Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 7

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


Model pages

Just wondering if this group might have any recommendations as to what would currently be considered or most closely resemble a "model page." I am trying to find an actual example of sorts that provides the sort of preferred content format and tone especially relating to local stations. Thx! Tmore3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help starting a project

I am interested in starting a project that focuses on The History Channel and the individual shows that air or appear on the channel. I do not know how to start this project or enlist help. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks. Seantpainter 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest....but this isn't the right place. --CFIF 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Gee thanks CFIF, I sort of know that ... That is why I was asking for help on where to begin? Seantpainter (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dingbat's latest...

Rebafan32. Too bad Dhett's on vacation (apparently), or he would've been blocked eons ago. -- azumanga 02:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And now, after he's been indef blocked, he's vandalising his own talk page. If he's not officially community banned by now, I say he is -- I plan on reverting everything Dingbat edits, as he is now effectively poison. -- azumanga 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalizing your OWN talk page...boy, that's just pitiful. WAVY 10 Fan 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Funeral, actually, in Dingbat's own home territory, ironically. Thanks for covering while I was gone. I think we're having an effect; vandalizing one's own talk page is a sign of impotence. It's the only page he has access to. I'm not sure when the IP addresses come off block; should be soon now, but he'll probably start hitting those once they come available. dhett (talk contribs) 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Those were 24-hour blocks; I was thinking 24-day. I'm surprised then that we haven't had to play whack-a-mole on IP accounts again. dhett (talk contribs) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan21. Rebafan33. Rebafan39. All today (11/3). Apparently, Dingbat does no know what the phrase "get a life" means. Though seriously, I think it's a good time to make this community ban official, since he will do anything to cause trouble, despite being blocked. I know we are already reverting everything he did regardless, but maybe it's time we go "on the record" for this. -- azumanga 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ya there Azumanga. I think it is time nice ol' community ban. I think we should keep an eye on all variations of the "rebafan" name. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is getting tiresome. dhett (talk contribs) 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So who wants to head to ANI and make the proposal? Blueboy96 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I would, if I knew how. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan28. Rebafan46. The same night as activity by Mmbabies. It's almost as if these two clowns feed off each other. dhett (talk contribs) 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan4. Rebafan14. He should have this group of usernames worn out in short order. Caught red-handed both times. I've been reading over the blocking and banning policies, and unfortunately, I don't believe we can do any more than what we're doing now. Edits are being reverted on sight without regard to merit, admins block indefinitely, and admins do not unblock. That's a community ban. I did post to the village pump policy page to see if anyone has any ideas of what we can do beyond here. dhett (talk contribs) 22:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I had a hunch he was effectively banned ... nobody in his right mind will unblock him. I went ahead and slapped a {{banned}} tag on his userpage. Blueboy96 01:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan22. Also effective immedialtely, he will also get the "coveted" BannedMeansBanned template. -- azumanga 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) dhett (talk contribs) 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan. Blocked 02:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) dhett (talk contribs) 02:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Word34. Yes, Dingbat has gone on to a new group of usernames, Word##. Be sure to keep an eye out for them. dhett (talk contribs) 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Add Word26 dhett (talk contribs) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Word18. Blocked just moments ago. -- azumanga (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Getting a pattern on this group - Word 34, 26, 18. Be on the lookout for Word10 next. dhett (talk contribs) 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Kinda wonder what this guy's issue is ... it's like he wants us to nail him and block him. I'm starting to think Dhett may be right ... somebody needs a girlfriend. Blueboy96 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
...or any friend -- I wonder what his social habits are. (Of course, I also ask the same question about BenH and Mmbabies.) -- azumanga (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking that too. He makes it easy for us to track by going with similar usernames, editing the same articles over and over again, and committing the same vandalism over and over again. dhett (talk contribs) 08:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan24. Now blocked. So much for patterns. -- azumanga (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Word13. Now blocked. So much for patterns -- again. -- azumanga (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
<facetious>Oh, shut up!!</facetious> Now you know why my job as a Vegas bookmaker didn't turn out so well. ;-) dhett (talk contribs) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Word7. If he doesn't want to talk about it, he shouldn't have vandalised in the first place. (Those who read his talk pages will understand.) -- azumanga (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Word20. Already blocked. -- azumanga (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebafan52...only a couple edits, but quickly blocked. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal

As if Dingbat and Mmbabies weren't enough, we also have another vandal, who mostly edits articles related to the St. Louis, Missouri, area, but has been known to stray afield. (I found him/her after an edit to KPNX.) The vandal's edits seem constructive, but sometimes have incorrect information. Many edits are little nuisance things, such as changing News4 to News 4 when the former reflects the station's brand, or Food 4 Less to Food For Less (the brand is the former) and adding a -DT callsign and city of license to the station ID in the infobox. However, the most easy identifying marks of this vandal are the IP address in the 12.74... block, and the signature that the vandal attaches to the end of every article modified. The user has been warned numerous times for this practice, and even blocked temporarily.

I have set up a subpage in my userspace to track this vandal, whom I've dubbed the St. Louis signer. If you encounter this person, please add the IP address at User:Dhett/IPVandals/St. Louis signer. I'd like to get a record of this person so that I can 1)justify a block just on sockpuppetry and 2) report the vandal to his/her ISP for abuse, if for no other reason, just to have a record. dhett (talk contribs) 23:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added alot more IPs that fit the MO -- all 12.74s. Apparently, he has a strange fascination for Kristin Cornett. Of course, you heard it here first back in September -- see #We got another loony here... -- azumanga 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Archived talk page

I think 183K was long enough; I archived all topics with no discussion for the past week. The newly archived material can be found at /Archive 6. dhett (talk contribs) 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

BenH is back this time ... he didn't go as far as usual, unless I caught him at the beginning of a spree. The usual remedies apply. Blueboy96 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability Standard for Radio and TV Stations

