Talk:Prime Time Entertainment Network

	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.

Network Affiliates

I would like to see a list of PTEN affiliates somewhere on this article. If anyone has a list of affiliates, whether it be full or partial, it would be greatly appreciated. - HG707
I created the station affiliate table from the Chris-Craft Industries's CC Television/United TV section's station listing listing those stations that were owned by Chris-Craft during 1993-1995. If I had more station groups that were involved then we might get some more. --Spshu 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should list them all with the years of affiliation. I like seeing the list of current owner & affiliation but it seem like that is additional updating when that info can be found on current station pages. The stations pages should be updated to include PTEN affiliation and catagorized as former PTEN affiliates. Spshu 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PTEN "network" status

I added the table back to the article. It is worthy information, and PTEN is referenced in several other articles as a network leading up to The WB and UPN. Also, it is called a network in this article (including the table at the bottom of the page where it says "Major defunct broadcast networks". --myselfalso 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Myselfalso. Rollosmokes post a comment in my talk page regarding this to which I responded. He has also removed an edit to Chris-Craft Television section to which I post to his talk page that it indicates Chris-Craft was a partner in PTEN and to read my response to his post on my talk page. He also remove any mention of PTEN affiliate and programming from WWOR. He apparently never read any talk/discussion page since I reposted them as he has change them all again. --Spshu 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industry mews mentions of the day refer to PTEN as a weblet or ad-hoc network, which is the same way they referred to The WB and UPN at the time, and no one is disputing their network status. Citations are listed in the article references, and one of which can be read here. This is a mention from March of this year about MyTV, but referring to PTEN as network - specifically, "The latter began in 1993 as a potential fifth network with two hours of programming per night, aimed at a consortium of 177 affiliates covering 93% of the U.S."

Regardless of how PTEN ended up, it was intended to be a network originally until the Chris-Craft group pulled out. This is indisputable, and if someone has reason to claim otherwise, I'd like to see some citations. TheRealFennShysa 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given Rollosmokes a warning (level 2) as per Wikipedia procedures when I saw his that vandalized the article, WWOR article and Chris-Craft article. He has attacked me at my own talk page for what he is doing ie. "ownership of article" and "Proving a point". His sole proof is his stating that "PTEN is NOT A NETWORK" and ignores everything I write. I would leave another warning (3rd level) given his additional reversions per the procedure but he states I am not an administrator. But that is the next step to get an administrator involved. Spshu 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The latter began in 1993 as a potential fifth network...Regardless of how PTEN ended up, it was intended to be a network originally....

Intentions and potentials are not reality. If they were, anyone who ever contemplated entering a pre-med program at university would have been granted an MD. PTEN was never a full-fledged network regardless of what its creators had planned for it; entertainment publications and blogs, given the rather lax standards of entertainment journalism, are not definitive sources. What you are asking is that this article stand with less than acceptable sources until someone finds acceptable sources to back up the contrary. That's absurd. It is YOU who need to find reliable sources to back up your assertions. I've already found that one of the "affiliates" you've listed never in fact identified itself as such, and I'm confident that the same is true of all the rest. The following is from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PTEN:

It is not the same class of animal as The WB and UPN, despite your assertion to the contrary. Those two had standardized programming grids that were shared by all carrier stations, and all carrier stations identified themselves as affiliates, and the contractual arrangement was similar to that of "mainstream" broadcast nets like NBC, ABC, etal. PTEN had none of this.

12.233.146.130 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not so sure that PTEN deserves to be noted as a television network. Reason being that I am from Charlotte, home to WJZY, and I never recalled it identifying itself as a PTEN affiliate. In my book, PTEN and MyNetworkTV are lumped in the same boat--glorified syndication models.Blueboy96 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the discussion else were -- MyTalk Page, WP:TS PTEN? What is the bench mark for networks that

is cover in those talk pages's PTEN sections. Even Fox, UPN, WB and the CW could not even make the most strick Network metric. I had a local station that was the affiliate --although secondary -- for UPN and the WB and did not advertise those affiliations. Considering that PTEN was run by Warner Bros.'s syndication arm and the large number of Fox affiliates signing on with secondary affiliations, there may have been a wait and see what happens with branding the station as a PTEN affiliate amongs the former independent stations. The PTEN logo was attached to the shows, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that a PTEN affiliate had to brand itself as one either. Spshu 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing this referred to a "programming package" or "programming showcase" during its lifetime. The concept was similar to Universal's Action Pack. The Washington, DC, "affiliate" also never identified itself as such. That station's article even states that, "Prior to 1995, WDCA was an independent station." 1995 was the year WDCA began identifying itself as a UPN affiliate, which it was and remained until UPN folded. It is now a MyNetworkTV affiliate. By inference, WDCA was not an affiliate because PTEN was a "network" in name only. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki run sites are not consider reliable source as any one can edit them and TV Tropes indicate that they don't care about have any sources (hence my snipping it out). Second go see the discussion about the legal definition of TV Networks in regards to PTEN on my talk page. Note that I have a source standard programming grid in the article. PTEN has the problem of many affiliations were secondary thus breaking the standard programming time. Some of the PTEN article sources called it a Weblet just as Fox, UPN and WB have been called before. With many secondary affiliates many did not identity themselves as an PTEN affiliate, others perhaps as a wait and see how PTEN does.

Additional discussion regarding at WikiProject Television Stations's Archive 5 indicated that the broadcast industry indicated it is a weblet, and meets the definition of a TV Network. it isn't up to us to decide or remember what PTEN's status is but to find sources.

Your memory of what you heard during PTEN run doesn't consitute a reliable source, nor citing an unsource sentence from WDCA's Wikipedia article. There isn't a good source for who where PTEN affiliates except for some posts on a newsgroup (now apart of Google Groups) and Stations seem to be solely focus on the future and discard and station history for the most part (and not consider a reliable source but a reason source lacking any others).

It was again rehashed at WikiProject Television Stations' Archive 6: PTEN and came to conclusion that PTEN was a network. Spshu (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PTEN status determined

For future editors: PTEN status as a network was discussed multiple times at WikiProject Television Stations:

These all concluded that PTEN was a minor network that colapsed into a syndicator. Please do not disrupt the PTEN's or affiliate stations' article.Spshu (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CW

It seems that the successors, The WB and UPN which merged to become The CW is the reincarnation of PTEN -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WB and UPN are not direct successors, just the networks that launched forcing PTEN out of the network distribution model as their station group defected to the two new networks. WB's syndication/distribution arm founded PTEN with CCI's United TV (& other station group, United was considered the main group), which then moved on to UPN (United owned UPN outright the first year, 50% in the second & 0% later on). United TV was purchased by Fox in 2000. WB TV production arm formed The WB with Tribune (and repeatedly tried to get PTEN to be canceled) and overlapped from 1995 to 1997.

With CBS taking over the UPN & its merger with the WB, the CW does not reunited the former United TV with WB TV Distribution. The former United TV stations owned by Fox, having lost their affiliation with UPN, formed the O&O stations of MyNetworkTV, Fox's second network run by its station group. So the ownership of PTEN and the CW don't even closely align enough to claim reincarnation of PTEN. Spshu (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]