Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



{{TVF}} has been nominated for deletion. This is an external link template to a site that provides a TV station signal strength map -- (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York

FYI. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Current on-air staff lists redux

I've had issues with the application of these lists, as I'm sure have many other editors. As it stands, these lists mainly exist right now at the level of article filler. In the market I'm in, the stations generally see turnover in their on-air staff which exceeds the willingness of anyone to actually keep the article updated. I certainly don't care enough to spend that much time watching every newscast just to keep track of every single person who winds up staying long enough for a cup of coffee. Arguably, the top station in the state is KTUU-TV, and as such should be my top priority amongst television station articles. The most recent edit changed the morning weather guy, yet kept Daniel Fiorucci in the article, in spite of this, this, this and this, all of which took next to no effort to search for. In March of this year, a "respected editor" removed the name of Steve MacDonald from the article, declaring him to be non-notable or possibly some other excuse (boilerplate edit summary). Two things regarding that. Last I checked, notability guidelines state that someone can be mentioned in an article if they are notable within the context of the article's subject. Steve MacDonald has worked in television news in Anchorage for over thirty years. You're telling me that he's not notable within the context of the stations he's worked for? Yes, I am calling bullshit. Second, there is currently no mention of him at all in the article, despite the fact that he's listed on the news team roster page. Even though his name was removed from the article in March for supposedly not being relevant to the topic of the station, I took a bunch of photos of him at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center in late August conducting airchecks or on-air interviews. Many of these photos rather prominently show him with a KTUU microphone in his hand. This causes me to ask "What exactly is the purpose of these lists?" It reminds me all too well of that famous quote from Casey Kasem: "Just a lot of wasted names that don't mean diddly-shit." RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these list are article fillers, one of the factors in the subchannels not looking like the permastubs that they currently are. I think it makes the article seem complete to those editors that add them, after all a TV station with news programming is original programming and are the face of the station. Also, the fact that general a TV Station's articles are consider reliable source, but fail to note that using the TV Station's station information is self source which should seldom be used. Those that should be listed are those that get cover by other media outlets. RE: Steve MacDonald, more than a bunch of photos at some con. center is needed for notability of station staff. Just find a reliable source about him by another media outlet and use ref./cite. I got ripped up one side and down the other (by an IP editor no less) for removing a bunch of stuff that was either self-sourced or wasn't sourced in a station article dispite finding some general sources for most of the article and left cite needed for other events that seemed likely to have accured. I think that we should edit the TVS page to indicate more clearly that the staff listed should be notable, ie. cover by other media outlets. I guess we could compromise with just listing the prime time news anchors (including sports and weather) plus all other notables, not the full reporter list. Spshu (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with such lists (just as it is with radio) is that the names generally don't mean diddly-squat to anyone who isn't already a viewer of the station. Since I don't live in Anchorage, for instance, the name "Steve MacDonald" means absolutely nothing to me, with the result that simply listing his name as a staff member of the station, with no further information about him, simply isn't telling me anything useful. The list thus serves no purpose besides being (a) filler and (b) localized marketing, neither of which is the role of an encyclopedia.
On radio stations, the formal rule is that it's okay to add content to an article that describes the station's programming in more depth, but not to just add a contextless list of hosts' names -- however, in actual practice, people constantly try to readd the staff lists and it takes constant vigilance (often more than it's actually worth) to keep the articles consistent with the rules. Some people, for instance, interpret the rule as being that formatting the names as a bulleted list is the only thing that's verboten, whereas reformatting the list in sentence format instead is just fine and dandy -- except that such a paragraph is still just a meaningless pile of names that mean nothing to anyone who isn't already a fan of the station, and such paragraphs almost invariably strike a "From 9 a.m. to noon it's Jackie Jackson bringing you the latest hits" marketing tone that has absolutely no business being anywhere near a properly written encyclopedia.
The problem on TV stations, of course, is that it's a lot more difficult to describe the programming in any particularly meaningful way, as newscasts just don't tend to vary all that dramatically in their format -- so there's really no viable territory in between "contextless list of names" and "no names at all". In principle, I agree that TV station articles generally should only list past or present staff members who actually have sufficient notability to qualify for their own separate Wikipedia articles; however, given that we have a hard enough time keeping radio stations clean even with a third option in place, I don't know how we could actually enforce that on TV stations with any degree of success. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WPSG Infobox_Broadcast call_letters changed to official FCC call sign WPSG-TV 22:33, 25 October 2012 (diff)

Should now Wikipedia article WPSG (diff) be rename/moved to official FCC call sign WPSG-TV (per article Naming conventions (broadcasting) use the official call sign)? There are some other WPSG text references that also should probably be changed to WPSG-TV. Bob08033 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing changed as far as I see; it still is just WPSG on the FCC site. All the FCC did was change their page format for call queries into the modern age. So no changes should be rendered. Nate (chatter) 23:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I see why you could've been misdirected; one of those nagging IP socks, (talk · contribs · WHOIS), decided to change a bunch of things without consensus or the research to back it up and this time their target was CBS's CW stations. All have been rolled back to previous versions with the errors removed. Next time you see something like that, especially from an IP, go back and check previous edits; if they're a bunch of stations edited within a period of hours, it's usually a safe call that it's one of our usual IP sockpuppet friends trying to make a mess of things. Remember also; always go by the official FCC page for the station for calls. Nate (chatter) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The station's call sign hasn't changed; viz., CDBS. 121a0012 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Notability of TV station subchannel articles

While the level of participation is a bit thin to be ideal, there is nevertheless consensus that subchannels that do not independently meet the GNG should not have articles. There are also arguments put forward that even those that do may not warrant articles, but no clear consensus on that matter. — Coren (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am starting this RFC as suggested by User:Nyttend in there closing comment of a discussion above about this. User:Spshu, a few other editors, and I believe that TV station subchannel articles that do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore do not meet WP:Notability#General notability guideline, and in some cases are unsourced, such as WHSV-DT2, therefore not meeting WP:Verifiability as well, should not have articles and should be covered in main station article. User:Neutralhomer believes that those TV station subchannels should have articles because they "airs programming that is unique to just that station, along with newscasts and other local programming," and meet WP:Notability because "if the main channel is notable, then the subchannel enjoys the same notability." This Request for Comment is to get outside input on which is correct. Powergate92Talk 05:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(notice post at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television & Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard --Spshu (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC))
There are other editors who believe that they are notable as well, not just me. - NeutralhomerTalk • 11:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I should mention that I will NOT be participating in this little RFC outside of this:
Subchannels of ThisTV, AntennaTV, MeTV, The Cool TV, or other "simulcaster" networks are not notable unless they are also affiliated with a larger network like FOX or CBS. An example of this would be WBBJ-DT3, which has a primary affiliation with CBS and a secondary affiliation with MeTV, while also carrying syndicated programming.
Subchannels affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the CW (NOT counting The CW Plus as it is a satellite version of the network and a pure simulcast across different markets), and MyNetworkTV are notable. The reason is that TV subchannels are a seperate entity of the main station, but operate on the main station's signal. The main station already enjoys inherent notability (it's established by consensus from AfDs and WP:BROADCAST) so the subchannel would also be notable since it operates on that main station's signal (ie: WXXX-DT2 is part of the signal of main station WXXX).
Subchannels that have programming and affiliations that are unique to that station and that station alone, that broadcast market exclusive programming (ie: newscasts, syndicated programming, sports games, locally-produced shows, etc.) are notable.
As I discribed above: A different way of putting all this would be the same as the rules for radio stations (under WP:BROADCAST) that cover translator stations. Subchannels that carry Antenna TV, MeTV and the like would be the same as translator radio stations or stations that simulcast networks like K-LOVE with no local involvement. K-LOVE affiliate stations (or other networks like that) aren't notable if they don't have any local involvement, local programming. So, in TV, think of subchannels with MeTV as radio stations with K-LOVE programming. Think of subchannels with local involvement, local programming, market exclusive programming, like stations such as KIIS-FM in LA. Local programming, local involvement, it's notable.
Beyond that, this is just going to be a rehashing of the same crap over and over and over and over ad naseum and my psychologist warned me about the whole rehashing the past and he said it is a bad thing. Folks who rehash the past will be stuck at that point and one should move on from that should we. We should move on from this constant rehashing of the same thing, the same "is this notable?", accept the consensus from two different discussions (one at ANI and one at Talk:WNEM-DT2) and move on. That it is why I choose not to participate in this. If anyone needs any clarification of what I have said above in the green or in previous threads or has a question, please see my talk page as I will be de-watchlist'ing this page after I post this. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 11:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You're now saying that there is consensus at ANI, can you provide a link this ANI thread you're talking about as I can't find an ANI thread where there is a consensus that TV station subchannel articles that do not meet WP:Notability#General notability guideline should have articles. As for the discussion at Talk:WNEM-DT2/Archive 1#Nomination for deletion and merge with WNEM-TV, User:Drmies said in their closing comment "there clearly is no consensus." The only consensus is the weak consensus against you above per User:Nyttend closing comment "I have to say that there's a weak consensus here against the notability of subchannels that aren't demonstrated to have substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other." As well, consensus can change. Powergate92Talk 17:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
My views remain the same as I expressed before (in the big long purple bit above). Subchannels may or may not be notable, depending on what sort of evidence is available for claims about them specifically, independent of the station as a whole; as U.S. licensees are free to operate as many subchannels as they wish, subject only to technical limits, with whatever programming they want, and no approval from any regulator is required, it cannot be presumed that subchannels are automatically notable, regardless of their programming or their parent station. 121a0012 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Responding to the RfC, I think basing this on technical notability is irrelevant; not everything notable enough by the rules to justify a separate article ought to have one, and the WP:N page is pretty clear about that. Combining articles is a matter of style, and the emphasis should be on the readability and usefulness to the reader, and secondarily to some extent on our ability to maintain them. I know the people working on these articles aren't writing promotionally, and trying to get as many articles possible for commercial reasons. But I just don't seethe usefulness. Each article has an associated overhead of listing in categories and boxes, and maintaining links,, and the less of it we do, the more we can do on improving article content. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. While this isn't so much a problem with this project, with other projects I'm more involved in, we seem to have a real problem with editors who desire to create as many articles as they possibly can (like it's a contest or something?) without regard for usefulness to the reader, often to the point of producing articles which are nothing more than parroted database entries (from GNIS, Political Graveyard, on and on ad nauseum). The other main problem seems to be lack of regard for whether or not these articles languish for so long that they epitomize WP:PERMASTUB. These editors are a lot quicker to defend their useless creations than they are to make any effort to improve them. The occasional discussion comes across my watchlist about how these same editors become blocked or banned or retire because other editors attempt to make it clear that they can't have it their way all the time.
As for this project? The main problem I seem to have pertaining to various station articles I follow is with recent successive edits turning the article further in the direction of being a commercial for the current owner, often at the expense of properly representing the station's history. KTUU-TV is particularly troublesome, as it is the top television station in my state. Schurz Communications has little relevance to the station's overall picture beyond being the current owner. I'm waiting with baited breath for someone to tell me that we can't mention Al Bramstedt in that article "because he's not notable." I really hope not. If someone is that unfamiliar with the television industry, they really have no business editing television station articles.
This may represent a tangent, but I already made plenty of previous comments on the subject at hand. I've seen state public affairs networks covered as a separate topic before, possibly by C-SPAN but I forget exactly. I haven't researched how 360 North could be or not be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, but common sense tells me that with the extent of original and unique programming they regularly carry, including and particularly in covering notable events, how the hell could it not be.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
"The reason is that TV subchannels are a seperate entity of the main station, but operate on the main station's signal." But so is the accounting department but we don't do an article about them. Notability is not inherited. If these are so important entities then why are there any blank subchannels (not currently carrying any programming)?
Neutralhomer's so call "simulcaster" networks are so simulcast as I get in two Living Well Networks and they don't have the same advertisers particularly the infomercial and they advertise programming on their main channel and their other subchannel.
RadioKAOS, while the subchannel articles are PERMASTUB, editors pad the article with information from the main article or from the stations webpage like news and weather staff. They end up as content forks of the main article to make it look like it isn't a Permstub. All a subchannel adds to the station article is what programming was and/or is on that subchannel. The subchannel articles read like this: "KXXX-D2 is a TV station owned by XXX Station Group. KXXX-D2 is subchannel of KXXX." This is clearly contridicatory. If it at all involves UPN, WB, CW or MyNetworkTV then the article's history section gets a full paragraph resummarizing the UPN/WB merger when a wikilink with in a sentence to 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment would do. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I also think subchannels that cannot independently pass the WP:GNG requirements should be merged to the main channels' articles. It's a straightforward guideline that should be followed in these cases. I'd said this a few months ago and see others saying it: notability is not inherited; splitting subchannels off complicates things organizationally as well. —Torchiest talkedits 19:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
One other point, in response to the uniqueness of the subchannels: that is not a valid argument for notability; it seems like such an argument could be used to say that the various editions of a book should have separate articles, for example, if there have been minor changes between them, as each has unique text, or that different album releases should have separate articles if that have different track lists. —Torchiest talkedits 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I glanced at a couple of subchannel articles, and it doesn't seem like a "one size fits all" rule would be a good idea. Any "mandatory" rule would be problematic: articles are always okay; or are never okay. Each should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If there are few or no sources devoted to the subchannel, then the article would probably be better merged into a parent article. But I can imagine a particular subchannel that does meet the WP notability articles (although I haven't seen one yet). On the other hand, it is a good idea for the project participants to establish guidelines that can be followed in the future, to minimize repeats of the same discussions over and over. Regarding the one article that is named and has no sources, WP:BURDEN says that such articles can be deleted, although it is considered good form to try to find sources before doing so. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
While no one is stated a "one size fits all" rule in their argument, the pro-subchannel side has edit warred just over the addition of notability tags to allow editors to make the case (sourcing) for that article to continue. They want some special rule that changes the general procedure from must prove notability to automatic notability for most subchannels. This has been discussed nine times just on the TVS talk page, however this has not been enough for the pro-subchannel side and their primary spokesperson in his haste to hound me he got the last discussion closed by an administrator. This forced this discussion and with the lack of responses, I suppect we will be here again in a few months (as he will declare no consensus, stale discussion, or what ever). --Spshu (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, I see seven editors basically agreeing that subchannels have to meet WP:GNG on their own, and are not automatically notable. DGG's view is that even if they are notable, they might still not warrant a separate article. Seems like a decent-sized consensus to me. —Torchiest talkedits 18:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There were total 7 editors (5 for GNG, 2 for major network subch. auto notability) in the previous discussion and that was marked as "weak consensus" by an administrator. Any ideas on how to increase the number of editors responding with out seeming to canvass incorrectly? --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Only one person disagrees in this discussion, which seems like strong consensus to me. Perhaps post a note at WP:ANRFC and see what happens. —Torchiest talkedits 15:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I might try to get more editors to weigh in on the subject.
While Neutralhomer has included NBC Nonstop's local articles (NBC California Nonstop, NBC Chicago Nonstop, NBC DFW Nonstop, NBC New York Nonstop, NBC Philadelphia Nonstop) in the edit warring over subchannels, I would like to know whether I can safely consider the Nonstop discuss to be fully covered by this discussion. These articles did not meet GNG so I attempted to role all those article into one article about the channel format so they could meet GNG and others for other reasons wanted to merger, which he objected to. --Spshu (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't need a separate topic-specific notability guideline; that means we would have two rules on notability (the GNG plus the topic-specific one), leading to much drama later on. Either a subject passes the GNG or it doesn't; assess each subject against the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advisory to WP:TVS members