After being struck down in his attempt to have the articles on radio stations WRNY and WRRC deleted, Mr.Z-man has made an attempt at changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations. This is a REALLY bad idea. This puts not only the work of this WikiProject, but the work of WP:WPRS, and potentially Wikipedia itself at risk. We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

...and obviously he isn't done. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I give my two cents in support in keeping the articles in the deletion review, and Z-man practically chewed me out. In my opinion, Z-man has a one-track mind, and that makes my blood boil. -- azumanga (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As it does mine. Which is why I am seriously considering a 'pedia just for radio and TV stations, radio and TV networks, even radio and TV programs. Cable Networks, Satellite Networks, Newspapers and the like as well. It would be independent of Wikipedia but use the MediaWiki software (so we don't have to learn anything new) but it would give these people who want to delete everything their "win" and keep the stuff we care about and the stuff we have created online and give it a "home" where it isn't always under attack. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As I told NH on his talk page, I feel the editors of WP:TVS and the Radio WikiProject are slowly being shown the door. First it was AMIB insisting that one and only one Fair Use image could be used in each article. Then it was the proposed mass deletions of all TV shcedules. Then it was the deletion of the list of radio stations by market (as a "copyvio") and the proposed deletion of the TV station one. Now the articles themselves are going up for deletion.
It's clear the Deletion Review discussion has been canvassed on IRC: it's seldom that a dozen users all show up to endorse the same point of view. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This guy has absolutely no shame. I busted him for not following procedure in WP:N, specifically the paragraph dealing with non-compliant articles, so now he's challenging that paragraph. Incredible! dhett (talk contribs) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling that we're dealing with an editor with a "holier than thou" attitude, who only cares what he thinks. And what I mean by "he", I mean "Z-man", not the "man upstairs". -- azumanga (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Update - he has withdrawn the challenge of the guideline after being called out on a bad faith move. dhett (talk contribs) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not ascribe emotions to folks we don't know, Azumanga. Some of the logic being used to support deletion is circular, but "holier than thou attitude" could be construed as incivil/a personal attack. Let's keep this contructive, if possible. The placement of a disputed tag on the notability guideline is worrisome. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. I retract and apologize for my "no shame" comment above; it was inappropriate. dhett (talk contribs) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, if the new guidelines pass, I think we should start a new Wiki for radio, TV and media (both stations and programming), as mentioned before. And if the powers that be decides to delete the non-notable articles en masse, they should at least give us time to transfer them to the new Wiki, otherwise, all or work would be for nought. It seems that the new standard would be to bend over backwards to demonstrate that it's very notable, not just relying on sources. -- azumanga (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I proposed that idea on a couple different pages and think if you, Dhett, and the other come together on the idea, we can build pages without the worry of them being deleted. We can make the site independent but with MediaWiki software (so we don't have to learn anything new :) ) and even add in pages about cable networks, satellite networks, newspapers and other media related stuff. - NeutralHomer T:C 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WOW!!! If you haven't seen the proposed guideline recently, I highly recommend that you go back and look at it. Squidfryerchef wrote up a comprehensive broadcast section that should allay most of the fears that members of this and the Radio Stations Project have concerning mass deletions of articles.
I would like to get a consensus on a gray area, though: satellite-delivered programming. We all agree that stations that originate programming generally are notable, and translator stations generally are not notable. What about satellite-fed stations, such as KUMY-LP in Beaumont, Texas, KNJO-LP in Holbrook, Arizona, and the umpteen TBN stations, all with exclusively network-originated programming and no local content? Should these enjoy inherent notability as well? I'm not so sure. I was involved in a very enlightening conversation at, where we determined that an LPTV station is required to use the same TOH station IDs as a full-service station, but only if it is broadcasting local original programming, which is defined in the FCC laws, sect. 74.701(h) as a station broadcasting programming originating from its own studios, but excludes those broadcasting satellite-delivered programming. Those can ID using a Morse Code signal. I was thinking that this demarcation is perfect for determining whether an LPTV station is inherently notable or not. What say you? dhett (talk contribs) 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the proposal is up for acceptence, comment there. Secret account 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One last point on notability

At the time of this writing, it's looking like we're going to get a sensible guideline on media notability that takes into account the shortcomings of WP:CORP (a.k.a. WP:ORG) and provides some sort of inherent notability for radio and television stations that originate programming.

However, there is one problem that both radio and television have that was evident in WRRC (FM): some articles do a very poor job of asserting notability, (as defined in WP:CSD, not WP:N), and regardless of the new policy, articles that do not assert notability are still candidates for speedy deletion. The one-sentence opening in WRRC doesn't even begin to tell me why the station is notable. A brief statement of its 45-year history, or its potential audience would greatly help others to see why. We had the same problem here with KUNP-LP, (now KPPP-LP), and I've seen it with other articles. (KPPP-LP still could use a little work on its opening paragraph, but at least now, it has reliable sources that establish its notability.)

I encourage anyone adding an article to ensure that it asserts its own notability, and if you find an article lacking in that, please consider either adding it, or let members of this WikiProject know. It's our best defense against article deletion. dhett (talk contribs) 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TV to DT Question

With WSKY's DT signal now (reported to be) officially on the air and WSKY only have the DT signal (no analog), do we rename the article from WSKY-TV to WSKY-DT, since it would be correct? - NeutralHomer T:C 12:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the station's official callsign is still WSKY-TV. If the FCC should change the callsign, as they did to WLNY-DT, then we should change the article name. dhett (talk contribs) 19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. Thanks! :) Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The city of license option in the infobox

Am I the only one who dislikes this? I think COL should go first in the location part as opposed to whatever the market name is..... --CFIF 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies update

Seven socks within the first five days of December alone. Un-flippin-believable. I bet he's getting straight-Fs in school. In my opinion, Mmbabies is getting zilch this Christmas -- not even coal (the way he's behaving, he'll end up putting the US in an energy crisis with the amount of coal required). -- azumanga (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83, a unrelated vandal who also edits on AT&T Houston is giving the admins just as many fits as MMB and is currently being discussed on ANI for a possible range block of the Houston pool which would also be a blessing to deal with Mmbabies' current spree. Nate · (chatter) 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC) After tonight, I'm all for banning Mmbabies from even LOOKING at Wikipedia. And if I had my way -- anything that carries an URL. -- azumanga (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

