Talk:CIVT-DT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vancouver (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is not specific to any one area of Vancouver.
WikiProject Television Stations (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television stations 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Wikipedia convention is that TV station articles go at their call sign, regardless of whether there's a more common brand name for the station. Bearcat 04:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are cases where "convention" can contradict reality, and this is one of them. Nobody, I repeat, nobody, other than TV nuts, uses the name CIVT to refer to this station. Yet here we are calling it exclusively CIVT to the point where a made-up logo was passed off as the official one. I would have moved CHAN too except that BCTV was already used as a redirect. Using callsigns might work for stations in the USA, but in Canada, where stations do not have to identify by callsign at all, it is a stretch to mandate their usage on Wikipedia. Kirjtc2 04:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a stretch; there has to be some consistency in naming. We can't have some of the articles in Category:Canadian television stations listed by call letters and some listed by on-air brand names, because that just makes Wikipedia look poorly organized. And unless you're planning to change the title of every single broadcast station in Canada that uses a brand name rather than its official call letters, there's no reason for BC CTV to be the isolated exception. Bearcat 04:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I don't imagine Bearcat's proposing (or anybody would propose) that BC CTV not exist as a title. I'm sure the question is just whether BC CTV should redirect to CIVT, or vice-versa. The question is just about the canonical name of the station. My thoughts:

  • I haven't seen any actual policy myself, but all the usage I've seen, in Canada, suggests Bearcat is right on precedent.
  • Basing titling in some cases on commercial branding would lead to unintended consequences. BC CTV is a charmed example since it's named quite uniquely. Imagine the mess of moving Global station articles: CIII to Global (Ontario) [not even "Global Ontario": it's hardly ever called that], CKND (which was known as CKND for 23 years) to Global (Manitoba) - or Global Manitoba? - etc. And except for the mandatory identification, most American stations use commercial branding over call signs too: so hello WCBS-TV to CBS 2 (New York), WBBM-TV to CBS 2 (Chicago), KGAN-TV to CBS 2 (Cedar Rapids) - but KCBS-TV for CBS channel 2 in Los Angeles, since that's what they're using now; see Google results.
  • The station is known as CIVT to the CRTC: in proceedings, on it's license and license renewals, in ownership reports, etc., to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, etc. But it's not just "TV nuts." It's CIVT in the Canada Gazette, as canonical a publication as you can get in this country. If you were going to the library to look up the station, you'd go to a broadcast reference that would list it primarily as CIVT; BC CTV would be a secondary cross-reference (like a redirect) if it would be listed at all. Even Canadian Advertising Rates and Data, the reference of record to all media, print, broadcast, Internet, outdoor, flyer packets, etc. - even though it's written entirely by and for marketing people, and fairly lazily edited (it still listed the Pelmorex Radio Network when I checked last year!) uses call letters.
  • Finally, and specific this station: BC CTV as a brand emerged in late 2001. This is about a station that was licensed in the mid-90s and went to air in 97 under another brand. But this article is about a station that, over its whole life, has been consistently known as CIVT. On the same basis, I wouldn't want CKVU to move to Citytv Vancouver - though a redirect from Citytv Vancouver, as Bearcat himself created in February of last year (to Citytv, later moved by User:Rdash to go to CKVU), is great.

BC CTV should exist, and redirect to CIVT. Vancouver Television could also redirect there, and VTV, which will eventually be a disambiguation page, could point to it too. Samaritan 06:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made these changes, as of now. Samaritan 09:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The arguments made here are prefectly valid, but CTV British Columbia (and I'd go so far as to say the Global stations as well) are an exception to this rule. Unlike the USA, stations in Canada brand themselves in a totally different manner, and many use on-air IDs to the point where the average Canadian could not tell you what their call letters are. In fact, when someone comes to Wikipedia for info on this station, I can assure you that they'll be searching for BC CTV or CTV British Columbia, NOT CIVT. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but this is something people should consider before blindly making CIVT the main article. And to make a final point, would one expect to put **every** television station documented on Wikipedia under their call letters? Are we going to suddenly start pointing BBC affiliates to their G*** call letters? What about Australian stations? I doubt that even TVGeeks in those countries can tell you a BBC affiliate call letter without first thinking about it. Snickerdo 16:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point is that BBC affiliates are consistently named under the same format as each other, American TV stations are consistently named under the same format as each other, Australian TV stations are consistently named under the same format as each other, and therefore Canadian TV stations have to be consistently named under the same format as each other. And besides, it's hardly as though someone who searched on BC CTV would come up blank; this whole thing is about which name should be the actual article versus which one should be a redirect to the other article. Both titles will get you to the same article anyway, so it all boils down to whether consistency of naming within Category:Canadian television stations matters or not. To me, it does. YMMV. Bearcat 22:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then why are ATV and MCTV listed there? If consistancy is so important, why haven't we created individual articles for them? Snickerdo 00:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MCTV does have individual articles (see CICI, CITO, CKNY, CHBX). I did them myself. As for ATV, I don't know enough about the stations to write up detailed pages, but I'll stub them now. The only reason there aren't already separate pages is because nobody's written separate pages yet. Bearcat 01:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ATV has individual articles too (CKCW, CKLT, CJCH, and CJCB). CIVT is just CIVT Vancouver (and Lower Mainland), and cable in the rest of British Columbia.
And anyway, considering the number of times I've seen people try to create articles on "Fox 25" or "CBS 2" or some similar nickname for an American broadcast station, I can assure you that many Americans couldn't name the call letters of most of their broadcast stations, either. You're overstating the difference between Canada and the US in this regard - legal identification or no, there's not nearly as much difference as you'd think. Legal ID doesn't actually mean that the station has to call itself WPIX in every context; it just means that the station has to broadcast its call letters a set number of times per day. Most stations actually use a big "Fox25"/"CBS2"-type brand name logo and voice-over, with the call letters appearing as rarely as they can get away with, and usually in fine print to boot. This is about as close to identical to the Canadian situation as it's possible to get under an officially different regulation system, needless to say. Bearcat 02:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Considering that all six Canadian Networks on the lower mainland are owned and operated by the network itself, I don't think it matters too much. None of the five networks from the US that I get are like this. KOMO, KING, KIRO, KCTS and KAYU are all owned by smaller groups not affiliated with their networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 01:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The "BC CTV" logo was used for a brief time in 2001-2002. Currently, CIVT uses a dark-greyed CTV logo during it's newscasts. Also, The "BC CTV" logo, for a small period time was display on the building's exterior, and now there is the regular CTV logo there. Shouldn't this wiki page reflect "current logo"? On another note, the logo that is used on CHAN's wiki page is not what's used on air. Xm2631 03:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC) is not the logo that station uses