I'm currently working on 1994 United States broadcast TV realignment with hopes it can get G or FA status. I need help with fixing the organization of the article and adding more info and references. Feel free to edit there anytime. I would also appreciate a peer review being set up for these purposes. Thank you, Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, Fairly, at bringing several articles up to snuff. And thanks for your work on this article (and the peer review) as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Fairlyoddparents1234 for bringing this up here, as I didn't know that article existed. Anyway, I added 6 references to the article, and I will add more as I find them. Powergate92Talk 06:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Need to get it up to B status first as it is at C class now. And you should not be able to get it to FA status based on the current NFCC as you will not be allowed to have any images in it. --Spshu (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on O&Os

A day ago, I was involved with an edit war on KNSD with User:Spshu. This has let me to ask this WikiProject to clarify a point here: What constitutes an owned-and-operated station? Does it have to be entirely owned by an organization affiliated with the network itself? Because Spshu deleted the fact that KNSD is an NBC O&O. On WP, should we display any station that is owned more than 50% by the network as an O&O, and anything less than that as an affiliate? We need rules that determine if a station is an afffil. or an O&O. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That was not what the problem on KNSD was about. It was about you duplicating the Station Venture Holdings (SVH) subarticle with in KNSD. The SVH subarticle makes it clear that they are O&O stations but we have no proper source there. We need no "rule" in such a special case except for a independent reliable source. Spshu (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe User:Neutralhomer could post his views on O&O identification. Even though I do agree partly with you, I think it is better to tell users at the article directly that KNSD is an O&O, for clarification purposes. And at KXAS-TV, please say that NBCUniversal and LIN Media participate in a joint venture. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 22:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe Fairlyoddparents1234 is correct here. The source Fairlyoddparents1234 cited [1] (page 4) clearly says "own and operate." Yes, that is a primary source, but, per the primary sources policy, can still be used as long as it's "been reliably published" and is used with "only with care." As well, I agree with Fairlyoddparents1234 that it should be noted in the station articles that Station Venture Holdings is a a joint venture between NBCUniversal and LIN Media. Powergate92Talk 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Correct about what? He and I were talking past each other but he wished to turn the matter into a dust up with reporting me and all. I did not see a reason to duplicate the Station Venture Holdings subarticle while he was concerted with noting O&O status. Also, Fairlyoddparents1234 is naming Station Venture Operations, LP as the owning joint venture (not Station Venture Holdings) when it is the licensee and operator not owner. So I don't see his claim of an LMA exists at [[2] his source (atleast on page 4]. Guess I general try to stay away from primary sources give the potential issues, but I did request a page number from him give that it is 239 pages long. I could see a statement at the stations articles like this: "... is a NBC O&O station is owned by Station Venture Holdings, a NBCU JV..." Thus the reader can click through to see the details of the JV (ownership % and JV partner there) but still justify the O&O tag with the article. Of course the placement of the stations into the JV would be covered in the station history too. Spshu (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
He is correct in saying that they are "owned-and-operated station of the NBC television network," and that it should be said in the article that Station Venture Holdings is a a joint venture between NBCUniversal and LIN Media. Also, none of the sources cited say that Station Venture Holdings owns the stations, just that Station Venture Operations is a subsidiary of Station Venture Holdings. How about we say this in the articles "... is an owned-and-operated station of the NBC television network held through Station Venture Operations, L.P., a subsidiary of Station Venture Holdings, LLC (a joint venture between NBCUniversal and LIN Media)." Powergate92Talk 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for seeking clarification. Partial ownership of a station has been considered an O&O relationship by the FCC, as early as the 1950s (see the Paramount/ABC/DuMont dispute for details. Television today would be very different if partial owners weren't considered owners and operators. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am very pleased to announce that with the current revisions of the articles in question, their O&O status have been left intact. Remember folks, the FCC can slap O&O status on any station owned in snippets by the network (Tribune held a minority stake in The WB, yet their stations were considered O&Os), so have a discussion here on whether or not we should call it an O&O or an Affiliate. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured List Candidate

I intend to send List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States to Featured List Candidates in the next week or so. Any last-minute observations? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal names for those typographical symbols you use are "dagger" and "double dagger", at least in my experience, not "cross" and "diesis". Also, you might want to repeat the key at the bottom of the table, which is where I expected to find it. 121a0012 (talk)
Thanks for taking a look, 121. Per your good suggestions, I've moved the key to the bottom of the table and changed the wording from "cross" to "dagger". However, Wikipedia's article on dagger (typography) indicates 'diesis' is a legitimate name for ‡. I've never heard 'double dagger' used, myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
We should also discuss how the articles are linked. For accuracy purposes, I propose to see all stations with an "ancient" callsign get their current calls mentioned in a new "now" section like in the DuMont list. Should fix all problems that could arouse from anyone who doesn't recognize a sign (it be better to mention WPVI-TV alongside WFIL-TV; the latter redirects to the former anyway). Also, what about the Crosley stations? While I do understand the need to place a hyphen between WLW and the last letter (that's what Crosley did), I best think that for accuracy purposes that the FCC-official callsign without a hyphen (WLWT vs WLW-T) best illustrates the stations. As for the FLC listing, do it soon. I failed on a peer review. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg C 03:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Station slogans

I'm bringing this up because it could be a potential problem: on the WVIT article, a user called Radiodj1520 added a slew of unreferenced, supposed station slogans. From what I have witnessed here, station slogans have been considered to be fancruft and non-notable. I deleted the section added by Radiodj1520. Two weeks later, Cowbert readded the section. When I deleted the information again, Arctic Kangaroo intervened, reversed the edit, and suggested it goes to the talk page. Fine, I'm good with that -- except he tagged me for "edit warring." Aside from the fact that there is no edit war involved here, I have been trying to get both sides to see that this information is not useful in these articles.

I don't know if anyone wants to contribute to this thread, but comments are welcome. Other Side One (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting them all. It's probably one of the three or four socks that always loves adding these 'network default' slogans (as I've said in the past, these were only used in the past to fill a minute of dead airtime, which now gets fitted with a Hydroxytone ad or its ilk). I will state it clearly that they deserve reversion by placing a notice on AK's page; we don't need the network default slogans (and the only sourcing for them in the first place is YouTube or station advertising in TV guides). Nate (chatter) 06:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Television Stations in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Television Stations for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Phoenix TV

It seems like the Template:Phoenix TV navbox is extremely cluttered. I'm thinking on separating the English and Spanish stations within the Metro Phoenix into separate sections in the navbox. (Template:NYC TV looks similar to my reorganization result, minus the outliers. Would you let me go ahead? Drop your comments and further suggestions below this message. P.S.: Congrats on the Signpost interview! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg C 22:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cripes, that template is a MESS. Do whatever it takes, dude. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Station slogans... again

Hello everyone. I am calling out to all folks who edit TV station articles on this project. In the articles, usually one of the subjects is "Station Slogans". Often times one will see "localized version of CBS/NBC/ABC/CW/FOX/whatever network ad campaign" with dates. As far as I know, the consensus reached on this previously was that these "localized" slogans aren't notable, as they are network wide. If you spot them, please remove them while keeping the other slogans intact. I have gone through over a dozen articles today doing this. Is this the correct procedure, or did I just do a lot of work for nothing? Input is requested, thanks! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 20:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work for sure. I definitely want every example of that gone. Unless they went whole-hog and embraced it into their own deeply custom version, it's not a notable use at all. Nate (chatter) 21:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


I would like to apologize for placing Template:Inc-video on all U.S. television network affiliate lists. I did so as I am worried that the listings may not show all affiliates at a certain time. If you feel this is not necessary, please feel free to remove it at your will. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg C 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Former station affiliation categorization

Hey there, I am thinking on making categories for former station affiliations (i.e. WJZ—ABC, WCAU—CBS, WKBD—Fox, and KCNC—NBC). Do you have any possible issues affecting these categories — such as notability — before I go ahead with the categories? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Announcement: category rename

On May 12, I nominated the category "Fox Television Stations Group" for a rename to simply "Fox Television Stations". The CFD entry can be viewed here. I'm letting you guys know about this since there has not been any response to the request at the time of writing. Thanks, Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States

Some British guy offered suggestions on the above list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States/archive1. I have already complied to one of the suggestions on the "laundry list" (1st sentence changed). Let's discuss the following:

  • Don't start lists with "This is a list...". (done)
  • Avoid bold links.
  • Explain abbreviations before you use them, like NTA (perhaps that needs a page move), NBC, CBS, etc etc.
  • Six-para lead is over the top. Perhaps consider a "history" section or something to enhance the article. (agreed)
  • " the 1961–1962 television" see WP:YEAR.
  • What does "channel number" really mean? In the UK we have channel numbers that differ between Freeview, Sky, Virgin etc. (change to TV/RF
  • Programs Aired -< aired.
  • "now on 19" etc, WP:ASOF. (change "now" to "current" or remove channel numbers entirely)
  • Not one single of the programs aired has an article? Really? Is this list even notable? (We can call for an exception)

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Third bullet (explain abbreviations before you use them) is covered by MOS:ACRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"Some British guy" here, please address these issues at the FLC itself, not here, it makes no sense to maintain two parallel lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done Sorry, the original post implied to discuss here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I posted it here in order to bring attention to the FLC nom comments there. I want all TVS members involved... Please direct all comments to the FLC discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Current on-air staff list discussion

It looks like we have a disagreed at Talk:KCAL-TV about whether on air station staff listings are notable. Apart from the editor not assuming good faith and insulting me, we need to come to a consensus that is more than just three people posting... And that whatever decision is made, it is implemented project wide, much like how the list of newscast titles was eradicated project wide a while back. Even though it is just one person objecting I'm not going to revert again, but would like additional opinions here. Calwatch (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, if they are sourced, as they seem to be for KCAL, keep them. They may or may not be notable enough for standalone articles, but as widely-recognizable figures (at least w/i their communities), the on-air staff are at least as notable within the article as any other fact (e.g. "facility id", "transmitter height") about the station. IMHO. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The understanding I'd always had was that on-air staff was considered notable, while non-air staff (photographers, editors, news directors, in general, were not. Of course notable exceptions do exist on a station-by-station basis. --mhking (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the rule has always been that only staff members (on or off air) who are actually notable enough to qualify for their own separate articles should be listed in a television station's article. The problem is that if the people aren't notable enough to qualify for a separate article (and the further information about them that is thus provided), then just listing their names doesn't mean anything to anyone who lives outside the station's broadcast range — and if you live inside the station's broadcast range, then the list still isn't serving a genuinely useful purpose because you already know who they are anyway. Additionally, the station's own website is a primary source, and thus does not count toward demonstrating a person's notability — and because stations' staff rosters are always changing (new people being hired, old people retiring or quitting, etc.), the lists rapidly approach unmaintainability. For those reasons, a comprehensive staff list serves no genuinely useful or properly encyclopedic purpose beyond a staff directory, which is a "what Wikipedia is not" violation. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Except that no, they weren't properly sourced; the station's own website is a primary source, which does not count toward establishing notability. Proper sources need to be independent of the subject. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

True the news staff may not be "notable" outside of the local viewing area with limited exceptions to that rule. On the other hand, the TV station has managed to meet the notability criteria thus qualifying for a Wikipedia article. It is also true in certain articles we mention lesser notable facts within subject matters in which the subject matter itself is highly notable and nobody seems to have a problem with those articles. From a deletionist standpoint, one can argue for the deletion on the basis it is no more well known than the average Joe sitting at desk broadcasting to a just more than 100,000 population. On an inclusionist level, we will be listing every employee that has ever worked at an employer. This seems to be more complicated than that. So on a delusionist conclusion, I believe if the TV station is notable enough for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, the news staff can be presented as additional facts to the "News operation" section. It's not like we'd be listing every Joe that has ever worked there, just the current ones. In special circumstances however, we can make a mention of a legend that had worked there for many years (such as Jim King of WQAD-TV or Paul Rhodes of KCCI). —Mythdon (talk contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO, virtually everyone misreads policy as banning Primary sources. A close read of WP:PRIMARY says they're fine to use, with care.
One (not I) could make an argument that @Bearcat's pet page, Metrotown, Burnaby, is essentially about a shopping/commercial district, mostly primary-sourced by city of Burnaby and city of Vancouver websites. At the very least, I see all sorts of references to "non-notable" parks, schools, shopping centers and other amenities. One could easily make a case for obeying notability "laws" and eviscerating that article. Yet it's likely pertinent, informative and useful to many people. So what I'm saying is, just don't go off on enforcing infexible "rules" on articles of interest to other people based mainly on personal likes and dislikes. OK? --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
When in hell did Metrotown, Burnaby ever become my "pet page"? I've never edited that page even once in my life. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw it on your Talk page and I didn't read it closely enough...since it's unusual for a post like that not to be placed on some Project page. But the point still stands. Most deletionists seem to operate on the WP:ILIKEIT principle. I'm sure you have your own pets. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not if you're defining "pets" as "pages where people make up their own special rules different than the ones they insist on elsewhere", I don't. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I've dealt with enough deletionists who do. High-minded rhetoric about the integrity of the encyclopedia flies out the window if "their" page is mentioned. But there are other editors who never create content; to them, policies become abstractions, thus mutating into inflexible laws which trump all else... --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, from Notability:

"Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article ... content. Content coverage within a given article ... is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." (Emphases mine.)