KABC-TV is no longer a Los Angeles station -- period, end of discussion

Looks like we got another nut who refuses to listen to reason -- another IP surfer with no regular account has been frequently changing the COL for KABC-TV to Glendale, California, and other "communities", such as "Los Angeles in name only", "the city north of Los Angeles", "not Los Angeles", and "The 818.". He has been warned several times against pulling these stunts, but continues anyway. I also explained to him why the COL is still Los Angeles, while its studio's in Glendale -- nothing but ignorance on his part. Looks like some restriction, on him and the article, should be in order. Comment? -- azumanga (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, RPP was denied but if it keeps up, then it will be protected. I have it on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for ya. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I just cleaned up some more of the IP's junk again. The KABC-TV page needs to be protected. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am laying down on the job, ain't I? I will see about RPP'ing it again. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It's gonna be hard to keep a leash on this guy ... looks like he's using Verizon Wireless' broadband network. Blueboy96 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if he keeps going, we can always request protection. I was told if it keeps up (and after AIV) it can and will be protected. I think they are waiting to see if he is going to continue or give it up first before protecting. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I re-requested semi-protect after he tried it twice again. Nate · (chatter) 08:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The page has a 14-day temp protection on it, after the last vandalism tonight. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 08:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dingbat2007, Part 206

Dingbat has himself another sockpuppet at An admin at AIV is refusing to block because "he is no longer active". Like we are supposed to sit on these pages 24/7. Guess everyone can keep this one on your watchlists until it's blocked too. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you include the sock list in your request? I've found that if I can't get him blocked for vandalism, I can at least get him blocked for sockpuppetry. dhett (talk contribs) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the helper-bots automatically added that it was on the sockpuppet list. Guess it didn't help. Doesn't it seem like we are in a losing battle with these vandals? - NeutralHomer T:C 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That, or the AIV admins refuse to look at the other socks and examine the similarities -- they just look at the vandalism for that user and that user only. -- azumanga (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock odor

So I've been working on the PBSKids article and relateds, and (esp on the PBSKids article proper) there's this guy who, in my usual naivete, I assumed just felt REALLY STRONGLY that his content belonged in the article, even though consensus on the talk pg seems to have favored its deletion for quite a while. Come to find out (thanks for the info, azumanga!) it's actually a suspected sock/series of socks/sock farm of a banned user, Jamesinc14. The IPs he's editing from are on "suspected" lists; we've had the article PPed for a couple of weeks, but as soon as that expired, back came the stinker.

What do you all, with your (CLEARLY!) greater experience dealing with this sort of thing, think should be done next? Thanks in advance for the help...Gladys j cortez (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And now he's made Noggin a weather channel, as you can see here. Don't forget that he's the one who insisted that WSB-TV is now Nick Jr. I'm sick and tired of playing Wiki cop -- I have better things to do than this. -- azumanga (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Is there value in keeping templates of "former WB" and "former UPN" affiliates? I think we have separate lists for those anyway. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cable system listings on individual cable/satellite station articles

User: has taken it upon himself to include a handful of individual cable station channel listings in cable/satellite station articles, despite being told that the ongoing standard is to use the term "Available on most cable systems" to avoid a lengthy list. He has been concentrating primarily on Canadian station articles, but I fear he will expand his reach to US stations soon. When confronted with this, he insists that including "a few" systems along with the "Available" phrase is better, despite the accepted consensus standard. I have invited him to talk about it prior to a mass reversion, but he has ignored me and has continued along his merry way. Can I get a little help in dealing with him? Thanks... --Mhking (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about this. Especially in analog cable, there can be thousands of different channel plans in a country the size of Canada. I'd say the numbers don't belong there, unless the cable system's channel lineup is notable enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Eagles TV

Eagles TV (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll second the merge to the article about the school. This wouldn't even pass our (relatively inclusionist) notability proposal for media outlets. High school public access channel available in a single county. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-air staff inclusion/exclusion

I know this is a dead horse beating session, but it appears to be raising its ugly head. I've been going through and pulling non-air staff from articles, but am running into a brick wall with WKYT-TV, with at least two people ignoring calls to remove said lists. Of course, some admins view the ongoing revisions as a content dispute than vandalism. I need some guidance, along with some help policing said article (and a few others, but none to this degree). Thanks! --Mhking (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Station logos/BCB

Please be more alert in the next few weeks. Everyone's favorite Betacommandbot is getting very aggresive about deleting logos and images without fair use rationales since yesterday; I've recieved five notices on my UT alone and had to add one to another image that's part of an article being watched as part of Mmbabies watchlisting. I'm adding them to all I can, but those who uploaded images should be on the lookout for talkpage warnings and to double-check articles you edit on often to make sure there's no red-band notices warning of deletion. Nate · (chatter) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I had about twenty or so such notices filling my talk page in the last week alone -- all from logos uploaded before FURs became mandatory. Keep your eyes on your talk pages, everybody. -- azumanga (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, adding FURs has become much easier. The template {{Logo fur}} is simple and easy to use - only two pieces of information are needed: the article name in which the image is used, and where in the article it is used; in our case, that is usually "Infobox". The template also meets the approval of the "image police". I do have to side with the author of Betacommandbot on this one, though: fair use rationales are essential for maintaining a freely distributed Wikipedia. dhett (talk contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BCB's purpose too and I'm glad for the warnings to get the F-UR's on, it's just repetitive to see the same message over and over, that's all. It's pretty simple putting the rationales on now, I just want to balance it between the interests of our project and copyrights to adhere to. Nate · (chatter) 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Note - The required tags for the template, article name and use, are case-sensitive and are capitalized. It also bugs you for the purpose. Minimal usage: {{Logo fur |Article=KXXX |Use=infobox |Purpose=Because I want to)). dhett (talk contribs) 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Defunct television channels and Category:Defunct television networks