Slogan?[edit]

I don't know if you would consider "British Columbia's watching CTV channel 9" a slogan (although they don't say British Columbia, they insert a random Lower Mainland community in its place). I would think so. Would you?

i think that their slogan could be "Your Home, Your News, Channel 9", but for "BC's watching CTV etc.", I haven't heard that one

  • "Your Home, Your News" is the slogan for CTV News in BC, but not the channel itself. The "______'s watching CTV channel 9" comes frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 00:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-civt-old.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Logo-civt-old.jpg 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 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 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-civt-old.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Logo-civt-old.jpg 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 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 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When CIVT goes off air,[edit]

I see the following:

  • The network only signs after movie nights at 04:30 (or later, depending on how long the movie was). It signs on at 05:01. Strangely enough, this off-air period is between two infomercials (Unless the midnight movie finishes later than 04:30). However, it appears to have signed on at 06:00 on Sept. 8th (before actual programming).
  • In addition to the cameras, background music plays from a specific random number of music files. In most cases, it starts with the first music file. In other cases, it starts at the song after the one where it left off. In the odd few cases, no music plays at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 01:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
  • Something not too important, it uses the "O Canada" ID that CBC Television used before becoming 24-hour. This ID is also used on SCN (as of August 20th or earlier).

Does anybody know if the network signed off before CBC became 24-hour? Or even as an independent channel for that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 00:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, this section might not be necessary anymore. It appears that CIVT might no longer sign off at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.175.143 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, this must have been just a schedule followed by a different CTV affiliate. CIVT still signs off at night. That could be disregarded.

This is only for people who receive CIVT as a cable exclusive.[edit]

Unlike CBUT, I hardly see any advertisements for Vancouver's local businesses on CIVT. The only exceptions that I see are ads for businesses that sponsor closed-captioning and ads for the "CTV Store". Interestingly enough, there are ads that are normally seen only on Canadian cable channels. Some are also seen on American cable channels when the feed is "temperarily broken" to air Canadian services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.178.21 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Civt01vtvid.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Civt01vtvid.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Civt04.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Civt04.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Civtbcctvnews.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Civtbcctvnews.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Civtv01news.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Civtv01news.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Civtvanlive6.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Civtvanlive6.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible attention diversion because of 9/11?[edit]

Of course the 2001 realignment meant that CTV no longer available over-the-air across most of BC as of September 1st, 2001. It was only 10 days before the World Trade Center attacks. It was a diversion from something financially inconvenient to the consumer to something that was socially serious. Did this actually create a drastic diversion of attention to the fact that CTV is mostly cable only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.251.117 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If CTV were the only Canadian television network in operation, it might have, I suppose. But it isn't. Nobody in Canada lacked for coverage of 9/11, put it that way. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CTV logo.svg[edit]

The image Image:CTV logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Over-the-air details could use a lot more information[edit]

I don't think the details about the transmitter on Mount Seymour are clear enough. If it was just Vancouver and Victoria served, then that means the transmitter is at a tilt. Otherwise, it would have been located in the water. If it is straight, then it would presumably be available in numerous other areas. Users in any of the following areas! Do you receive CIVT over-the-air? Just edit this section by typing Yes or No.

  • Nanaimo:
  • Abbotsford:
  • Chilliwack:
  • Hope:
  • Tofino/Ucluelet:
  • Port Alberni:
  • Powell River:
  • Comox:
  • Squamish:
  • Whistler:

Boldface regions could answer some non-boldface regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechamind90 (talkcontribs) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your logic makes sense. The terrain has a lot to do with people being able to recieve CIVT. TVfool is the closest thing to a accurate couture map, and of the places listed, only northern Victoria, Nanaimo to Parksville, Metro Vancouver, Abbotsford and Bellingham would be able to recieve an adequate signal of CIVT, all of the other places would get static on 32. I could take a screenshot of what I mean. Emarsee (TalkContribs) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak link until fall 2011 only?[edit]

I am of the understanding that the vast majority of repeater stations, such as the one run by CHAN-TV, will not be replaced with digital transmitters.

If this is the case, CIVT-TV will not be as weak of a link, though definitely still weak if it does not eventually build transmitters in places like Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops and such. Other CTV affiliates (and Global Vancouver itself) will also probably be stripped of repeater stations rather than convert them to digital.

However, it is equally possible that the vast majority of repeater stations will continue to operate until equipment breaks down and cannot be repaired, but transmitting the originating station's signal in analog form only, a form that I understand DTV receivers are still capable of receiving. GBC (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)