Another common misread of policy. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is not in any conflict with the position that a complete staff list is not warranted, because both WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA mitigate against the inclusion of material that doesn't have a really good reason for being necessary or valuable. Is there any good reason, besides "because we can", why any television station's article genuinely needs a comprehensive staff list? Is there any reason why the information is valuable, and not just trivia or a directory? Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I've already made my feelings known in the past, so I'll try to be brief. These lists have amounted to little more than article filler because they have been allowed to be. To be fair, Bearcat has it right in that many stations' turnover exceeds the ability/willingness of editors to actually keep such information up-to-date. There is another problem I see. There are obviously a whole lot of notable people out there in the world who lack articles, given various systemic biases which proliferate throughout Wikipedia. Regarding local television personalities, I would envision making a concerted effort to identify and create such articles to be one big tar baby, in that it would invite a flood of "what about my local hero?" inquiries and heaps of eventually unfruitful discussion which follows such a thing. Even so, too many editors appear content to throw out common sense along with the baby and the bath water. To reiterate a previous point: when I first discovered KTVA, there was no mention of Augie Hiebert, who founded the station and owned it for 45 years. His notability aside, he was a constant on-air presence on the station during the majority of those years, mostly through delivering station editorials during newscasts but also for other reasons. Norma Goodman, who was an on-air personality at the station for 53 years, was not mentioned. However, Sarah Palin was mentioned twice. Here's the cold hard facts: Sarah Palin wasn't at KTVA long enough for a cup of coffee, and became famous in another career two-decades-plus later. That right there is confusing notability with celebrity. It's an all too common problem which is not limited strictly to this project. This project's articles have continued to evolve further in the direction of indulging that attitude, however. Here's an even more important item to consider. It's one thing to dismiss these people as little more than "local heroes". It's another thing when someone with firsthand familiarity of the station reads these articles, and instead of seeing any of these names, sees a random, half-assed assortment of names (or, as Casey Kasem once famously described the members of U2, "a bunch of wasted names that don't mean diddly-shit") of people who made little or no contribution to the station's history. It's the same problem which exists en masse with "notable people" lists in community articles, as well as "notable alumni" lists in high school and college articles. "Wikipedia is a joke" is more than just another bullshit meme. To me, it's very reflective of where we're at today versus where we were in 2006 when I created this account. Wikipedia is still very much a go-to site for the real world. Having content which appears to lack a grip on reality isn't going to help convert those "unwashed" to assist in the ongoing need to create and revise said content. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Against. Per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST. It is one thing to fill in a gap here and there by citing their website, but to start duplicating their website with staff lists then what is the point of WP? Spshu (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Television channel lists

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested to comment in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Television channel lists concerning several pages that point to television channel categories. Cnilep (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WMBB TV 13.2 now a Me TV affiliate

Please correct the WMBB tv article - it is no longer a This TV affiliate on their 13.2 subchannel but they are now a Me TV affiliate

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not protected, and thus you could have fixed this yourself without needing to come ask anybody to do it for you. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox merger proposal

I have proposed the merger of two infoboxes heavily used on TV station articles around the world, see the discussion for further details. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for input: Western Reserve Public Media

Requested move 28 September 2013. Please help generate discussion. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

TVQ during the government shutdown

Should we place a small notice within the TVQ template warning readers that the FCC info is unavailable until the shutdown ends? Nate (chatter) 04:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: WTHR assistance / advice needed.

Hello! There appears to be a major edit war the past two weeks or so between User:Aoidh and a variety of anon. IP users (or perhaps one with a rotating IP) over the issue of including current on-air staff in the article. I've tried to stay out of it for the most part since my primary goal is just to monitor the article for vandalism. Both sides seem rather headstrong, especially Aoidh, who insists under Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE and Wikipedia:UNDUE that current staff lists have no business in the article. This despite the fact that practically every other TV station article I've checked -- even major market stations -- has such a list. My hope is that someone from the TV WikiProject can offer an informed opinion and/or policy that both sides will accept and stop their warring. If someone from the TV group were to tell Aoidh for example "yes, this is the way our tv articles are usually done" they might finally listen. Any assistance much appreciated! Best regards, Sector001 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add WLAJ to the list. The edits to remove the allegedly "illegal" prose are sloppily performed, breaking non-controversial material as well. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Argentina confusing naming

While I've been giving a bunch of Argentina-related articles cleanup, I've been running into a very confusing situation with the names of Argentina television stations.

Some locations make sense, particularly for the big five Buenos Aires stations: América 2 (which should be moved to América TV over a redirect), TV Pública Digital (Argentina) (not sure if that one needs a parenthetical), Canal 9 (Argentina), Telefe and El Trece. Where it gets muddy is when you go to Argentina's interior.

Aside from two articles, LW 83 TV and Canal 8 de Tucumán, all the remaining article titles are formatted like Channel 10 – Córdoba with channel number and position. In, where there are more of these articles, they're all formatted as Canal 10 (Córdoba).

It's a naming scheme that's clunky, probably doesn't meet the Manual of Style, etc. So what sort of naming should these articles have: call sign (which may be odd considering the vast majority of stations no longer use it regularly), the current English format, or the current Spanish format? Raymie (tc) 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Callsign suffixes

On Template:Major U.S. TV O-O Stations, myself and another user, User:Spshu have been going back & forth about the inclusion of callsign suffixes. I say they are required because they are part of the F.C.C.-issued callsigns even if there is no station using the base callsign (e.g.: KCNC-TV and WBZ-TV vs. listing KCNC & WBZ) and he disagrees. We need a ruling on this.Stereorock (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not needed as the navbox title clearly indicates that the stations in question are TV stations. He claim the article naming convention effects navbox when it clearly effect only the article name. The truncation doesn't effect the title of the article. He just doesn't want to accept that or understand. Spshu (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
They ARE needed as they are part of the callsign! It doesn't matter that all stations shown are TV stations-some stations have a suffix. That's what I don't understand why it's so hard to get? Why not just call it by its on-air moniker then "CBS 2", "NBC4" etc.? The truncation does add useless bytes to the article page however (e.g.: KCNC-TV being 7 bytes versus KCNC-TV|KCNC being 12). In any event, for the T.V. market pages, the stations' callsigns are listed in full. In radio, all of the callsigns are listed in full in markets and in lists of stations owned by companies (WPRO is in the A.M. section of Cumulus and WPRO-FM is in the F.M. section, not 2 WPROs). There is a uniformity, or attempt at uniformity which will be upset. The stations, in all cases of lists, article naming, etc., should include their full callsigns. So, in this list, WABC-TV should be listed as such and NOT WABC! WABC is a radio station. WABC-TV is the T.V. station. It doesn't matter that this is a list of only T.V. stations as some stations do not have suffixes and they are listed along side those that do. For truncation, why not leave out the initial first letter (K/W) too while we're at it?!Stereorock (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that this problem was created with this edit which lacked an edit comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Huh? That comment has nothing to do with my comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please stop responding to my comments? Your replies have nothing what so ever to do with my replies. Also please stop making it sound like I am making statements that I'm not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

←Vegaswikian, if we stop responding to the topic because you mistake our continued discussion of the matter as direct responses to your comments that would end the discussion. As the next post follows the last post no matter who they are responding to. You made an informative comment for those not currently involved, so why do you think those involved would make be a comment about it? If you follow the discussion, you would know that I am responding to Stereorock. Note that I continued to use the discussion's indent level which was up to the third indent instead of following your 1 indent with a level 2 indent. Spshu (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are not responding to my comments, it is your responsibility to correctly place your comment so that the reply follows the point you are responding to. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No, but cause that fragments the discussion. Latest posts go to the bottom. I have very rarely seen that happen only a couple of time on WP. Such a post is most likely to over looked in a long discussion particularily if post up earlier. How about if you comment in a discussion you actually follow the discussion so then you know what people are responding to. Since, no one address your note of when it started, it is clearly not responding directly to that message. Also, your message of "00:10, 22 November 2013" follows Stereorock comment that clearly follows my comment which is posted after yours. Which per your rule is posted incorrectly since my was next after your first post. So, even you are not following your "rule". Spshu (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the rules you are using are different from the consensus on all talk pages. So whatever since you believe in fragmenting discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How doesn't not seeing the suffix not allow you to click through to the article? We already cover the "on-air moniker" issue at my talk page as there are more than one ABC7 for example and they change more often than the call signs. It doesn't add "useless bytes" as if it wasn't that way then you couldn't get to the article (unless there was a redirect) and makes the navbox easier to look at & there for use full. Not all TV market navboxes are like that and what is or isn't done with them isn't relevent as anyone can edit before you post to become your example. Article rules don't apply to template space, which you are attempting. WABC isn't a radio station in a TV station navbox. An actually WABC is a disambig. page not the radio station (WABC (AM)). The K/W truncation doesn't work in this case, as the navbox doesn't limit it to just the TV stations starting with K or W. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the F.C.C. regards WABC as the radio station on 770. WABC-TV is the television station. The point about the K/W truncation does apply because without it, the callsign is inaccurate, just as it is without its proper suffix. The key here is accuracy: I want the fully accurate callsign listed. If Wikipedia is not about accuracy, then why should anybody use it? KCNC (yes, that's a favorite example) simply is not accurate; KCNC-TV is. The callsigns should be fully accurate. Whether or not there is no base KCNC or WBZ or WABC is irrelevant: the callsigns are the callsigns and anything less is a disservice to all readers of Wikipedia. *That* is what this is all about: retaining an accurate callsign as all articles should, all templates should also reflect the same.Stereorock (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The key here is that you taking accuracy beyond any reason meaning. In a labeled table of "TV Stations", it is accurate in listing "WABC" for WABC-TV. Is or is not WABC-TV the the TV station with WABC as its call sign? YES. There for the table is accurate. No one is truncating the W/K so it doesn't apply it would make the table inaccurate as there would have been 2 ABC, WABC and KABC. The key here is that you are going past accuracy to being redundant. There is no disservice to WP readers as they know these are TV stations based on the Navbox table title. In your bid to be redunate instead you do a disservice to the WP reader by lengthing the navbox. Call signs are fully accurate at the article. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting): "This page sets out guidelines for the names of articles relating to broadcasting."
In the KNBC-TV article, you would never say "the station", "KNBC", "Channel 4" or its former call signs? Well, it should and it does, but according to you, you wouldn't despite this is the natural way of writing an article. No disservice to the reader because they all refer to the now KNBC-TV station. If it was repetive with only using KNBC-TV then the reader would get tired of the repetive nature of using KNBC-TV and stop reading the article. Spshu (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No, WABC-TV is the television station's callsign. WABC is solely the radio station on 770. WABC-FM was the F.M. station on 95.5. Those are the proper calls and there is no confusion as to what is being discussed. Similarly, a suffix should not be added where there isn't one and I do delete those (e.g.: any A.M. station with an -AM suffix for a U.S. radio station). Whatever the legal callsign of the station in use at the time in a historical perspective should also be used (so if a station starts out as WAAA and later adds a sister A.M. or the already-sister A.M. follows along, that first WAAA becomes WAAA-FM or WAAA-TV or whatever. However, it is still accurate to call it WAAA if that is what the actual callsign assigned by the F.C.C. was at that time (e.g.: WATD-FM was originally WATD until it added an A.M. station which then became WATD and the original WATD became WATD-FM. However, it was still just WATD (no -FM) in 1977 and in the history, should be addressed as such).
The station is perfectly acceptable. However, KNBC as the callsign, if it is not the full callsign, should be changed to KNBC-TV. However, since the template is the first instance a person may see of the callsign, it should be the full callsign, complete with suffix. The proper call should go first.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

←I didn't ask you what WABC full calls signs were, Stereorock. No one would expect the WABC radio station to be listed in a table of TV stations. The navboxes title also makes it such that "no confusion as to what is being discussed." or this case listed. ←But using a former legal callsign would break your rule of only using the full legal call sign name. And so would be using "the station" or KNBC later in a KNBC-TV. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, WABC-TV is the full legal callsign and should be used as such in the navboxes. The articles aren't what is being discussed here. WABC-TV should be what is listed in the navbox as that is what it is. As for a radio station being there in the navbox, one never knows. So, the only way a reader can be certain and would fulfill "no confusion as to what is being discussed" is the full callsign as it is known by the F.C.C., as that is the article's proper name as well.Stereorock (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

←But the usage during the article shows that always using the full legal callsign isn't all ways used in WP. "One never knows" if a radio station should be listed in a navbox about TV stations? If you found one then you would know it is listed in error. Spshu (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Then that should be fixed too. It only takes a few more keystrokes to add the proper, legal suffix.Stereorock (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
But according to your position, I can't use the title of the navbox to determine that it should link to the TV station instead of the radio station since (in your position) the only why to determine what type of station is by the suffix. Spshu (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
My position is that there is only 1 WABC and it's the radio station and there is only 1 television station using the related WABC-TV call. They should always be seen as separate stations with their full calls. Nothing hard about that. There is no television station known as WABC. There is no television station known as KCNC but there is one known as KCNC-TV. Simple as that. The legal call is the one that should be in the template.Stereorock (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CECTV-TV 5 (Grand Rapids)

Dear broadcasting experts: This old Afc draft is about to be deleted. Is this a notable station, and should the article be kept? I'm not sure where to look for sources for verification. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. A station affiliated with a new network which doesn't have an article and whose initials were originally chosen to stand for Chuck E. Cheese; original station slogan "Sup, Grand Rapids!"; call sign that begins with a C for a station located in the United States...Yeah, no, I think looking for "sources for verification" would actually be a waste of your valuable time. It should be deleted forthwith, not just as a stale draft but also as a big fat WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted template spam on Template:Grand Rapids TV involving this station in June 2013. Nope, it's an IP hoax; stations in the United States don't start with a "C" call letter, commercial networks don't rival PBS, and any station that greeted viewers with 'Sup, Grand Rapids' during newscasts would be laughed out of the market. Delete away. Nate (chatter) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC).