Could an uninvolved party take a look at this? Someone has attempted a merger of these two categories, placing DuMont Television Network and all other defunct networks in the defunct channel category. I don't feel that's accurate, as each defunct network was on a different channel in each market, and a network is not the same thing as a channel (which is a frequency). I reverted some changes, but would like to ask for advice on the rest. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for evidently handling this the wrong way, but the Category:Defunct television networks really seemed to duplicate what Category:Defunct television channels was doing... maybe it should be a reverse merger with the channels going into the networks category. The channel category isn't addressing frequencies, as was mentioned. Frequencies are covered in the Category:Defunct television stations in the United States. Scoty6776 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize, Scoty, you were just being bold (which is a good thing). I'm hoping that this will launch a discussion about how best to handle these categories. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there really needs to be two categories, but neither existing name seems appropriate, and the distinction that Firsfron (talk · contribs) is making is one that won't be meaningful to most non-U.S. readers or editors. How about merge both to Category:Defunct television services? That's sufficiently generic that it can also apply to things like Adelphia Communications. 121a0012 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some CW Templates missing

Resolved: All 31 deleted templates undeleted by Random832

Can someone explain why some of the state templates for The CW have been deleted (Nebraska and Texas, in particular)? I don't think there's any reason why they should be deleted in the first place. -- azumanga (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably related somehow to the WB/UPN template deletion (some of them were RD'ed to the CW templates by that group that put it up on TfD and those ended up deleted in addition). Nate · (chatter) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a talk message to the deleting admin, hopefully this will clear things up. Can't believe those socks created such a mess...Nate · (chatter) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't hear from the deleting admin I've taken the issue to AIV; the discussion is here. I certainly don't want to have to re-create anything from scratch. Nate · (chatter) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Virginia and Tennessee CW Templates that were on WCYB-TV (which I removed while most of them were redlinks) have been readded. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: K52EG nominated for deletion

All wishing to comment on the nomination please see discussion. dhett (talk contribs) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Update - the station's article has been replaced by a redirect to 3ABN. dhett (talk contribs) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IP block request

I think it's high time some kind of block is enacted for a range of IP addresses, which have been used to vandalize the same three articles -- KABC-TV, KYW-TV, and Alycia Lane -- in similar manners each time. The IPs in question are:

These IPs are assigned to Verizon Wireless out of Bedminster Township, New Jersey. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, that vandal refuses to learn anything about respect for others -- or even the laws regarding cities of license (if he had his way, many of the Detroit station articles would read "Southfield" instead of Detroit). -- azumanga (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't think this guy's done enough to merit a range block--but has someone gotten ahold of Verizon? Blueboy96 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there might be more IP addys involved, especially with KABC-TV (how many times was that article vandalised over Glendale?). Second -- will Verizon even listen? Some of us contacted AT&T ober Mmbabies' edits -- and here we are. -- azumanga (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on, do something!!

On top of all that, a new IP,, has been vandalising WPIX, WWOR-TV, WPSG, WDCA, WWJ-TV, and WGCL-TV by adding the same incorrect statement in every one: (Station A) turned down the Fox affiliation in 1986, which instead went to (Station B). This IP appears to be a sockpuppet of banned user Codyfinke, the style of edit and the vague edit summaries (rehashing the article's name instead of explaining changes) are similar to other socks used by this account. Come on admins, block someone! Rollosmokes (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He also gave several children's channels and programs the same treatment -- not that they passed up Fox, but in the fact that he added false information. At least I know who's behind the vandalism now. -- azumanga (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: The Codyfinke IP sock is at it again. Soon as the 24-hour block was lifted, it vandalized WTTV. A longer block has to be next. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Then there was the infamous turning TV Guide Network into Fox Guide vandalism of couple weeks back. You'd think that would get an immediate com-ban. Nate (chatter) 06:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, an IP of Jamesinc14 changed the name of the network; then another editor, not in the know of Jamesinc's vandalism, changed the name of the article. It's Jamesinc that should be com-banned. -- azumanga (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Block Request -- Mmbabies

Speaking of block requests -- any news regarding them for Mmbabies? He's still giving us a world of trouble, and it's still impossible to request protection to his "favorite" articles, such as Matt Houston or The Print Shop (I tried, and it's not good enough). As long as he's still vandalising, we should keep pressing the issue. -- azumanga (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ladies ,and Gentlemen user:Mmbabies is herby banned from the Internet forever. A user(myself) has field a WP:ABUSE report on a ip address that used address from the AT&T Houston, Tx hub. Another user then contacted various contacts(AT&T, Alief ISD, Texas Rangers, FBI, and the TEXAS RANGERS.) Mmbabies is in for rude awaking. TEXAS RANGERS can bust anyone from the Red River all the way to the Rio Grande Valley. I hope they arrest his mornic @ss he has caused enough trouble on this website. I dont know why Jimbo Walles hasnt been informed of this idoit. Someone should have contacted Jimbo or the Foundation on this guy. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The trouble, though, is that we've done exactly that -- contacted AT&T, law enforcement, even the higher echelons -- and he's still out there. Yes, we slowed him down by marking the IPs he used, but I fear that he'll still strike again soon. -- azumanga (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope the Texas Rangers arrest his moronic a-- by this week. He has caused trouble here on Wikipedia long enough. Does'nt this idoit know he could have gotten this website sued by those VIPS(celeberies) he was making threats to ,or gotten someone hurt.Is Jimbo well aware of this moron allready. I just droped Jimbo a line on his talk page, but he hasnt responded yet. Why isnt the police NOT ARRESTING this guy. This guy, is extreme THREAT to this site, the FOUNDATION. I cant believe he is allowed INTERNET USEAGE. Has anyone did a range block on HOUSTON, TEXAS (AT&T DSL HUB) or not. That may stop him in his tracks like glue. Thats the trump card needed to stop him for good. We need a range block on Houston ,Texas. You all have to agree on this one. Has this guy been making threats since 25 Jan 2008. I made a abuse report from a sock he used on 25 JAN 2008.Because I'm going to file another if he made works after 25 JAN 2008. This guy needs to be stoped , and I'm serious about this. He has been making threats to people, VIP, posting personal information of people, and posting password information of users. Why in earth has no-one stoped him? Are people afraid of this guy, WE SHOULD not be afraid of him. --Rio de oro (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had reason to share your optimism, but internet vandalism is going to be extremely low on the list of priorities for the Texas Rangers. Same goes for his phony threats. Nobody's afraid of any of the vandals; we've just come to the conclusion that the ISPs aren't willing to help out, nor are the Wikipedia admins beyond quickly blocking (for which we are grateful). dhett (talk contribs) 06:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think me and that JROTC guy stopped that Mmbabies allready. Can we get barnstars allready. Can someone nominate the both of us for nominating.Rio de oro (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if Mmbabies comes back or not first. Even though we haven't heard from him the last several days, doesn't mean that he won't strike again -- he may be just biding his time until he strikes again. -- azumanga (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there was a bit of a "pause" between edits about six months ago and then he started the usual Kellie hating & eggs crap at an accelerated pace. So I agree with Azumanga in that I doubt we should start celebrating yet. (BTW, shouldn't Azumanga, Gridlock Joe & myself get barnstars as well for all the work we put into reverting the junk he left?) WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
One more thing -- if there is any recent vandalism on an Alief ISD IP, look carefully to make sure it matches Mmbabies' style before calling it Mmbabies vandalism. Many schoolkids use that IP, and the vandalism from that IP may come from anyone. -- azumanga (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thought it was that idoit due to talk page saying its a sockpuppet of Mmbabies. I thought it was that bastard(pardon my language).Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. So I didnt break a rule there.Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

