said the same thing, though of course Mike has legal credentials and experience behind his determination. However, they are not acceptable unless, in addition to being legal, they also pass all nonfree content guidelines. In the case of the galleries, they generally fail #1 and #8 at least (they are replaceable by a current logo for identification purposes, and are not otherwise essential). In the case of The Movie Network, they clearly fail #8 in that a list of stations is easily accomplished in plain text without the need for any nonfree images. This is a free content project. We require that nonfree content be kept to a minimum. "Is it legal?" is the first question we ask when determining whether to use an image, but far from the last. Mike Godwin saying the images were legal does not, in any case, make their use acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Happened to come across this after noticing some drastic changes made by betacommand to a series of station articles. There seems to be more than one place where this discussion is taking place right now and already posted a response elsewhere but thought it was worth adding my two cents where the discussion should be housed.

To clarify, Mike Godwin's response was not to answer the question of whether these logos were "legal" but how these logos are used to document historical progression over time within an article. In fairness I feel it's necessary to note that Godwin's input was specifically in response to the usage of historical logos for individual local television stations and not some broad foundation edict or general "OK for image galleries" across the project but simply an opinion from a very definitive source on the subject. I would also take issue with any one who would claim his opinion "irrelevant" to matters concerning NFCC as well as the premise stated here that "legality" and NFCC are two separate animals. Much of the NFCC itself was derived from U.S. copyright case law and was set up in such a way to simplify the vetting process for non-free images so it encompasses both legal and content objectives but is more fair-use oriented than anything else. While I can't speak for the current debate surrounding The Movie Network as this seems to revolve around logo usage for sub channels of a cable network, I wholeheartedly would be ready to debate and defend any broad NFCC challenge to the use of television station logos in a historical context as was already hashed out on this board earlier in the year. Tmore3 (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ion TV stations and Urban Television

I was on the fcc website and notice this application[1] so i added "sale to Urban Television pending" to the KPPX article but then i notice a news article on Broadcasting & Cable that says "Urban Television is seeking permission to buy share-time licenses from Ion allowing it to broadcast 24/7 on Ion's digital channels while Ion also broadcasts its existing digital station signals in the 42 TV markets where the channel will run"[2] so with should we add to the 42 ion TV stations articles about this? Powergate92Talk 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No need yet, for now it's jut a proposal by Bob Johnson to invest in Ion to get the channel space. Something in the main Ion Television article might be justified, but not in the station articles, and even then, just a mention of the subchannel it will end up on. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a really bizarre application -- completely unprecedented. I would advise against changing any articles until the Commission gives some sort of indication as to how it will proceed. (They could well decide that, since ion will own 49% of the Urban TV, and there's no filing window open for apps for new television stations, that the whole thing is a sham and reject it.) 121a0012 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The normal definition of "share-time" is directly incompatible with that of "broadcast 24/7". A share-time allocation is one where one station can transmit only during dayparts that the other is normally silent, so not 24/7 at all. If anything, this application looks like just an attempt to buy digital subchannel space, but to call it something else because additional digital subchannels don't qualify for must-carry. I wouldn't submit this to Uncyclopedia (let alone Wikipedia) as either would ordinarily expect a better quality of patented nonsense. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would this possibly be equivalent to say, the infamous time-share stations (e.g. WBAP (AM) sharing with WFAA's radio operation before the 1970's), only they keep the same call letters and have digital-ready legislation? I really don't understand what Ion and Urban Broadcasting are after here exactly, but it sounds extremely convoluted. All I know is that if this is added to the main Ion Television article, this text is going to have to be heavily sourced and highly concise, and even then the industry doesn't know what they're doing with this. Nate • (chatter) 05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet that the model being used is more that for the new television station approved for channel 43 in Sacramento. It is to be a shared-time station. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like that S-class crap they were discussing some months ago. We'll see if anything comes of it--hopefully not. I'd much rather just see leased time or something. TripEricson (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Weather Plus

Though NBC's Weather Plus has terminated national operations, there are still some stations that are carrying local weather under that brand -- mostly comprised of local ads and an ongoing radar/satellite loop. Notably, WXIA Atlanta (where I work), and at least the other Gannett stations (NBC stations in Buffalo, Cleveland, Denver, Knoxville, St. Louis, Jacksonville & Minneapolis) are still carrying this form of Weather Plus. They have not announced whether they will go with the Universal Sports product from NBC or with some other product on that digital subchannel yet. User:75.108.73.219 has been blanket removing vestages of Weather Plus from all NBC articles; I would surmise without knowledge of what is happening in each station's situation. He has a history of just making blanket changes without consultation. A warning from an admin (IMO) would be warranted... --Mhking (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new disambiguation category

(Posted concurrently at WT:WPRS and WT:TVS)

I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to call sign disambiguation pages, and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward, particularly in uncovering when new disambiguation pages are created.

In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'm proposing to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template could be used on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs in place of {{disambig}}, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles, then the same approach as is used for other dab templates would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category.

I don't see any policy problem with this, but I wanted to throw it up here for comment to see if a) members of the project see some value in this approach or, possibly more importantly, b) anyone has a violent opposition to the idea. If a=yes/b=no, then c) I'll take the idea to the folks at WP:DAB to make sure there are no concerns there either. Mlaffs (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not certain of the reason for a separate disambiguation page (likewise for {{geodis}} and {{schooldis}}), I don't see any harm in creating one either. If you want to put the work in, I say by all means do so. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

COL and Market--Again

I have been away from here for a while so my question is this. Have me now gone back to the original way of displaying COLs and Markets in the infobox of TV stations? For instance WPWR-TV is in Chicago but has a COL of Gary. So in the infobox it is seen as Gary/Chicago. But KCPQ-TV still had its display with market "Seattle" and COL below it on a different line instead of in front of the market. User:Emarsee has stated that this is how the info boxes should be done. What is the correct way? Oak999 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a point of having the COL field if it is not going to be used for stations that are licensed to suburbs of a city like KCPQ being licensed to Tacoma but serving the Seattle metro area. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)}

I believe the COL field was intended more for use by radio stations, who, if I'm not mistaken, are required to have their studios in their COL. As long as I've been a member of the project, television stations have always used the COL in the Location field and not used the COL field at all. We had a major discussion on this (see the archives) and consensus was to keep the COL in the Location field and the market would be identified by the market template at the bottom of the article. If the project feels differently now, we can change all the articles, but consensus was already reached, and IIRC, Oak999 was actually arguing your POV, but agreed to accept consensus. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Radio stations aren't required to have their studios in their COL, just within a certin distance to that COL and have a useable signal to the area. With regards to TV stations, the COL is usually the market name, it's the oddball stations licensed to the suburbs that are in question I tihnk. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually thats not all together true. All markets have stations both radio and TV that have a COL different then the major city. Such is the case with WWOR-TV and WOIO-TV WPWR-TV etc. Although most are licensed to the major city you will find in every market stations that have COL to a neighboring city. Oak999 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)