I have a question, that I hope you can help me out with. Regarding the article "List of programs previously broadcast by American Broadcasting Company". I was trying to remember the name of a program on ABC...shown in New York, some years past, every Saturday at 12 noon. It was a talk show news philosophical type program. I was wondering why that program (whatever the name was, that I can't recall right now), is not shown or mentioned anywhere in the WP article. It's one of those things that if I SAW the name somewhere, I would recall it. So I don't see it on the article. I was wondering and hoping if you might know what I'm referring to. It was on for YEARS...from what I remember, always on Saturday at 12 noon (at least shown in New York), on 7. I don't remember the name of the program for some reason. It was on in the 1990's, and into past 2000, I believe. And it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere in the article, as there is no "Saturday afternoon" headings anywhere, or anything that I notice for it under "news and talk show" etc. If I were to see the name of the show written somewhere, or mentioned to me, I would recall it immediately, as being the show. But I can't remember it right now off hand, and I don't see it anywhere on the WP article, for "past ABC programs". I hope you have an idea what I'm talking about, or know the program name in question. Please let me know. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because it aired on an ABC station in New York City doesn't necessarily mean it was an ABC network program — it could also have been a locally produced show which aired only on that station, or a syndicated program. The list you're talking about, however, is only for programs which were actually distributed nationally by the ABC network, and not for every individual local or syndicated show that ever aired on any individual ABC station. The program might warrant listing in WABC-TV if it was locally produced, but it wouldn't be expected to appear in a list of network programs. I suppose you might get lucky if an editor from NYC knows and remembers what you're talking about — but most editors here wouldn't be able to help you at all. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Syndicated shows on televison station articles

I have discovered some televison stations articles that include a list of syndicated program that's on the station. And we know that's on hedge TV Guide. When I was reading the revision history for WTAE-TV. I discovered that one user removed the list of syndicated shows that are on the station. I figured out it is not notable or fan cruft. Here is the proof:

Should we use a rule to not include syndicated shows on TV station articles? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

One of my suggestions is to use a four show limit, and use only first run syndicated shows. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well this would work for a television station versus a radio station, but look at what I did with KFAR. Rather than mention Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller, Lars Larson and Alex Jones by name, I mention their respective syndicators. I see this as tricky, as we live in a day and age where a television station can be viewed as having a local identity even when it neither produces nor airs local programming. Some stations are known more for being the local Rachael Ray or Jerry Springer affiliate than for anything they do locally.
As for a solution? I also work on professional wrestling articles. In the pre-cable universe, local airings of syndicated wrestling programs were known to garner ratings as high as 20–25, with shares as high as 65–70. These ratings were in spite of being frequently aired on UHF stations and well outside of prime time. I'm not sure what the equivalent is in today's "57 channels and nothing on" universe.
What I'm getting at here is this: if a program's local airing receives higher than normal ratings or has some other impact on the station, it would most certainly be appropriate to mention the program by name. Otherwise, if such mention is of no value other than stating "This station carries this program in this market", it amounts to free advertising for that program and its producers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Including syndicated programs may serve to educate certain less-informed readers. Some people still seem to believe that because e.g. Rachael Ray airs on their local ABC affiliate, it is an ABC network program. In my community, we had an affiliation swap in 1980, with a swap back in 2004. There were an inordinate number of people both times who got into high-dudgeon about ABC allegedly canceling Jeopardy and the like. Also, while I agree that such prose draws attention to the syndicated programs, doesn't the mere mention of a station's affiliated network amount to a form of free advertising for that network's programming? --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it is part of a network is a much more notable trait than non-network programs. However, if the station's airing of a particular program has notable characteristics that can be sourced (i.e. "WIKI-TV was one of the first six stations to carry the syndicated game show Can We Delete This?, where it frequently garnered the highest local ratings among programs in the 7:00 p.m. timeslot, and the highest ratings of the six stations who carried it", or "WIKI-TV previously aired the popular syndicated game show Can We Delete This? from its debut in 1992 to 2013; despite its loyal audience and enduring popularity, the station announced that it would remove the show for the 2013-14 season, citing a need to air more locally-produced programming. However, it later retracted the decision after receiving a heavy backlash from viewers through e-mails and social media, demanding that they keep the show." ViperSnake151  Talk  02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that if something significant, verifiable in reliable sources, happens as a result of the station airing a particular syndicated program, then that's probably worth mentioning in the station's article — but if all you're trying to do is create a prosified version of the station's broadcast schedule by listing every single program that they air, then you're still falling afoul of the rule that Wikipedia is not TV Guide. (The fact that you're not doing it in a table format doesn't change that fact.)
Some excellent examples of how notability might be attained have been noted above — but for another one, if a notable syndicated talk show were to do a special "event" week of shows taped at different stations which carry it, that would probably also merit mention in the articles on the particular stations that actually got to host tapings. But if there isn't a verifiable and reliably sourced reason why the station's carriage of a syndicated show is important to a broad and international readership, then it's not appropriate content in an encyclopedia — if its only substantive purpose is to serve as a schedule listing for the station's local viewers, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
If somebody needs to know what station Ellen DeGeneres or Rachel Ray or Arsenio Hall or Jeopardy! is on in their local TV market, they can get that information from real TV listings without needing us to maintain a comprehensive list of what amounts to WP:TRIVIA. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. They should not look up the station articles as local listings Always use the REAL tv listings. Possible motion to remove the syndicated shows? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree; one short line with only four-five shows which air on their station are fine. Telling us Byron Allen airs at 4:30 in the morning isn't. Don't make determinations for the rest of the community and allow us to edit on a case by case basis; I thought this was resolved the last time a deletionist took it upon themselves to remove without consensus a few years back and we agreed that we would make sure they're sourced or limited to popular shows; as a matter of fact you tried to do this two years ago and we disagreed. Please revert your edits until an actual consensus is reached. Nate (chatter) 03:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am in the process of reverting them, but I decided to limit the shows to FIRST RUN programming in place of airing off-network reruns. The limit of up to four [but no more than five] is still enforced. If there are no more "first run" shows available, always end it with "among others." 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't personally have an issue with limiting to first run, and I generally agree with not listing airtimes for these. However, there shouldn't be an arbitrary limit in prose on the number of such programs. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering how non noteworthy it is to non locals, I honestly don't see the knowledge base in including the syndicated shows list considering how the reader is learning nothing other than which channels these TV shows are showing on in this area and it's not even their area. It is this kind of information that is only relevant to the television viewer who is actually watching that channel and even then people don't really pay attention to what channel is showing that show, only that that show is available on their television. This isn't a case of notability or anything of that sort, more like we shouldn't turn an encyclopedia into a database or schedule list. And we all know how much of a database the television station articles are already compared to other subject areas. —Mythdon (talk contribs) 21:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A good look into the contributions of this user shows a mass adding of "country = United States" to the infobox television station, as I undid the ones he or she made to the Quad Cities station articles [3] [4] [5] [6]. It would greatly appreciated if someone could help out in reverting the non working syntax this user has been adding to all the television station articles. —Mythdon (talk contribs) 06:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Television Stations At Wikimania 2014

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New reference templates for Mexico official TV resource

I created {{Mexico-inf|TV}} to allow for instant, constantly updated citations of the IFT infrastructure lists out of Mexico. For an example of an article using this new format, see XEFE-TV.

The lists are important because with the April 2014 update coordinates were added. Now all Mexican station articles can have coordinates for the transmitter direct from the IFT. Raymie (tc) 06:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Now I have problem with an editor who even after informed that nonnotable staff lists and reverts note such is now trying to say I am a vandal. I can never seem to get any help from any notice page except to get pages temporary locked. And probable cannot get any action even though he has reverted me 4 times as it was over 4 days. Spshu (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Article structure

I think that a more detailed explanation of how each television station article can be structured should be included in the "article structure" section on the main WikiProject Television Stations page. The problem here is that a subset of users have over the years conflicted as to what is necessary to include in the article, which unintentionally conflicts with how other television articles are structured. For example, there is some issue as to whether on-air staff lists violate WP:NOTDIR (I ran into a user – Aoidh – who also thought a reference to a recent newscast addition at WZTV violated that rule, despite the fact that in regards to schedules, WP:NOTDIR infers that a plainlist schedule of programs with just title and full airtimes usually apply, rather than a descriptive reference intended to illustrate the history of that station's news operation). A detailed explanation of how each station article should be structured (and clarifications as to what doesn't conflict with WP:NOT) could alleviate some of these conflicts as the structure explanation as it is, is somewhat vague. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be clear as I have other editors warring against the removal of non-notable staff. Another issue that we should discuss is "digial TV information" as the information is all over the place and I have been "called out for attempt to own" articles for centralizing them in the infobox as some editors think that a separate table is the standard since most article have them. I recommend instead of the separate section for digital
On the issue of staff list, yes, NOTDIR makes it such these lists are not welcome: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional)." Since, this information is general found easily on the stations' website and changes often, there isn't a need for us to list them as we don't need to make work additional work as we are all volunteers. Now if they become notable then yes they should be listed.
Also, currently I am under fire for removing primary source (thus nonnotable) current staff list at WIBW-TV (Talk:WIBW-TV), when it has been well established that nonnotable staff should not be listed. Spshu (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


OK, with no other comments, I suppose samples of what we wish the standard to be. I will start with the infobox. We have a subchannel field and affiliation field that trips over its self. Currently the subchannel field includes the affiliation (or programming) for each subchannel then the main subchannel .1's affiliation is repeated in the affiliation field. Then many articles have a Digital_channels section & table that list: Channel, Video, Aspect PSIP short name, Programming. It would seem that the digital channel table could be included in the subchannel infobox and the affiliations listed that field like I have done at [7]. Also, I see a small tag being used in () in the infobox with the infobox text already being small it doesn't make sense for us to have even smaller text. I suggest using: identifier and : like "news:". Spshu (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

:American Sports Network

There is a discussion regarding the status of the American Sports Network being a network or syndication. --Spshu (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Syndication package, plain and simple. Doesn't air 24 hours a day, limited to weekends, and doesn't have a subchannel devoted to it. In my eyes it's equal in status (maybe even a replacement for as they're down to the lowest of lower-tier conferences compared to ASN) to ESPN Plus. Nate (chatter) 02:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please add to the discussion at the exits talk page discussion, [[Talk:American Sports Network. It isn't so simple if you know the history of networks and the discussion here over PTEN (link from the ASN Talk page). --Spshu (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Clear Channel radio stations rename discussion

Please consider providing input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_20#Category:Clear_Channel_radio_stations. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 08:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On-air staff list redux again

Once again, lists of (allegedly unsourced) current and former on-air staff, as well as newscast titles and station slogans, are undergoing an un-recently-discussed mass removal from articles. What discussion there is has been scattered among User talk:Corkythehornetfan#Removal of TV news personalities, Talk:WIBW-TV#News team, User talk:Aoidh#Question, User talk:Spshu#Question and various other user and article talk pages.

I believe these content removals rest on incorrect readings of the relevant guidance:

  • 1) that the content is not NOTABLE, while that guidance refers to article topics, NOT to content within articles
  • 2) that the content does not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE guidelines, while that guidance refers to stand-alone list articles only
  • 3) that the content fails WP:NOTDIR, while that guidance refers to articles which consist nearly totally of exhaustive lists
  • 4) that the content mainly comes from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, while that guidance states that "unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care", to guard against editor interpretation of primary source content and against primary source biases; but to allow straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that are verifiable.
  • 5) a past argument was that of WP:TRIVIA, which states that "a trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list", which this content is not.
  • 6) another past argument was that of WP:UNDUE, which refers to undue "weight", not in the sense of amount of content, but in the sense of how much attention to pay to varying viewpoints, particularly with contentious, hot-button topics.

While it seems (rather unfortunately, IMO) that guidance allows for immediate removal of unsourced content, it would be much more collegial to fully discuss the issue once again and then tag the articles in question so that editors might locate sources for at least some of the content.

There does NOT exist a clear consensus that using information from the TV stations themselves, at least for on-air staff, is not valid sourcing.

As far as the removed content being available elsewhere, as I have stated in past discussions, this particular information is no more or less relevant to understanding the station than is various other prose which does make the cut. And from the lack of obvious citations for much of the TV station prose in most of the articles, I would daresay that a lot of it probably comes from online primary source station histories, or from a synthesis of personal knowledge. And if we aren't to include content we can obtain elsewhere (and Wikipedia is "alleged" to consist of only secondary and tertiary sources), why write any articles at all?

As a practical matter, in their haste to remove "offending" content, users have haphazardly and sloppily broken uncontested portions of articles I watchlist. In their haste to undo these removals, other users have haphazardly and sloppily "restored" the content, also breaking the articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaswmsday (talkcontribs)

Where exactly do you see the assertion that WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to stand-alone articles? Not only is that distinction arbitrary in terms of appropriate content, but if WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to stand-alone articles, you have quite a few administrators to "correct".[8][9][10] Further, every talk page discussion that I am aware of where this issue was discussed that resulted in any kind of consensus was a consensus that if a name did not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, it did not belong on a list of people. That the list of people is a stand-alone article or not is irrelevant to that. Further, your interpretation of primary sources not being undue is arguably inaccurate, as (depending on the article and the lengths involved), a list of people can easily become a large portion of the article, completely disproportional and thus WP:UNDUE to the article itself; if reliable sources do not give that much attention to the station's on-air staff, an encyclopedia article cannot, especially if it fails the very basic criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. There are station articles with quite extensive lists of names that all meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, so the fact that some articles need to be cleaned up with improved references and have the clutter removed (which isn't unique to this WikiProject's articles) just means exactly that; the articles need to be improved. Content is only "no more or less relevant to understanding t5he staion" if reliable sources say so. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The key problem with staff lists on television station articles, even more basic than the sourcing issue, is that the names don't mean anything to anybody who isn't already a viewer of the station. If a person watches the station, then they already know who its reporters and anchors are anyway — and if they don't, then the names don't add anything of informational value to the article.
If I don't live in the station's viewing area, then I don't know who 6 p.m. news anchor John Smith is — and being an anchor on a local television station doesn't automatically make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article that we could link to so I could learn anything about who he is, either. So his name just plain means nothing to me. And if I do live in the station's viewing area, then I do already know who John Smith is and thus don't need Wikipedia to inform me of the fact. So either way, putting his name in the article isn't telling anybody anything important or valuable — it's really just WP:CRUFT that doesn't serve any genuinely substantive purpose.
The consensus has been properly established, accordingly, that television (and radio) stations may only list personalities who already have their own independent articles to link to, and may not contain comprehensive staff directories of mostly non-notable people. You're free, if you wish, to attempt to establish a new consensus that such information should be permissible in a television or radio station's article — and good luck with that — but you're not free to claim that the current consensus doesn't even exist.
And, indeed, Aoidh is entirely correct: WP:LISTPEOPLE does not apply only to standalone lists, but to any list of people in any article whether it has the word "List" in its title or not. (A list of graduates of a particular university, for example, is not a free-for-all where every single alumnus on earth is entitled to add themselves, without regard to their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof. Regardless of whether it's standing alone as an independent "List of X University alumni" or embedded as a subsection of the university's main article, LISTPEOPLE still applies either way.) Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Against staff lists.
  • NOTABLE does speak to article content at WP:NLISTITEM: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."
  • WP:EMBED which does cover embedded lists indicate that having too much information as a list may contravene WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy, which forces usage of independent sources not primary sources.
  • WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA do apply as the use of the primary sources has been used to note all news staff from the prime time anchors to the sports reporters is an "unselective" list" thus is an "exhaustive lists". Spshu (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm against the idea of having on-air staff that aren't notable because at first I thought they should stay, but as I read more and other users gave more information, then I realized it made since. If the don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, and they aren't notable, why should they be on here? Why do I care who the 6 pm anchor for a station out on the east coast is if I live in the Midwest or vice-versa? Sure, they might notable to a viewer, but their opinion and mine is different. Plus, if they don't have an article on Wikipedia or a third-party source, how are they notable? Just because it is on the station's website doesn't make them notable. If someone wants to know who is an anchor/reporter for that station, then they can go to that station's website as Wikipedia isn't a directory. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 19:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