KREX's studios destroyed in fire

Yesterday (Sunday 1/20), KREX-TV's studios were destroyed in a fire, knocking it, KFQX, KGJT-LP and possibly its satellites and repeaters off the air. See articles for more. -- azumanga (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital Conversion

Should we start preparing for a massive migration of station call-signs when the digital crossover occurs on Feb. 19th, 2009 (USA)? I know a LOT of stations will be renamed with the -DT suffix, and some already have a dual -/-DT or -TV/-DT suffix (such as WJBK-TV/WJBK-DT. Should we at least start creating re-directs from the -DT suffixes, then move them all on Feb. 19th, 2009? RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you don't know that. Stick with what's shown in the FCC record. (A couple of extant examples notwithstanding, I could find nothing in the FCC rules that permits "-DT" when I searched for it.) The ones that we know for certain will change callsign are, for the most part, stations that are not notable enough for WP coverage anyway (translators and LPTVs). 121a0012 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, will the "-DT" designation remain after the full-powered analogs close down? I heard that, after the analog "sunset", the "-TV"s and the unsuffixed calls used for TV would be transferred to the digital channels. -- azumanga (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no "-DT" designation now, with a very few exceptions (that might be blamed on clerical errors at the FCC, who knows). It's just something the industry has picked up on. It's not shown anywhere that I can see in Part 2, Part 73, or Part 74 (unlike, notably, the analogous "-LD" and "-CD" suffixes for LPTVs). I've actually asked the FCC if it would be possible to clarify the situation; section 2.302 hasn't been updated in nearly two decades. What's unclear is whether 2.302 is supposed to be exhaustive. (It doesn't say that it isn't, which by the usual rules of interpretation would mean that it is.) 121a0012 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time reading the Seventh Report & Order (FCC 07-138, 2007-08-01) and the Third DTV Periodic Review Report & Order (FCC 07-228, 2007-12-22), and couldn't find anything relating to "-DT" callsigns, but I'm still looking through other sources. (Nor, for what it's worth, can I find "DT" anywhere in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.) Project participants will find some interesting details regarding how the DTV transition is to be accomplished in the Third DTV Periodic Review R&O. 121a0012 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is a list of stations which have "-DT" callsigns that I am unable to account for (originally prepared for a query to the FCC staff about this situation):

 facility_id | fac_callsign |     begin_date      | callsign 
       73206 | WLNY-DT      | 1996-09-01 00:00:00 | WLNY
       82494 | WPJT-DT      | 2004-11-04 00:00:00 | WPJT-DT
       83945 | KGLA-DT      | 2007-12-21 00:00:00 | KGLA-DT
       86534 | KKYK-DT      | 2006-06-30 00:00:00 | KKYK-DT
      132606 | KCGE-DT      |                     | 
      132860 | KECI-DT      |                     | 
      133022 | WBKI-DT      |                     | 
      135874 | WGTQ-DT      |                     | 
      135976 | WMAB-DT      |                     | 
      136146 | WFRV-DT      |                     | 
      136531 | WBPH-DT      |                     | 
      136615 | KSKN-DT      |                     | 
      136807 | KION-DT      |                     | 
      137380 | KUID-DT      |                     | 
      166510 | KPJR-DT      | 2007-08-21 00:00:00 | KPJR-DT

(The third and fourth columns show the most recent row in the call_sign_history table in CDBS.) The use of these callsigns appears to me to be ultra vires, but I'll wait to see what the Media Bureau staff have to say. 121a0012 (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll stay tuned and check in to the FCC often. RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Return of Dingbat

Tonight he's playing around with Odessa/Midland with KCCS-TV, an affiliate of the Disney Channel apparently. I also found a new one in Word40 which hasn't been utilized yet so he obviously has much more 'Word' accounts than originally suspected. Nate (chatter) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. -- azumanga (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Analog channels becoming digital only -- which category?

Recenyly, in light of WSWG becoming a digital only channel on channel 43, I changed the channel category to reflect its digital channel. However, New World Man thinks it should be categorised under its PSIP channel, which is also its old analog channel, channel 44. I'm afraid of starting an edit war (which I never like), so I rather ask the community first -- should it be categorised under actual frequency or PSIP channel? -- azumanga (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The general principle in Wikipedia is that things should be located where an ordinary, not-expert encyclopedia user would expect to find them. Thus, stations should be listed under their PSIP channel. Perhaps another category should be created for permanent DTV channel assignments, although this is a rather esoteric way to organize things and I don't expect even the average editor to understand this distinction. 121a0012 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My first instinct was to say use the actual channel, but I think 121a0012 has a point: the average, non-geek reader perceives that the station is still on channel 44, so I think the virtual channel is going to be the better option. Besides, that will save us from re-categorizing hundreds of stations next year! dhett (talk contribs) 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think once the transition happens, we should add something to the infobox, keeping the Channel field for the "virtual channel" and come up with some label for a new column of the "actual number". ViperSnake151 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A further comment: the current station identification rules (47 C.F.R. 73.1201) require that DTV stations which include a channel number in their identification use their "major" (ex-analog) channel number regardless of the physical channel on which they transmit. This is the same channel number as they are required to transmit in PSIP. 121a0012 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What about those in 51-69 though? I know of a couple examples in my area where channels on 55 and 58 pretty much have to move to new channels. Will they have to identify their previous number long after the transition? Nate (chatter) 06:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. 121a0012 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The direct answer to your question is, yes, they will continue to identify by the old analog channel, even though it is no longer in service as a TV channel. For example, here in Phoenix, KASW will cease broadcasting on channel 61 and use their digital allotment, channel 49, but they will still ID in the PSIP stream as channel 61.1, and will continue to do so until the FCC decides otherwise. Their on-screen ID, however, can be whatever they want. dhett (talk contribs) 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-air Staff Yet Again

Yet another person insists on adding photographers to yet another TV station article; WRBL is the target this time around; I'm not going to persist, as last time this came up, I was accused of fomenting and pushing an edit war. --Mhking (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for project participant comments

I am not a member of this project but I would appreciate some feedback on this article diff [[2] for KATU which is also under project Oregon. I have removed several sections that are just lists of station personnel, translators and scheduling information and given my reasons why on the talk page, according to how I read the guidelines. I came here to double check other articles and your project recommendations and some have this information and some don't. From your guidelines it doesn't seem that this information is necessary for a good article and all of it is available on the stations web site. Another editor has been adding it back, and rather than get into a conflict I'd just like to see if there is a general consensus here. Thanks. Awotter (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Found this in the number five archives, I think it expresses my position:

As far as my idea on what the TV articles SHOULD be presented, here it is...

  • Station's call letters, channel assignment (analog and digital), location and service area, and a link to that station's web site (if any)
  • Network affillation, if any, past and present
  • An introduction to the station and its influence and impact on its community
  • A concise and detailed station history, including any significant events and station personalities
  • Upcoming future plans for the station (and that information should be confirmed before posting)
No newscast schedules, no listing of station personalities, and other useless irrelevant garbage that doesn't belong. If you want to know what time that station's newscast airs, and when other shows that they air...go to their web site or visit one of the TV listing sites. ShawnHill 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read the second-to-last point you just cited, you'll see that station personalities should be included. dhett (talk contribs) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree we shouldn't list all the staff and the programming schedule, shouldn't we put the list of translators into a table? I know this particular station has a _lot_ of them based on the prior version, but it seems pretty reasonable for us to cover which frequencies the station is on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The programming doesn't need to be on there but current talent along with translator stations should be included. Myhousemf (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's nothing more than a list it doesn't belong, I'm sorry that you think this is erasing your hard work but the goal is to write an encyclopedia article, not a web page for a TV station. In addition, none of the material that I left in is referenced either, that's another concern I have but I left that information in yet you keep deleting the "unreferenced" tag (the one reference you mentioned is nothing more than a topographical website showing the old location of their tower.Awotter (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The policies you cite are to discourage articles that are nothing more than lists or directories, not sections of those articles. The KATU article is more than just a list or directory. On-air personalities and translators are consistent with the guidelines for the television stations project, so I strongly disagree that those should be removed. I would agree with you about newscast schedules however. dhett (talk contribs) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gsnguy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is back

You might remember his false slogan spree of a year or so back. He came back all the sudden this week to ask if his block could be lifted, and when it wasn't, decided to start over with new account Gsnguy2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) with the same behavior he had with the first Gsnguy name. I'll be reporting his second name to AIV and warn you all to watch out for him once again. Nate (chatter) 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Two new accounts in only three hours, which he used to attack my reversions using profanity and a sort of 'confession' on my talk page (after attempting to 'block' me). Looks like we're back to Mmbabies-like vigilance on this one. Nate (chatter) 13:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we got another pariah, worthy of the Mmbabies treatment. I hate it when people like Gsnguy barge in and act like they are "king" of Wikipedia. Do what you must to ban him for good. -- azumanga (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Overnight he went crazy when I found out the possible similarities between him and the vandals Judge John and TheInvisibleMachine. He attempted to change my password through the reminder function (since it only goes to my email address of course he can't go through with the full account hack), and then used new account Judge Jones to harass me and Gladys j cortez. This stops now and I won't stand for him driving me or Gladys off here in the way he is. Nate (chatter) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I take back what I said about Gsnguy getting the Mmbabies treatment -- I want something more restrictive, like being banned from even LOOKING at Wikipedia for the rest of his natural life. Mmbabies was never like this. -- azumanga (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Last night when he was attacking me and Gladys through his Top Grunge and Eartha Brute was particularly vicious and puerile. At least with Mmbabies you're just getting movie and TV lines most of the time, but Gsnguy is just dark, serious and threatening. I was actually thinking last night of taking a week-long wikibreak to recompose from it, but I'm not letting him get me down. Hopefully with his IP blocked a month after last night and talk pages blocked he'll cool down. Nate (chatter) 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