I have been in a "discussion" with User:Vjmlhds about on-air staff for WJW (TV). He says that on-air staff can stay on Wikipedia "As long as we so it in prose form", meaning paragraph form. However, I disagreed, saying that it didn't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, except a few, which I bulleted. He then informed me that there had been a discussion between him and a few editors, which ends up being him and one other. I asked him on his talk page for the link, and he provided this for me. That is a discussion between him and two other users. Honestly, I don't think the staff belong because what has been mentioned up above, and simply those people that don't have an article here aren't notable. He told me not to remove unsourced material, but that was to the primary source on the news station's website, which has been discussed before. I just want other opinions on this and maybe have someone else go and try to get it through this user's head that it doesn't belong if they aren't notable. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a follow up discussion. Talk:WEWS-TV#New format for on air talent., both discussion actually doesn't support his position just because he had the last post. TVS had to re-argue a 5 to 2 over whether or not subchannel automatic got their own article or not after the discussion was closed. You can remove unsourced and even primary source material if trivial. A discussion involving 3 people on a single article should not trump wikiproject discussions particularly against general guidelines. Spshu (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank for the reply, and telling him as well. I saw the follow up, as well. I let him know on his talk page as well that 3 people just simply wasn't enough to settle a discussion. Heck, I even gave him the links you had given out about previous discussions! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in on the reopened discussion about staff lists above at #On-air staff list redux again. Spshu (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the names that don't belong and explained why, but a list of people is still a list of people if you change the format slightly. Having a list on a single line doesn't put it into different criteria than a list of people presented with one name on each line; both are the exact same content, but the presentation is different. The presentation has no bearing on the appropriateness of a name in a list of people; the content is identical, so the criteria for inclusion is as well. The "discussion" referred to does not address this in any way, is not a consensus, and certainly not a consensus that WP:LISTPEOPLE does not apply, and even if it were wouldn't override the wider Wikipedia consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! We tried telling him that, but he just wouldn't listen. After a few days, he has finally listened and removed the staff from the page. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 14:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stations by state lists

I've embarked on a bit of project to update the various lists of television stations by state. On the full-power side, most of them are in pretty good shape — the odd missing station, random outdated dial positions, and some unnecessary piped links that are also covered by redirects, but good overall. The real upgrades are happening on the low-power side, and I'm discovering that we lack consistency:

  • some states list only stations that are actually low-power television stations
  • some states also mix in translators
  • a couple of states actually have both, but in separate tables

It's easy enough to differentiate between them using the FCC records, and I'd planned on only updating the LPTVs. So, thus far I've only been updating the states that didn't already have translators mixed in. If people think there's value in having the translators on those pages, I can make a second pass through but — more importantly — I can make sure at least for now that I don't remove any.

Either way, I think it'd be extremely useful if we were consistent across all states.

Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists in general on Wikipedia give very short shrift to notable entities which also happen to be defunct. From what I've seen of these lists, not much effort is given to including defunct television stations. That may be worth considering. It's not like the sources don't exist, even though they may require more effort to dig up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


WJSU is mentioned only on the page about WBMA. It's repeatedly mentioned as a tv station in Anniston, but not mentioned that the tower and transmitter are well away from Anniston on top of Bald Rock Mountain in western St Clair County. It's far closer to Pell City and Brompton than to Anniston, and at only 15kw radiated power, i'd be surprised if it can be recieved in Anniston.

Recently, ABC3340 was sold, etc etc, and WJSU (now under the new owners) was said to be shut down as of 22:30cst Sept 29 2014 (yesterday), and the call letters returned to the FCC. However, today this station is still on the air and broadcasting ABC3340 content as if there's nothing new going on.

Last week i emailed the general manager of ABC3340 about the transmitter on Bald Rock going dark, because it's the only tv station which can be recieved over the air in this area. I have not recieved any reply.

Can someone else get current info and either update the WBMA page, or start a new WJSU page with the new data?

New: Sept 30 the 10pm news splash screen, 24 hours after the signoff was said to have occured, as broadcast on the WJSU transmitter on Bald Rock Mtn, lists WCFT, WBMA-LP, and WJSU. I have no access to WCFT or WBMA, but according to all i have read online (including on Wikipedia) and seen on ABC 33/40 itself, WJSU and "ABC 33/40" shouldn't be on the air. I am not complaining, but what's going on?

News: On Oct 1 2014 ~6pm, near the end of the ABC network news broadcast, all ABC 33/40 programming (the .1 and .2 channels) was removed from WJSU. The .3 subchannel (carrying "HeartLand" music) was moved to .1. But WJSU remains on the air. It's not worth watching "Rick and Bubba", but it's the only over-the-air television available here now, and it carries no local weather alerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As of Oct 20, 2014, WJSU is still on the air, as it was the day after it was "officially" dark. It's still broadcasting Heartland Network on 40.1, but 40.2 and 40.3 are now "no signal". It's carrying Birmingham local and network advertising (including some ABC3340 promos), and the "Rick and Bubba Show". I recieve it over the air on an antenna. I do not know who is in control of it, but it is NOT dark. (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Programming sections

I was wondering if there has been a discussion about the Programming sections? I noticed that there are a lot of station articles that have this section with all of these syndicated shows, but are unsourced. I know that User:ACMEWikiNet is a user that I've noticed that likes to move them into a completely new section, and has been doing that on most pages. (Example 1 & Example 2) I personally do not think they belong, unless they have a reliable source, other than the station's website. But then again, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. I'm just curious and wanted to know what others thought. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to disagree with this; they shouldn't be removed because of their importance to a station's strengths and weaknesses with their schedule. We limit it to a few shows, we're fine, and AWN's campaign is literally one-editor and supported by nobody else. This has been discussed multiple times and been regarded as unsupported content removal. Nate (chatter) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wan't sure if it had been discussed before and voted to stay, so that is why I asked. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 14:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Television Stations articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Could someone there please turn down the deviation on 39.3. The audio blows away whenever I hit that channel.

Nobody at Wikipedia has the power to help you with this, sorry. You need to directly contact your actual provider of whatever the heck you're talking about. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories For Deletion: TV stations by channel number

FYI, there are discussions about removing the categories American TV stations by channel number, Canadian TV stations by channel number and Mexican TV stations by channel number, e.g.:

These discussions began January 7, 2015, so if you want to make your voice heard, please do so ASAP.

(There is also a similar discussion here about removing the "Radio stations by frequency" categories.) --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Now that the categories are being listified and deleted, I have a few comments:

To avoid the lists quickly becoming unmaintained and out-of-date, I've gone back to some of my watchlisted articles and replaced the removed categories with the corresponding list articles under the "See also" heading. It might be more appropriate to make these connections inline, i.e. if a station operates on "virtual channel 50", the link should probably be made right there. Whatever is decided should be done for all affected articles.

The content under, e.g. again, Channel 50 is now misleading, as it says "Several television stations in North America which broadcast on UHF frequencies covering 687.25-691.75 MHz". This is no longer strictly correct, as "50" can also be a virtual channel or a brand. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, few full-power stations still broadcast on their historic analog channels.

The new lists already provide more information than the old categories, but should we think about modeling them on e.g. List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W), List of television stations in Ohio, List of television stations in Ohio (by channel number) or List of Canadian television stations? My opinion is that there's a lot of overkill in these "model" lists, but that's just MY opinion. Still, would some kind of sortable table, analogous to what some of them have, be more useful in the long run?

I've also never been a fan of the awkwardly worded "Channel 50 digital TV station" or "Channel 2 virtual TV station", but it made it easier to locate the categories. Would it possibly make sense to combine ALL of the channel 50's into one list: Broadcast, virtual, low-power and branded?

Please discuss :) Thanks! --Chaswmsday (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Mlaffs, Bearcat, and Vegaswikian:, could y'all please consolidate your discussions here? Thanks again. --Chaswmsday (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Third Reich Television

This was the world's first public television here

When it went electronic, what was the TV standard (lines and so on) that was used?Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


What does everyone think of this edit? Shouldn't the article title be the call sign, just like all of the other articles? If so, than the article title should be WJAN-CD, according to the TV Station Profile by the FCC, which was the original name before it was moved. I haven't talked to the page mover (User:Stephiromay), yet. I wanted the WikiProject's opinions with users who are more experienced in this than I am. Thanks, Corky | Chat? 20:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

General common name is the standard for WP, while it seems that Wikiproject TV stations selected station call letters. Apparently, as the call signs are international set up (assign the first letter to a nation, W & K to the USA) and common names may be the same (ABC7 for example, ABC has a few station on the 7 channel going by the brand ABC7), they were selected as the naming standard. In looking about RabbitEars & AmericaTeVe, AmericaTeVe is programming originating at the WJAN TV stations and simulcast on several other stations, basucally a mininetowrk. Caribevision/AMERICA-CV STATION GROUP, INC. from the AmericaTeVe refers to WJAN as the AmericaTeVe station. But given that this amounts to just the programming on a single subchannel it isn't the name of the station. The station is what the article is about, so to name it after is main subchannel isn't correct. Spshu (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't just TV; all of the projects went for call letters when it came to ID's regarding TV and radio for countries which usually go with that mode of ID (Europe and Asia in most cases goes with blanket licenses where transmitters are rarely identified by their calls), that way we weren't stuck with the fun of redirecting every time "News Channel 21" decided to switch to "Me-TV 21", "Today's WKP 21" or the other branding du-jour of the moment (or the vandals who revel in making WSB-TV "Nick Jr. 2" every few months, for instance; I shudder to think of the mess we'd be in if branding was standard for TVS). This was an inappropriate move; a WP:COI template needs to be dropped on Stephiromay (talk · contribs), who judging from their translation isn't a mere fan of WJAN-CD. In the meantime I have pagemoved América Tevé back to WJAN-CD, will COI-warn the user, and hopefully this is the end of it. Nate (chatter) 02:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I do agree with Mrschimpf on the not just TV part. It'd be too much of a hassle to name the articles by their branding name as they change so often. Corky | Chat? 02:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television channel‎

Hey all, there's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television channel‎ about whether to swap |web= with |website= for consistency with other templates, like Template:Infobox television. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


This needs attention from someone who understands the FCC lingo; I restored it from an obviously dated prior version (it was redirected). Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I reversed the redirect; as I explained on RFD, this is a TBN translator with no history that is still carrying TBN as part of the Regal Media deal where they got a whole lot of TBN translators in some kind of TBN fund-raising effort without any real idea of what to do with them. Until then, the rd to a TBN-article remains appropriate. Nate (chatter) 04:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a virtual channel parameter to Infobox broadcast

I've started what I hope will turn into a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_broadcast#Virtual_channel. Since that page isn't exactly bustling with traffic, I'm cross-posting it here for visibility. Mlaffs (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No discussion, so I've implemented the change. We now have an active parameter for Virtual channel in this infobox - you no longer have to spoof it. Mlaffs (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Mlaffs; should have been done at least in 2008 but there were a bunch of users who argued against change for reasons that never really made sense, and policy arguments were dismissed for mere 'support/oppose' counts. Nate (chatter) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FCC Website is Down

If you have noticed that the FCC link via the {{TVQ}} template is not working, don't panic. The link is not broken. The FCC website has been down since late on Friday and as of this post remains so. It will probably remain that way until sometime later today, it is the Federal Government after all.

This is also affecting the radio side of things as the FCC links on the {{FM station data}}, {{AM station data}}, or {{LPFM station data}} templates are also not working.

The TVFool and BIAfn links continue to work. If you do need very basic information concerning a telvision station, try one of those.

Again, the links are not broken, so please do NOT nominate them for deletion. It is a technical issue on the FCC side affecting the entire FCC website. - NeutralhomerTalk • 10:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Update: I called the FCC and they have been notified about the AMQ, FMQ and TVQ portions of their site being down. The person I just spoke to at the FCC didn't have an ETA when those areas of the FCC website would be back up and running. - NeutralhomerTalk • 12:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Online: As of about 10:20am EDT, the FCC website is slowly coming back online. Pages are a little slow to load still, but the website is back online. - NeutralhomerTalk • 14:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

"WikiProject Television Stations was created to guide the structure of articles related to individual local television stations in North America. For articles relating to other parts of the world, see Descendant WikiProjects and WikiProject Television."

That's just great, really. See also: Wikipedia:Systemic bias. How about "North America" create it's own taskforce or whatever and let all TV stations be covered by this WikiProject called "Television Stations", thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Yankopedia. Such a blatant systemic bias is simply intollerable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A WikiProject is a group of WP:VOLUNTEERS who get to work on whatever they feel like, and call themselves whatever they feel like (within the limits of what the title blacklist permits). If you don't like the scope, then join the project and persuade them that it would be fun to work on a broader scope. See WP:REVIVE for advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh hey. I was thinking of posting a more civil message here about changing the scope to actually get the process moving. But I'm wondering if it would be too sneaky of me to join for only this purpose. I'm not interested in television stations, I'm interested in tagging articles with relevant WikiProject tags -- but I do try to respect the wishes and intents of the actual members of those WikiProjects that I don't belong to. But in this specific case it just seems crazy. Should there be another WikiProject called "WikiProject International Television Channels"? No, that would be absurd. The current WikiProject changing its scope seems like the only reasonable option. But maybe someone from here wants to create an USian or Canadian or North American taskforce beforehand and modify the tags on current articles accordingly. (Though I'm guessing many non-NorthAmerican channels are already tagged here...) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there's potentially a systemic bias issue in our coverage of television in general, but there is an important distinction to be aware of in the context of this particular Wikiproject: in many countries in the world, there's no actual differentiation between television "networks" and television "stations", because all television service operates nationally at the network level, and any given "station" is just a transmitter which rebroadcasts the national service with no separate local content and no independent coverage that would earn it a separate article from the main one on the network itself. While there are a few individual countries where exceptions do apply (e.g. the BBC regions and ITV franchises in the UK), North America is the only region on earth where there's a continent-wide norm in which individual "stations" are nearly always a fundamentally separate phenomenon which would nearly always qualify for their own independent articles as separate topics from the network they're associated with. In most countries, standalone "stations" either don't exist at all, or they exist as isolated standalone exceptions to the way most television broadcasting takes place in their country (e.g. a local community channel) — almost no non-NA country has anything even remotely resembling the "stations are independent standalone entities which redistribute the programming of a larger network, and would all qualify for their own standalone articles in addition to the article that already exists about the main network" model.
So it's the only region which actually requires an active project to coordinate a comprehensive set of hundreds or thousands of articles about individual television "stations" — most countries don't actually have such things at all and are appropriately covered purely at the "network" level. And even in the few non-NA countries that actually do have such things, they still differ from the North American model in ways significant enough that they're better handled by a country-specific WikiProject rather than being lumped together with the North American version of the phenomenon (for instance, even in the UK the local stations are all fully owned subsidiaries of their associated networks, so this project's rules and guidelines for network affiliate stations are essentially irrelevant — and even while BBC1 and ITV have associated "stations", the other three terrestrial networks in the UK operate on the international "one nationwide service with no local differentiation" model which would preclude separate articles about each local transmitter. So even with some local "stations", the UK is still a hybrid model which falls partially outside the scope of this project.)
This project was never meant to be inclusive of all television services that broadcast content at all; it was specifically for the kind of terrestrial "station" that exists as a local entity which affiliates with a separate entity called a "network" or a "syndicator", and thereby airs a schedule that combines both nationally-distributed and locally-produced programming. And that's a phenomenon that exists in only a few countries anywhere outside of North America. It's not a systemic bias issue, but just a reflection of the fact that terrestrial television broadcasting isn't structured the same way in most of the world as it is in Canada, the United States and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ABC News United States listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News United States to be moved to ABC News. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Planned FCC database outage

Per this, the FCC has a scheduled outage of their databases upcoming on the evening of September 2nd through the morning of September 8th. It's not explicit whether or not the TV query will come down as a result, but I find it hard to imagine that it won't. Mlaffs (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sister Stations

"should be limited to stations in the same market, radio and/or television. They should be listed in one line with no breaks, in alphabetical order regardless of whether its radio or TV. Out-of-market sister stations, even if signals overlap, should not be included as they add nothing but unwanted clutter." I got this message from Overlap signals should be acceptable. Number 2, I think the radio and TV stations list should be splitted up into two sections so that it will not confuse the reader. Another IP which claims to be a sock of has put up this note:

"please, ONLY SAME-MARKET SISTER STATIONS, not from out-of market"

There was no consensus for this and it doesn't need to have a separate note at the top. I say, we shall calm him down. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with allowing overlapping stations. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WNYW: What New Yorkers Watch? Is that the meaning of the call letters?, has removed the meaning of the call letters for WNYW standing for What New Yorkers Watch? That use to be a slogan for WNYW back in the 1990s, early 2000s. Here's what said:

Dear editor, you obviously have not read a comment made on this very page nearly nine years ago. Another editor had the answer, which I've copied and pasted below:
Doesn't the callsign mean What New Yorkers Watch? ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That's just a slogan. The call letters were derived from the former WNEW-TV call sign, with the "Y" replacing the "E" as Metromedia retained WNEW-AM and WNEW-FM after the sale of their television stations to News Corporation. I don't watch WNYW very much, but I believe the "What New Yorkers Watch" slogan has been placed in the background since they implemented the new Fox News Channel theme. Rollosmokes 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That was nine years ago that this comment have made. Should we add that meaning of the call letters? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FCC Outage Update

At 8am EDT, the planned outage of the entire FCC database should have ended. As of this writing, it has not. No updates from the FCC as to when the FCC Query links will begin working again. - NeutralhomerTalk • 12:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Parts of the FCC Query links are working, but a large portion of the site will remain down until 8am EDT on Thursday the 10th. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ABC News listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News to be moved to ABC News (United States). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Turner Classic Movies listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Turner Classic Movies to be moved to TCM (TV network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
This was speedy-closed; the nominator wanted to move the article, yet said the initialism was little-used. Suspecting this was solely a disruptive nom. Nate (chatter) 18:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Company listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for American Broadcasting Company to be moved to ABC (U.S. broadcast network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

FCC External Links

The FCC updated it's website today and when doing so, they changed the links for all FCC license documents. The {{TVQ}} template have been updated with the correct link, but the new link is still trickling through the system.

If you come across a 404 error when accessing an FCC link, remove the "www" and add "transition" in it's place and it will work. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As of 12:30am EST, the corrected link to the {{TVQ}} template should have populated through to all the TV station pages. I have checked random pages multiple times today and in the last couple hours I can't find any links that are coming up 404. If anyone finds one, please let me know and I will correct it manually. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mexican digital transition

I'm trying to figure out what the best course of action is for the impending Mexican digital transition, which means hundreds of stations changing callsigns.

Most Mexican station articles are redirects (e.g. XHHPC-TV), though some have edit histories (XHACC-TV) and some are full articles (XHGC-TV). I want to have a bot aid in the task of moving hundreds of redirects and then changing all the incoming links so that there would only exist, for instance, a redirect XHHPC-TDT and links to that redirect.

Would it be more efficient to move the redirects or to create new redirects and simply change all -TV to -TDT references on the appropriate pages? The time necessary will be a good bit, and with analog shutoffs on December 11, 16 and 17 totaling more than 120 stations, this is a major endeavor. I'd love to hear your opinion. Raymie (tc) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've saw you on the Monterrey transition back in September and I think you did pretty great on that one, bumping everything to -TDT suffixes and then updating the digital channel lineups at the same time (something else that seriously needed updating). I wish I could say create on the day of transition, but as any "simple" cable channel name change move I've attempted has shown, you might get channel fans in the way (thankfully less so with Mexican stations). For the smaller stations in smaller states you're probably safe with moving when the transition happens, but larger markets might require a rd creation and then a move request to an admin or bot assistance. Nate (chatter) 05:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've dealt with this on U.S. stations from time to time over the last few years, although in nowhere near the volume at any given time like you're describing here. Articles obviously need to be renamed, but unless there's a significant edit history, I can't see the value in moving a redirect - much better to just create the new one, and then edit the links. If you have lists of the specific stations transitioning, I'm happy to help out with the cleanup on those three evenings. And obviously, you can call on me if there's specific admin-related support you need. Mlaffs (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm working with User:Negative24 on a bot that will handle this massive task. It's currently up for approval See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot24. Raymie (tc) 07:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Television stations in Quintana Roo listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Television stations in Quintana Roo to be moved to List of television stations in Quintana Roo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of television stations in Quintana Roo listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of television stations in Quintana Roo to be moved to List of television stations in Quintana Roo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

New Infobox broadcast field: Operator

Due to the proliferation of local marketing agreements and other pacts that despite different names, have the same effective result, I had a new field known as "operator" added to {{Infobox broadcast}}. If the company operating the station is different from the owner of its FCC license (i.e. basically any station owned by a Sinclair/Nexstar sidecar and the like), putting it in this new field will list it below the owner at the same level of prominence, because they are effectively running the station as it is their own.

As they typically have the same on-air result regardless of whether its an LMA/SSA/etc. (beyond slight legal implications), and clutter the infobox with "fine print", articles that use this new field shouldn't list the specific type of agreement in the infobox in small text. Mentioning the type of agreement in the article body text is still okay. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

KDNL-TV listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for KDNL-TV to be moved to KDNL. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WHDH (TV) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for WHDH (TV) to be moved to WHDH. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Listing TV Stations by Channel Number

The headings VHF and UHF are not appropriate and they should be removed from any compilation of television stations which is itemized by channel number. Where the channel number listed corresponds to that station's "virtual channel number" which is displayed on-screen and used to tune to the station over-the-air, no assumption can be drawn as to whether that station operates in the VHF or UHF band. Each television station broadcasts on an "physical RF channel number" which may differ from the virtual channel number used to tune-in the station. The RF physical channel is a station's authorized radio frequency assignment to either the VHF or UHF band, and it is this number which determines whether a station is a VHF or UHF TV station.

Viewers who wish to determine which type of antenna to use to receive a signal from a TV station are misled by a compilation itemized under the headings "VHF" and "UHF" since the stations listed under these categories are not necessarily broadcasting in the corresponding VHF or UHF radio band. For example, in the West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce DMA, WHDT would be incorrectly listed as being a VHF station which broadcasts on channel 9. Yet WHDT is in fact a UHF station that broadcasts on RF channel 42. There is no satisfactory way to sort TV stations by their historic or virtual channel number without producing misleading results.

The headings VHF and UHF should be removed from any compilation of television stations listed by channel number unless it is made clear that the term "channel number" means the "RF physical channel number" used by those stations listed. However, viewers do not use RF channel numbers to tune-in TV stations. Instead, they rely on each station's virtual PSIP channel number which falls in the range of 2 to 51. Such virtual channel numbers do not have any meaning with respect to whether a station is a VHF or UHF station. Only the station's RF physical channel determines whether a TV station is a VHF or UHF station.

To facilitate the identification of VHF and UHF television stations in a market, a two simple lists of call signs can be crafted which are net of channel numbers but titled "VHF" and "UHF". This will assist viewers in determining if they need to use a VHF or a UHF antenna to receive a signal from a particular station. The principle list of Television Stations by Channel Number requires no heading other than a clarification that the channel numbers listed are those used by the respective stations as their "virtual channel numbers" for over-the-air tuning.

Günter Marksteiner, Dipl. Ing.-Dr. Senior Broadcast Engineer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEBE:EE40:1953:570B:8CAF:4ED1 (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

KVMY listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for KVMY to be moved to KHSV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

KHSV (TV) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for KHSV (TV) to be moved to KHSV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Home Shopping Network listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Home Shopping Network to be moved to HSN (TV network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Game Show Network listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Game Show Network to be moved to GSN (TV network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Turkish Radio and Television Corporation listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Turkish Radio and Television Corporation to be moved to TRT (Turkey). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Unis (TV channel) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Unis (TV channel) to be moved to Unis TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

MyNetworkTV listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for MyNetworkTV to be moved to My Network TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2BE (TV channel) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2BE (TV channel) to be moved to Q2 (Belgium TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Q2 (TV channel) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Q2 (TV channel) to be moved to Q2 (Belgium TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed deletion of

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

duplicate/content fork of KCKS-LD using its branding shared with its transmitters as all stations are name per TVS standard by their call name/sign

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spshu (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Article starter opposed the proposed deletion. It is now up at AfD. Spshu (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

KBJO-LD listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for KBJO-LD to be moved to KNPG-LD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ABC News listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News to be moved to ABC News (United States). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

KBJO-LD listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for KBJO-LD to be moved to KNPG-LD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

NBC St. Joseph listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for NBC St. Joseph to be moved to KNPG-LD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Canal 5 (Televisa Network) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Canal 5 (Televisa Network) to be moved to Canal 5 (Mexico). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ABS-CBN (television network) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABS-CBN (television network) to be moved to ABS-CBN. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Disruptive changes to FCC links

DJV11181988 (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive changes, mainly the removal of the {{TVQ}} template with direct links to various files on the FCC website. This is very cumbersome and contradicts established practices. Could somebody take a look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted most of the changes and warned (about 10 others remain thanks to intervening edits). Definitely not within consensus and complicating something that isn't needed, and at this point they've been blocked too many times without getting the point. Further unhelpful edits should earn them a long-term indef. Nate (chatter) 03:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nickelodeon to be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Oxygen (TV channel) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Oxygen (TV channel) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Closed out; they wanted to redirect it to ? months before an alleged change of name I haven't seen mentioned yet. Nate (chatter) 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nickelodeon to be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Closed this out; once I checked the nominator's history it became clear this was a joke nom by a Gabucho181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) sock (one of their entries involved their quixotic request to bring back Dan Vs..) Nate (chatter) 21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

On cable televison...

We know many TV stations are carried on cable on different channels. I don't think we need the following "On cable, the station is carried on (insert cable company) channels x (high definition)." Listing cable channels on the station article may trigger a WP:NOTTVGUIDE or WP:DIRECTORY. ACMEDeputy (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop, and use common sense. The only editor who is wound up about this is you because you're bored and looking for something to fight about. Let's use common sense; 80-90% of 2-20 stations are on their OTA channel number on cable systems and they don't need call-outs in articles. After that it usually doesn't happen and for some stations they get a number throughout the market, and sometimes they don't. We can be general in that case with a general range, but we know how to set limits on most articles. If there's NOTDIR flag on something, I'll trust an admin to give us a yellow line or another user who can help us word it appropriately. I'm stopping this right here because you've dragged us through needless issues before; edit with common sense and we'll never need an artificial rule to do this. Nate (chatter) 21:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting reassessment of article

Please comment and reassess the article Dhammakaya Media Channel, which has recently been updated greatly. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Digital transition is in the past

Nearly every US TV station page I have viewed on Wikipedia has a "Digital television" section with "Digital channels" and "Analog-to-digital conversion" subsections. The digital switchover in the US has been 100% complete since about 2009. I would propose that the switchover information be moved into the "History" section of each article, as the various events surrounding each channel's switch are now normal historical events. The list of multiplexed subchannels for each channel can be moved to the "Programming" section of each article, since it reflects programming carried on a subchannel of the station.

I took initiative and did this on the WABC-TV article. I think it makes much more sense like this.