COL option in the infobox

Am I the only one who doesn't like the "city of license" option. IMO the COL should always be listed in the location before the other cities served. I brought this up before but got no response... --CFIF 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it either ... it's redundant. Blueboy96 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean I understand its intended use but if a station is licensed to city X but serves city Y, don't put that it's in city Y! --CFIF 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you! We have two television stations listed as serving Vermont in List of television stations in Vermont when they are in New York. This makes no sense to me. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Just commented them out. A significant percentage of "Vermont" stations BTW. I can hear the screams already!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The intro to the list describes the stations as "serving cities in Vermont", which would certainly be understood as including WPTZ and WCFE-TV—particularly given that WPTZ actually transmits (DTV) from Mount Mansfield. 121a0012 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To avoid this being OR, questions of where a station "serves" should be left to independent, third-party sources. In the case of television stations, that's the Nielsen DMA assignment. DMA #92 is quite clearly "Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh, NY" in my listing. (For radio, Arbitron market #137 is "Burlington-Plattsburgh, VT-NY".) 121a0012 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest using the contour maps from the FCC as the reference for determining service area. It gives grade-B contours for full-service stations and grade-A contours for LPTV stations. dhett (talk contribs) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I have additional comments on the Vermont page. Student7 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So can we just get rid of this? No one likes it. --CFIF 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New World Man (talk · contribs) seems to be using this a lot, can we come to a consensus on what to do with this? --CFIF 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BenH is back... (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --CFIF 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we ran him off ... I LTA-warned him, and Azumanga gave him the usual treatment. Blueboy96 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As of 2/26, he's still at it. Unless someone can block him, he will continue. -- azumanga (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least now we know where he is. So what next, gentlemen--should we fire off an email to without any preliminaries the next time he vandalizes from that range, or should we warn him first? Blueboy96 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, who is BenH from a scale from 1 to 10 how much does he PO'd you guys compare to Mmbabies. FYI: Mmbabies still here on Wikipedia. --Rio de oro (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
BenH is almost as annoying as Mmbabies ... I'd rate him at an 8.5. Only difference is that he doesn't use threatening edit summaries. Speaking of which, I just reverted a blizzard of vandalism done just today. He's being reported. Blueboy96 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for six months. Blueboy96 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
He'll be back long before then -- he uses at least three ISPs and they have many, many more IPs that he can use. -- azumanga (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


I've been taking a look at Category:TV stations by channel number, and i think it's time we do something so they do not conflict or require hundreds of redirects. Examples of the problem: Channels 4, 25, and 31. My proposal: Change the article name from Channel n to something else:

  1. Channel n (System M) (preferred, use the system format name)
  2. Channel n (NTSC) (use the system standard name. we have NTSC, PAL, SECAM, ATSC, DVB, ISDB, and SBTVD to choose from)
  3. Channel n (NTSC-M) (use the system standard name. we have NTSC, PAL, SECAM, ATSC, DVB, ISDB, and SBTVD to choose from)
  4. Channel n (leave it, and have things re-direct to North America, i doubt our british, japanese, and world contributors would like that one bit)
  5. Channel n (leave it, and have each channel page list the frequencies of the channel within various television systems (PAL-B/G, SECAM-D/K, NTSC-J, and so on...)

Is this the right wikiproject to discuss and propose this, or should i scamper off to Wikiproject:Television instead?

I'd like to see your input, fellow wikipedians. RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 04:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning about false Macon television station

Lost Remote profiles WACT-TV in Macon, which has a very nice website and looks like a market leader...

Until you realize it's just a complex pitch to sell training DVDs, and that their 'studio' is actually a radiator shop. If only the woman in the WAGT report had checked here before she got scammed :(.

Keep your eyes peeled just in case the scamsters decide to set up a WP presence; note right now WACT leads to a real radio station in Tuscaloosa, as it should. Nate (chatter) 09:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Better keep an eye on WACT-TV as well. It's currently a redlink, and should stay that way. If it does get created, it should be tagged as a G3 speedy. Blueboy96 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The reports of Mmbabies' "death"...

...have been greatly exaggerated:

-- azumanga (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Am i right in thinking that a redirect should not be placed in categories. The article K52EG, about a minor tv station, was deleted at AFD a few months ago, and redirected to its parent broadcaster. Shortly after, the creator(i think) of the article added it to several categories, which i reverted. However, today, they have re-added it to the cats, citing WP:TVS. So should it be in the cats? My gut feeling is that it shouldn't, but i thought i'd bring it here to check. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite a policy, convention, etc., that says don't put redirects into categories, please do. Otherwise, why would you object? K52AG is a television station: shouldn't its existence be noted in the category? dhett (talk contribs) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but categories are purely for the sorting of articles. A redirect is no longer an article--Jac16888 (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news

I'm now an admin as well ... which means you guys won't have to go hunting around for someone to play "whack-a-mole" with BenH and Mmbabies anymore. You guys know that technically they can be blocked on sight--between Firsfron and me, we should be able to keep their rampages to a minimum. Blueboy96 04:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship Blueboy :)! Yes, more hands on the deck should help us all out to control vandalism, and I'm sure with the digital transition next year. We know they're just pounding away yet so any help is appreciated. Nate (chatter) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another BenH sighting ... blocked one month. Blueboy96 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) may also be BenH as well, as some of the edits are similar to BenH. However, I'm not sure, as WHOIS says Suddenlink owns the IP address (BenH usually uses Embarq). -- azumanga (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not him ... based on the node name, it looks like this guy is in Ashburn, Virginia--in Northern Virginia. Some of his recent contributions make me think he's trying to make a good-faith effort--I left him a gentle note. We should still watch him, though. Blueboy96 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat's back

Accu13 ... another pattern, perhaps? Already blocked by yours truly. Blueboy96 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Today, Word4. -- azumanga (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Killed it ... Blueboy96 00:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There's two more: Word6 and Word55. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

...all within the last couple of days.