Please discuss. If there is consensus, we should make this transition a task for the WikiProject. Jbbdude (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right in principle about what should happen, but the issue is that this project doesn't actually have the personpower needed to tackle a comprehensive mass project of getting it done across the board all at once — in reality, this project hasn't been much more than an "individual incidents" noticeboard since the day close to a decade ago that we finally had virtually all North American television station articles up and running. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Bearcat; I'd love to see that happen (and making mentioning 480i at all on any current show verboten because at this point most everyone outside the most stubborn at least has a converter box showing programs in 16:9), but we have a lot of ground to cover to get all of that merged. That, and the digital transition is technically on pause because we have no idea when low-powers will finally get a 'put it on or shut it down' date to go digital, and as long as we still have those signals on the air, the DTV switchover isn't done yet. Nate (chatter) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. I have tried to even discussion this here to no success. We should at least make this the standard (and displayed at TVS Station infobox and Template:Infobox broadcast) than a task (although if its listed as a task, that might prompt new editors or editors [new to TVS] wanting to contribute to work on this with out our prompting.) As I have IP editors and others that like to reverse the removal of the digital TV § and its integration into history and the infobox base on "how its done in other articles". Thus those current editing station articles can just make the changes as we edit a particular station's article for other reasons.
I would also like the format there at WABC-TV has the infobox fields subchannel and affiliation pick up the info from the digital channel table be a part of the standard.
Digital to analog conversion was a historical event thus makes sense in the history section. There is also the upcoming digital repacking of TV stations' channels for the spectrum auctions to allow for more bandwidth for cellular services. The repacking should just be cover in history. Spshu (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Incentive auction concluded

Today (April 13, 2017), the FCC announced the results of the broadcast television incentive auction, in which TV stations are being paid to relinquish their spectrum, which is then being sold on to wireless carriers, with profits going to the federal government. The announcement includes final revised channel assignments for nearly all TV stations in the US and Canada, and the closing auction bid for those stations that will be taken silent, change bands, or seek a channel-sharing arrangement with another station. The government will take in $19.8 billion from wireless carriers and pay out $10 billion to broadcasters. The major story here is the sale of Comcast's WNBC, which received the second-highest payout of all stations participating in the auction. (Two other Comcast-owned stations will also relinquish their spectrum; in all three cases, Comcast owns another station in the same market that can share its spectrum.) TBN receives $304 million for its station in Chicago, and numerous public broadcasters receive payouts in the ten-to-one-hundred-million range to change bands or shut down entirely. (Boston's WGBH-TV is the winner in this category, receiving $162 million to move from channel 19 to channel 5.) (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • PDF of the results for easier editor reference. Note that some of these channels aren't going away, just moving to channel sharing agreements (example; WLVI keeping their 56.1 number and moving to WHDH (TV)).Nate (chatter) 02:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

requesting an assessment

I request a re-assessment of Dhammakaya Media Channel, which I've expanded on. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

WSTQ-LP listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for WSTQ-LP to be moved to WSTM-DT2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

American Broadcasting Company listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for American Broadcasting Company to be moved to American Broadcasting Companies. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The WB 100+ Station Group redux

Finding a set of articles in TV Week about the The WB 100+ Station Group, I set about adding the information to the respective real TV station that affiliated to cablecast as a WB faux station. I am not completely satisfied how I add the information to articles and their infobox of the clear cut WB+ faux station associated to the real station (for example, KMTR). Early discussion at TVS deal with the faux call sign getting these affiliations articles as false stations and article names if truely notable by themselves. Not all of this was acted on.

  1. One solution is to place an cable channel ibox near the paragraph in history about the adjunct cable channel in the stations' article.
  2. Have a section for the adjunct cable channel with cable channel ibox.
  3. use other channel, but that is for active translator(s)
  4. use former affiliation ibox field ("KZWB cable: WB") like KMTR
  5. use both former affiliation (cable: WB) and former_callsigns fields (cable: "KZWB")

With the last 2 some linkage to The WB 100+ Station Group. Any thoughts? Spshu (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ibox Branding formating

I have started a discussion about changing the example infobox broadcast to remove small formatting expressly in the branding field. Please comment there. --Spshu (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Company listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for American Broadcasting Company to be moved to ABC (Television Network). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nickelodeon listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nickelodeon to be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
I closed this; it's Gabucho181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) socking. Ignore the notice above. Nate (chatter) 00:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Turner Classic Movies listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Turner Classic Movies to be moved to TCM. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ABC News listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for ABC News to be moved to ABC News (United States). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

IP keeps reverting my edits (Re: cable channel info)

Copied & pasted from WP:ANI "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" on San Antonio TV station articles [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] I don't want to get into an edit war with an unknown user who may have probably vandalized other articles. My edits are in good faith and consistent with other TV station articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a link to where the editor left the edit you quoted here?[21] You also might want to beware the boomerang. I see that despite the fact that you did try to communicate with the IP editor, you did revert them a whole bunch of times.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. That was also even before you gave them an an actual level 2 warning[29], or reported them here to ANI.[30] Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The edit where the IP made that quote is here: [31] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the IP did not respond to your talk page comments before reverting. I'd suggest continuing with dispute resolution by getting uninvolved domain experts involved, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ion digital channels template

In the digital channels table on Ion Television station articles, on the bottom it says "23.7 TBN Trinity Broadcasting Network". I don't remember TBN making a deal with Ion. This has got to be a hack. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted as a good faith edit by an IP who doesn’t understand this template is wide-ranging. Probably a one-market channel share where TBN is on 23.7 (likely WDLI-TV with WVPX-TV in Cleveland/Akron). Nate (chatter) 20:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Where do I edit the template? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I’ll look over things and get wherever it needs to be edited done; no rush. Nate (chatter) 21:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find anything in the FCC databases about a WDLI/WVPX channel share (the IP is confirmed from Cleveland with a Spectrum IPv4); the only thing I've found is that WDLI filed an STA notice in October while they coordinated the channel share to last until April (beyond the January 23 disbursement date) and that the channel share agreement would be released soon, but nothing beyond that release. If there's a news story or someone in Cleveland can confirm that WDLI is transmitting from WVPX, we have something, but for now, erring on the side of caution and leaving it out until confirmation. Nate (chatter) 00:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Copied/pasted from my talk page.

Please become familiar with the above-linked guideline, particularly item 1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " A channel change that is invisible to the viewers (due to virtual channel numbers) is not particularly notable and may well be subject to re-think. That WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a valid argument; those should be removed as well. Jeh (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Invisible"? Well, OTA viewers have to rescan once the channel change takes place. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
True but that's not a compelling point as far as the guideline is concerned. With rare exceptions we don't mention future events. There will be ample time to mention them after they happen. Jeh (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
As I had said with the italics vs. quotes debate, you would have to make changes to every TV station article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
That's another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. And as before: no, not nearly every article, nor is that a reason to allow new violations to stand. Jeh (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Can we get some context for what the actual situation is that we're watching you guys argue about, if I'm correct in assuming that copy-pasting it here means that you're looking for outside input? Bearcat (talk)
This is about the repack. I've been including future channel allocations in the inboxes, but Jeh says I shouldn't because WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

WMYO listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for WMYO to be moved to WBKI-TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel) to be moved to Oprah Winfrey Network. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.


I was attempting to remedy confusion causing television articles to link to an unrelated website, and ended up taking it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 24#Global Christian Network (broadcaster). Is this network's notability any better, now? —PC-XT+ 04:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note here to clarify that after reviewing the situation, I determined that the broadcaster is not the same thing as the website in any way, so PC-XT was right to question the redirect — but neither the old article about the broradcaster nor the article about the website was actually properly sourced as notable at all. So I closed the redirect discussion and reverted the broadcaster's redirect back to its former standalone article, but have listed both topics for separate AFD discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Channel 9 (Mexico) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Channel 9 (Mexico) to be moved to Nu9ve. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pasadena Community Network listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pasadena Community Network to be moved to Pasadena_Community_Access_Corporation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nomination for merge of Idaho TV network affiliation templates

Several Idaho TV network affiliation templates has been nominated for merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Following guidelines - or disregarding them - consistently


As crazy as this sounds, user Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) appears to believe that general Wikipedia guidelines can be disregarded as long as it's done consistently.

He has now undone my edit on three articles twice over, re-inserting code like [[Fort Wayne, Indiana|Fort Wayne]], [[Indiana]] , and linking to the United States, despite my edit summary mentioning WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK.

His laconic defense is "consistency".

What's your input, project?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention linking to Indiana is also superfluous as anyone that has any interest in Indiana can already go to that through the Fort Wayne link. I concur that there's no need to over link pages. —Mythdon 05:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NET. listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for NET. to be moved to Net (Indonesian TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Should we list syndicated programming or not?

I'm personally against these lists. Firstly, they're not up-to-date/accurate most of the time anyway (Harry is listed as syndicated programming on WSIL-TV, yet it was cancelled last May). Secondly, the only sources to verify whether (for example) Judge Judy airs on KBSI are the station's website and TV listings (neither of which are appropriate sources). Thirdly, most readers outside of the viewing area (unless they're a TV station enthusiast) probably aren't going to care whether Judge Judy airs on KBSI or not even though they live in the Chicago market. It's just so much to keep track of and there's no reason to treat these pages as if Wikipedia is a television guide.

Just like we don't list every station a syndicated program airs on, we shouldn't list every syndicated program a station airs. I guess I want to say Wikipedia isn't a TV guide and I propose that we start removing lists like these. Thoughts? —Mythdon 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We've tried to limit it to five-six shows and the obvious top 10 shows so we're not listing "KXXX airs (long list of shows), along with (some film package only known to TV industry people), Taxi, the local services of the Universal Life Church and 'that Larry King Special Report infomercial'. I try to update the lists of stations I know in September, but in the smaller markets it's often not gotten to until a certain point (I've found some stations still listing Trisha Goddard for instance), and when we started we still had good 'here's what's coming to Buffalo in syndication' sources to get them in, but the cuts in the newspaper industry mean they're not being found now. Those who list more than six shows should definitely go (I admit I've slacked in a couple places). Nate (chatter) 21:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I argued quite strongly against TV station articles listing syndicated shows the last time this came up for discussion, and my belief has not changed — it's simply not noteworthy most of the time, there aren't typically good sources that can be brought to support the information besides the TV listings grid, and as you note it's not adequately maintained so that the information stays current. In the vast majority of cases, information about syndicated shows should simply be removed from articles entirely — there may occasionally be situations where something more notable than usual happens as a result of the station's syndicated lineup (e.g. the CJNT-DT vs. WFFF-DT scheduling war over That 70s Show, or the week of "guest hosts from individual stations that carry our show" that Regis & Kelly did in 2009), but it's not our role to be TV Guide — if the sole apparent purpose of the information is so that people know what channel certain shows happen to be on in their town, then there's no value in picking out a random and arbitrary subset of the station's schedule. So if nothing special or unusual has happened to make the station's carriage of any particular syndicated show noteworthy, and instead the information is just "WAAA-TV carries That 70s Show, Kelly & Ryan and Ellen, the end" with the complete and total absence of a reason why it's important that a show's on this station rather than that one, then it should be poleaxed as non-notable trivia. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Unless there is a reliable non-primary source, no TV listing grids, then no syndicated programs. So, I have been removing them. I have in one case found a news source for a particular region (Lansing Michigan) and added them. I guess I though that it would show how the station program its syndicated fare, all court, all talk, mixed or other. But seeing the list degrade via cancellation or being dropped by the local, I am starting to lean to remove them all together. Spshu (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

When should graphics/set changes be listed?

Unless a graphics/set change just so happens to be included with the switch to HD, or is cited to at least a local newspaper (like the one listed for WSIL-TV is), then I don't think we should be listing every single graphics/set change.

To get a sense of what I mean, take a look at KWQC-TV#News operation for example. That section is bloated with every single graphics change since 2007 that's occurred every 2-3 years (that portion by itself is four paragraphs long). As I stated in a previous discussion, WP:IINFO applies since it's an indiscriminate collection of statistics. WP:NOTNEWS may even apply somewhat since its overall significance of contingent upon whichever 'graphics/set change' is the one currently being used and is of no long term historical significance.

So basically, I think some graphics/set changes can be included where appropriate (cases where it's actually been covered in sources, and thus bears significance to the station's history), but in most cases, the information just isn't useful apart from records keeping (which is of little meaning to most people outside of the television market) and is just original research that's bound to flood any "news operation" section (where most of these sections are already in need of some cleanup as is).

Thoughts? —Mythdon 00:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. As with syndicated shows, this should be noted in Wikipedia articles only on the rare occasion that something unusual or noteworthy happens as a result of the graphics change — like, I dunno, a reliably sourceable viewer rebellion that forces the station to go back to the old package. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the both of you that unless there was some sort of public response to the graphics changes, these changes are routine and don't need to be covered. Spshu (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
WBZ-TV is a good example; their new set did get media attention, but was also criticized by said media attention for getting standardized branding and not being "local". ViperSnake151  Talk 

Should cable channels be listed?

If so, only the major providers? SD only? HD only? Or SD and HD? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If it qualifies for its own article according to Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines, then I don't see why not. Most channels these days are in HD anyway, but I don't see why SD channels can't be listed too. —Mythdon 04:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mythdon:, I think Mvcg66b3r is referring to TV stations' assigned cable channels. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
On this one, the rule always used to be that we could list the channel position on DBS providers, like Dish Network in the US or Shaw Direct in Canada, that have a consistent lineup nationwide so that a station is always on that same channel no matter where in the country you are — but that we were not supposed to start listing the different channel positions on every individual co-ax cable provider in every individual city. You haven't provided a specific example to look at, so I don't know if people are starting to cross that line — but content of the latter type should definitely be removed immediately, while content of the former type should be discussed first. Especially for services with multiplex channels, even the permissible type of content has started to bloat up past any genuine utility given the proliferation of DBS and IPTV providers in the 2010s — I'm more knowledgable about Canada than the US as a rule, but when we first set the rule Canadian stations basically just had to list StarChoice and ExpressVu, and didn't have to worry about VMedia and Optik and Zazeen and two different Fibes — so it's definitely valid to revisit whether we should retain such content or not, but since it was historically considered acceptable, we would need to establish a consensus to deprecate it rather than just arbitrarily deeming it removable. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Station branding disambiguation pages

Like for example. News 3 and Local 6 where multiple stations have identified their newscasts as such.

My main problem with pages such as these is that they constantly have to be kept up to date (as stations change their branding every so many years). I just had to add KIMT to News 3 and remove WKMG and KOIN from Local 6 (whom changed their branding a few years back).

In the case of Local 6, only WPSD-TV (that I'm aware of) currently identifies as Local 6 (as the "Local" branding still isn't used by that many stations) essentially making the disambiguation moot, and should probably be redirected to WPSD-TV (just like Heartland News redirects to KFVS-TV).

Also every station listed on the News 6 page doesn't actually identify as News 6. That page was last edited in May 2011.

It just makes things confusing to have disambiguation pages that are rarely updated (and very likely to become out of date), since not that many people apparently actually search News 3 or Local 6 in the search bar (and would very likely just search WSIL-TV or WPSD-TV anyway to get to their News 3 or Local 6 station). Judging from what I've seen the majority of editors do in this WikiProject, people are much more likely to look up the call letters or television market than the branding itself (which they'll know anyway by going to the station article).