Too bad I can't just say what I really think of Codyfinke -- otherwise, I would be banned. Any help cleaning up the rest of his vandalism is highly appreciated. -- azumanga (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What's his M.O.? dhett (talk contribs) 06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking this contributions list, for example, his M.O. is generally repeating the article title in the edit summary field. In the articles, he would either change dates, times, and/or add extra television programs that the channel does not actually air. The IP he generally uses is almost always Frontier Communications. In one blatant example, Codyfinke says that the long defunct Gulf+Western is still around -- and is still owning Paramount Pictures. -- azumanga (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So all the entries from that IP contrib list were his handiwork? OK - I started to revert a few of them, then realized that it was an IP address, and wasn't sure that the edits were valid, so I reverted my reverts until I could learn what his calling card was. Turns out I was reverting his vandalism after all. I'll start helping with the cleanup tonight. dhett (talk contribs) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Two more since then: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
-- azumanga (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The "city of license" option in the infobox (AGAIN)

I've tried to bring this up for discussion before. I don't like this one BIT. I mean it may look a little more aesthetically pleasing, but it's confusing. Why are we listing a station's location as (example) "X", when it's licensed to "Y", and it may have a studio in "Z"! The COL should always precede the DMA name/major city the station serves, IMO. Looking for thoughts. --CFIF 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- the FCC always mandates that the COL is mentioned first in the IDs; Wikipedia shouldn't treat this any differently. -- azumanga (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone should be talking to New World Man (talk · contributions), who has been changing the infoboxes in EVERY SINGLE television station article. I personally don't care for the separate option, but he isn't interested in any kind of debate or consensus. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should bring him in here....I can understand why some like this but I think, like azumanga said, the COL should precede any other city. --CFIF 14:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a talking point....WESH for example, is licensed to Daytona Beach, primarily serves Orlando and has a studio in Winter Park. What gets listed in the "location" field? This is why I think it would be more appropriate to list the "location" as "Daytona Beach / Orlando", as with similar stations. --CFIF 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer only the city of license after the Location header, as the opening paragraph of the article will state the market in which the station operates. However, I am open to the COL/mkt option, as long as the COL is always listed first - just as they do in a legal station ID. I do not care for the City of License header at all. dhett (talk contribs) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's been my feeling on the issue as well. I never understood why that tag was put in there in the first place. Blueboy96 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I place the cities of license in the "city" field instead of the "location" field in the infoboxes for certain stations is because the main city of the TV market (or a suburb of the main city) is where the studio and main office of the station in question are located (examples include the aforementioned WESH, as well as KASN, KBJR, KMCI, KOVR, KPNX, KPTS, KRRT, KTAL, KTXS, KVVU, KWCH, WAKA, WCTV, WDKY, WGTV, WHYY-TV, WIFR, WILX, WLNE, WLVI, WMTW, WOI-TV, WOIO, WPTZ, WRIC, WTTV, WUAB, WWNY, WXIX, and several others). To me, the city of license in these specific cases would be irrelevant except for the fact that they are registered as the city of license with the FCC for each of these stations. New World Man (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The aforementioned WESH is not a good example because its studios and offices are in WINTER PARK. You can say it's Orlando until you're blue in the face but Winter Park is not part of the city of Orlando. WOI's studios/offices are in WEST Des Moines, not Des Moines proper. I think the general agreement is that the COL option is bad and no one likes it. Thanks for taking the initiative but it's confusing. --CFIF 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the COL option, merely because we're following FCC's standards for stations identifying themselves. Even though a station is based in a big city, or one of its suburbs, if it's licensed to somwhere in the boonies, that's exactly how we should treat it. Whatever the station uses in their station ID, that's what we should use, regardless of where their studios or transmitter is located. The FCC says that this is the law. Many broadcasting websites and publications also list the COL first. Wikipedia should be no exception. -- azumanga (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask what you mean? You like the "city of license" field or you don't? --CFIF 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I've always liked the COL/market option--it's how stations identify most of the time (or should, anyway). Blueboy96 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Another issue that should be addressed: New World Man has been updating all the infoboxes on a state-by-state basis, and anyone who makes the slightest change within them afterwards can be assured he will change it back. I've already warned him against making ownership claims on the infoboxes, and suggest that he be watched carefully. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post about him when I saw this. It seems he found the Puerto Rico and Virgin Island stations and made (to me) quite an unnecessary mess of the infoboxes. Should I go ahead and revert the changes? Kimmykun (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So we are going to confuse people more? Let me ask a question. How are radio stations put on here? Broadcast area and COL below that. COL IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT ANYMORE. We sound like we are in the 1950s. COL just means a radio or TV station has to cover its COL with a "city grade signal" and at the top of the hour either say it or have it on the TV screen (radio say it). There is no longer any need to carry programming or for offices or studios to be in the COL. Putting the COL below the anchor city of the region makes the most sense without confusing anyone. Example. If someone looks up KPNX-TV they are not going to find a address in Mesa for the station. They will in Phoenix. Thats because the station is in Phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NWM just tackled the eastern Wisconsin stations, which I usually keep the closest eye on, and edited in a mess where there was nothing broken. It's a bit ridiculous to add information to infoboxes that will never be filled in, ever. My policy on the infoboxes is to only fill in the fields where we have info, and keep other fields out to save kb's and load time (yes, only 2-3kb max, but still). And I completely loathe the city of license field; the license city should be first in the city field, then the metro city, and that's it, period. I could also care less about tower coordianates which just add too much length to the infobox, but I'll leave others to tackle that. Nate (chatter) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BenH finally speaks out...

...but not in a way that we hoped: -- azumanga (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

So, is this accurate? User_talk:Flowanda#WTVC-TV Staff Deletions Flowanda | Talk 05:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is what accurate? That every radio and TV article was written by a station employee? Not even remotely true. Please explain what part of this post you are requesting community judgment on. 121a0012 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's making a mountain out of a molehill here. Who cares if it was written by an employee? As long as it's true, unbiased, and follows NPOV guidelines, who gives a crap? --CFIF 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is a mountain in most parts of Wikipedia, and the "truth" requires sourcing, whether you get face time or not. Flowanda | Talk 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)