In other words, these pages merely exist and don't actually help in navigating between television station articles, in my opinion. I'm pretty tempted to just nominate these for deletion, but I'm seeking a consensus here first on what to do with them and if kept should there be a do over on how they're handled? —Mythdon 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Just PROD them (then nominate if someone objects); I'm getting really tired of all of these needless DABs involving branding that changes every year or so. I thought we were getting this control, but this, along with the 'list every cable position from Ankeny to Zion a station has' crufters, are starting to get their way too again. Nate (chatter) 21:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with deleting both of those. I just checked Local 6's page view stats and found that it's incredibly little used — it averages less than one hit a day, and even a couple of the hits I saw can be accounted for by this conversation. And News 6 isn't the brand name of the stations on that page — there's even one station listed there despite not actually being a Channel 6 station, on the basis of having a rebroadcaster on channel 6 in a secondary market — but "one news department changes its news branding depending on what market you're watching it in" is not how television news works. Delete both of those with fire, for sure. There might be some situations where a page to disambiguate television or radio stations by on-air branding makes sense — but these two aren't among them, and there's no practical benefit to having a dab page in place for every brand name used by every broadcast station. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've prodded all three of the pages, per the above. —Mythdon 21:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Also prodded Local 4, NBC 4, CBS2, ABC 6, ABC 7, NBC 5, NBC 6, NBC 10 and Fox 7 and ABC8. —Mythdon 22:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I declined CBS 2, as I recall reading coverage of CBS's attempt to standardize this branding in major markets (NY, LA, and Chicago) though I can't immediately find it. Most of the others could redirect to a page like List of NBC television affiliates (table). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. As to redirecting, while that would certainly work for the network "ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX [channel number]" format, it wouldn't work for any of the ones with the "News [channel number]" or "Local [channel number]" format, and those might have to be AFD'd. —Mythdon 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
All PBS stations, including those of PBS 2, PBS 5, PBS 8, PBS 10, PBS 13, and PBS 39 should redirect to List of PBS member stations as well. Would that be a good idea? J4lambert (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, especially since most PBS stations aren't even branded as their channel number anyway. —Mythdon 13:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Information - what to keep and what to remove? (Proposal)

Seeing as I've started 4 discussions within the past 18 days ("Notable on-air staff" "Station branding disambiguation pages" "Should we list syndicated programming or not?" "When should graphics/set changes be listed?"), I thought I'd reworked them into a single discussion.

But there seems to be an ongoing consensus that anything that's just a routine change (non-notable staff/branding/syndicated programming/graphics changes) not be included. Yet we keep having these same conversations (about graphics changes March 2009, about syndicated programming May 2014 to give a couple examples).

Speaking of the on-air staff, I was admittedly adding stuff like "news anchor retired from [this station] after [this many years]" to a bunch of articles (as I'd already said in the "Notable on-air staff" discussion above), as of today I began removing what I originally added [32] [33] [34] when I realized it's just an excuse to keep listing non-notable staff. In all three of the instances that I've just mentioned, these were single instances where retiring staff was covered in the news, as part of routine staff changes that are routinely announced by TV stations.

What we probably need to do is establish some kind of guideline to outline where and when this information can included (or should we just keep invoking already existing policies/guidelines?). I know that sounds a bit bureaucratic, but I don't want these issues to keep resurfacing to where we constantly keep having to have these same conversations (It took years before the listing non-notable staff came to an end (Jun 2009 October 2012 July 2013 September 2014).

Thoughts? —Mythdon 22:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Notable on-air staff

I've went back and forth on this subject over the years.

But the way I see it now, I don't think we should be listing every single person that's ever worked at a TV station (that's just copying and pasting from the station website, which often isn't up to date anyway).

But if they've been featured in some publication, then I think they should be included somewhere in the "News operation" section. For example, Bob Reeves of KFVS-TV's retirement was mentioned in Daily Journal Online while the death of Don McNeely (also of KFVS) was mentioned in The Southeast Missourian. Both are local publications, which means they're more notable than for example Carly O'Keefe (where the only info you'll find is the official KFVS website, Topix and Linkedin). But unless they're notable like Sam Champion or Matt Lauer, then they shouldn't have an article about them.

Personally I think as long as sources exist outside of the station website, they should be included, as it's part of the station history. It's mostly the ones that have worked at a station for 20+ years (mostly in the medium or larger markets, end up retiring, or have garnered extensive media attention, long running anchor teams like Rod Wood/Carrie Lazarus of WSYR) that end up in the newspapers anyway, so it's not like these pages are going to get bloated or anything with every person that just happened to work there for a long time.

What does everyone else think constitutes notability as far as the on-air staff? When to include them and what sources to use? —Mythdon 21:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me.--Chaswmsday (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I've always been comfortable with the official rule, that staff should only be listed in the article if they're independently notable and thus have a biographical article to link to. However, I'm fully aware that people have never followed that rule very well, and keep trying to readd non-notable staff anyway — but as a Canadian I only bother to do anything about it on Canadian television stations, and rarely pay much attention to what's happening on American ones. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bearcat: I think your suggestion is more reasonable than the one I initially came up with. As evidence by my comments in this sections. I've backed away from adding any staff without independent notability. —Mythdon (トーク) 20:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Why limit to only independently *notable* staff?? Not each and every fact or bit of prose in *any* WP article is independently notable. Why *not* allow a well-sourced fact that an on-air staff member worked at a station, as we would allow for any other well-sourced fact?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Chaswmsday: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 11:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, not every staff member people might want to add to an article is actually reliably sourced at all. Much more often the names are added either unsourced, or referenced only to the station's self-published website — and even if a properly independent reliable source is added, it still might be just a glancing namecheck of that person's existence in an article about something else.
Secondly, because such content doesn't necessarily stay current: if the primary source gets taken down because the staff member has left for another job, the link's death may not get noticed and the person's name may not get removed promptly.
Thirdly, because if the person isn't independently notable in their own right, then what reason is there for any reader to actually give a flying fig about the information? It's not our mission to be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE source of every possible tidbit of information about everything or everyone who exists — our mission is to curate what's important and valuable information and what isn't, so the question is not "does a source exist for this person's name", but "why would it be important for this person's name to appear in the article at all"? If I don't live in a station's broadcast area, then the names of its non-notable staff don't mean squat to me — and if I do live in a station's broadcast area, then I already know who its reporters and anchors are without needing Wikipedia to tell me. So either way, the information has done absolutely nothing useful for me. The basis for including a staff member's name in a television station's article obviously changes if that staff member is independently notable in his or her own right, and thus has a Wikipedia article to link to — but if they aren't and don't, then the information is useless trivia about a person I've probably never heard of whose employment status I have no reason to care about. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Should slogans be listed?

Same reason I don't think station branding, syndicated programming or graphics changes. Thoughts? —Mythdon (トーク) 03:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably pointless trivia, but as consensus previously allowed them it would take a discussion of more than just one or two people to overturn that. Could you show an example or two of where you think it might be getting excessive? Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How should listing the switch to HD be handled?

The problem is many of these aren't sourced ([35] [36]) and can be taken for granted as being true anyway.

On the other hand, I was able to source WSIL-TV's to the official website (although I know that's a WP:PRIMARY source, better than no source).

Personally I think unless it can at least be sourced to the station's website, better yet, has been covered in the market's local newspaper, then it shouldn't be listed, since by now most stations are already taken for granted as offering local news in HD without every article needing to say "on [such and such date] [station] began offering local news in HD". Thoughts?—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Out-of-state stations in intrastate TV templates?

Recently I added some out-of-state stations into some intrastate TV templates, those stations that can be received in the market via cable or antenna. But my edits got reverted, with other editors saying those stations were clearly not in-state. Should out-of-state stations be added to intrastate TV templates even if they're in the same market? And what about Canadian and Mexican stations in border areas? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My definition is if they market to a nearly direct border area (Gary to Chicago, Duluth to Superior or WWOR's Secaucus, NJ to New York and Salem, Indiana to Louisville), they're fine to put in. But certainly not to an area that is incredibly secondary like your call to add Minneapolis stations to the WI templates, which was the reason for my reversion). And no to Canada or Mexico; they have their own templates, and even then, just put it in the 'see also' section with merely a link. There's nothing more annoying to see than template bloat for the sake of overtemplatization. Nate (chatter) 01:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nate on this. It's been a constant battle between those who want to keep the templates to the purposes they were designed for, and those who want to bloat them up beyond all utility — but consensus has been that television or radio market templates need to restrict themselves largely to in-market stations (with the rare occasional exception for high-overlap situations like Nate's examples, where the station is central to two adjacent markets.) But if just "can be received via cable or antenna" was enough, then we'd have to extend that to Canada as well, such as by throwing the Buffalo and Toronto stations into each other's templates, throwing the Montreal and Plattsburgh/Burlington stations into each other's templates, adding the Detroit, Boston and/or Seattle stations carried by Shaw Broadcast Services to every damn television template across the entire country, and on and so forth. Unfortunately, however, I see that upcycling the templates to "direct inclusion of adjacent markets" has been happening again lately, so badly that I'm going to have to remove CHCH-DT from the Northern Michigan template, where it doesn't fucking belong. This is not what the templates were meant for. Please also see WP:TCREEP, which clarifies that our goal is to minimize the number of templates at the bottom of an article as much as possible, not explode it. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that we're not allowed to use swear words on talk pages. If I want to use a swear word in my comment, Mvcg66b3r, it's not your prerogative to asterisk it out after the fact — if you don't like it, tough shit, I'm the only person who gets to edit my comment at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
And this too...Duluth stations might get to a little part of Michigan, but anyone in that state would never count on a station that merely shares a large body of water with the other state (and I removed a Wisconsin station that only gets to Michigan because of the lake and doesn't even post temperatures from on their weather maps). The Toledo stations are effectively hard-blocked from most cable viewership in MI by their Detroit counterparts (and the MyNet affiliate in Toledo can barely cover the city itself, let alone outside of it). Please look at a map and think if an add makes sense to add to a template. Nate (chatter) 05:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential WP:OR in TV Red Puerto Rico?

I recently fixed some inconsistencies within a stub article, TV Red Puerto Rico, that apparently falls within the scope of this WikiProject, when I discovered two key issues there. To avoid having to retype all the details here, I merely refer to its talk page where you can read all the issues I pointed out there (including potential original research suspicions). --SilSinn9821 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1994 United States broadcast TV realignment listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for 1994 United States broadcast TV realignment to be moved to 1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.


This is a discussion opened at Talk:CUNY TV#channel not station about the claim that the CUNY TV is station or a channel. Please respond there. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking at TV station articles

BlueboyLI and I have been at loggerheads over links at TV station articles. I change the links to make him happy, but he still reverts to the same bland edits that were there before.

See these entries on my talk page: [37] [38] [39]

What is the proper format for linking cities and states on TV station articles? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, actually. Wikipedia has no rule dictating whether you go with [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]], [[New Jersey]] or [[Newark, New Jersey]] — but conversely, it's obviously not necessary to write [[Newark, New Jersey]], [[New Jersey]], and you should definitely avoid using pipetext to force the state or province name into the same link as a city whose title doesn't already have it (i.e. you should never turn [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]] into [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]]). OVERLINK doesn't mandate anything about that, and just suggests that it's not necessary to link [[United States]] after New Jersey — but as to how you format the link to Newark, the only rule this project has is to not fix it if it ain't broken: if it gets you to the right Newark without breaking any other rules, then don't change [[Newark, New Jersey]] to [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]], [[New Jersey]] (or vice versa) just for the sake of changing it. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

H2 (TV network) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for H2 (TV network) to be moved to History2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

KCTY (defunct) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for KCTY (defunct) to be moved to KCTY (Kansas City). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed deletion of Discovery Channel Mexico


The article Discovery Channel Mexico has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as being unreferenced since 2008 and for notability/context since 2017. Article is nothing more than a single sentence and a navigation box. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG; so, if deletion is not appropriate, then a redirect to another article may be.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move - (defunct) disambiguator

Hi, here to notify you of a requested move concerning station articles with the (defunct) disambiguator in the title. You can find it at Talk:KCLA (defunct). Raymie (tc) 04:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Channel (frequency) changes

Today (April 12, 2019), KCBS-TV (Los Angeles, CA) "moved" from channel 43 to 31. I had to find and change it in 11 articles (I hope I got them all – I'm surprised to have not found anything to change in the Category or Template namespaces). This leads me to wonder whether this has been done correctly for other channel changes. Is there a list of these changes somewhere? I'll note that, at least for KCBS-TV, there is little info in the Wikidata item. Has there been a discussion somewhere about putting the channel and other info into Wikidata and linking to it instead of hard-coding it in many articles? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, Channel 31 digital TV stations in the United States and others are currently bullet-lists in callsign order (which isn't particularly useful for most readers, I think). Any objection to my changing them to sortable tables and wikilinking the cities? Also, shouldn't these be named "List of digital TV stations [broadcasting] on channel 31 in the United States"? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You won't find anything in the Category namespace. In fact, the various sets of TV channel lists for Canada, the U.S., and Mexico — digital channels, virtual channels, low-power channels, and branded channels — were created several years ago as the outcome of a CfD. On the template side, the TV station templates that reference channel numbers tend to reference the virtual channel rather than the RF one.
As you probably know, TV stations in the U.S. are flying all over the dial over the next few years because of the repacking. The FCC has lists of when changes are scheduled to take place, but you can't use those as much more than a guideline — a number of channels have gone far earlier than planned. The trigger for me is when the issuance of a station's license to cover their new channel is published in the FCC's daily Broadcast Actions report. I've done a bunch of updates related to this, and I know I'm not the only one. The changes for the full-power stations like KCBS-TV tend to happen more quickly because there are more eyes on them/interest in them; I find it's more often the class A and low-power stations/translators that I'm cleaning up.
In terms of the formatting of the lists, sortable sounds like a great idea, and I'd be ambivalent about linking the cities. Consider that I was creating somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 of these lists coming out of that CfD, so I kept them pretty simple at the time. All I'd suggest is that you not add too much more in the way of content to the lists, particularly while these repacking changes are happening (stuff like network affiliations, transmitter locations, etc. - someone did this recently for AM radio stations, and it's made them that much more likely to become outdated). Mlaffs (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Mlaffs is correct; Wikipedia came to a consensus that television stations should not be categorized by their channel number, because it doesn't represent a defining point of commonality between television stations in different cities. Stations across the United States on Channel 31 don't actually have anything in common with each other that links them together as a group, so the only purpose such a category could really serve is helping to locate a television station you know by channel number but not by call sign — but since the category doesn't include any annotations by location, it doesn't really accomplish that purpose at all. Which is why we group "television stations by channel number" as lists, instead of categories — a list can include extra annotations, such as city or owner or branding or network affiliation, that actually help a person pin down which one they're looking for, but in a category the user would have to actually check each individual article one by one until they found the right station, which isn't helpful at all.
It would be perfectly valid to reformat the lists in a different way, if you're actually willing to take on a comprehensive project. There's no reason why they would be permanently locked into the existing format, and they can absolutely be reorganized anytime somebody's willing to put the work into improving them. It's just a big job that might take days or weeks, which is why editors haven't really shown the will to organize them into sortable tables, but if somebody's actually willing to take it on there's no rule that they can't be reorganized. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

RT (formerly Russia Today)

Hello. You are invited to participate in two related RfCs: Talk:5G#RfC:Russian disinformation and Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC:Propaganda. R2 (bleep) 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)