Talk:The CW Television Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The CW Television Network article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Contents 1 "CW" 2 WBQT a CW Station? 3 Dish channel 4 Available Canada? 5 Logo, again 6 At one day before the launch... 7 The Performance section 8 Guam 9 CW video quality HORRIBLE 10 What does CW stand for? 11 Direct TV 12 SmackDown a reality show?

[edit] "CW"

What does this stand for? Probably belongs in the article if there is an answer.68.42.98.97 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia CW Article : "CBS chairman Les Moonves explained that the name of the new network is an amalgamation of the first initials of CBS and Warner Bros. Moonves joked "we couldn't call it the WC for obvious reasons." Although some executives reportedly disliked the new name,[3] that March, Moonves stated[4] that there was "zero chance" the name would change... Jorobeq 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WBQT a CW Station?

I've been watching WBQT for a few weeks now, and i've been seeing them advertise CW for a couple weeks. They've been doing on-air promos and have been useing the CW logo in both syndicated and WB programming 24/7. But there have been no reports of them affiliating with the new network. Psp900 5:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Grr. I want to bring this whole issue up at the "CW Lounge" forum, but I don't know if it would be seen by anyone authoritative. Morgan Wick 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't check for certain, but I believe this practice of using a CW logo on all programs is probably being done by The WB 100+ itself, and thus is also seen on every other WB 100+ outlet. I doubt WBQT alone would do this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news, i checked the CW website, and the Springfield-Holyoke market (which WBQT serves) will indeed get a CW station dubbed "Pioneer Valley's CW. Since WBQT goes by a similar name, i guess it will be the CW station.

Hmm. This is good AND bad news. On the one hand, it lists a bunch of "___ CW" stations that suggest old WB 100+ stations are now, officially, confirmed to join CW. But on the other, it confirms nothing else... "Montgomery CW"'s listing suggests to me that it is a CW+ (probably cable only) station, and not the broadcast station whose cable positions it will usurp. Also, Burlington-Plattsburgh is still listed as "Check local listings", with no mention of WFFF, despite a user's claims that they've had an affiliation since May (though that may just be because it would be secondary). Digital stations are still annoyingly listed as "Check local listings". Basically, Hawaii (for example) could have an affiliate we haven't heard of yet, which means that very little has been solved. Maybe I should make a list of all the markets listed as "Check local listings" that don't have anything confirmed for us, and ask specifically about those at CW Lounge. Morgan Wick 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you able to get any information from the CW lounge? Verotrep 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting news, i checked the CW website, and it looks as if WBQT is making their own website for the new network entitled "yourcwpioneervalley.com". Does this mean that The CW will let all members of The CW Plus have their own website? Or is someone messing with our minds? Psp900 8:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WB 100+ stations used www.thewbpass.com as their website, with a required registration for customized station content. A lot of The CW Plus stations' websites are redirecting to the main CW website. The domain www.thecwpass.com is registered and redirects to the main CW web site.--grejlen - talk 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dish channel

In what channel number will CW be on Dish Network? MarioV 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends what local area you are in. It would be the channel number that you would recive on normal tvSeamus215 23:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They might also be asking about the out-of-market feeds; in that case, Denver's KWGN, and New York's WPIX-TV will continue to air on Dish network as superstations under CW affilations. San Diego's KSWB and Miami's WBZL will also continue their roles as out-of-market affiliates in DMAs without the CW on Dish/DirecTV. Nate 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that network shows may not air on national feeds due to Synd-Ex regulations. That is, if you don't have a "special card". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS}} 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Available Canada?

Are they available Canada, what channel they replace or new channel or something else? --KanuT 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That depends on where you live and what channels you subscribe to. If you can get WNLO Buffalo, WB11 New York, KTLA Los Angeles, UPN11 Seattle, or UPN50 Detroit in your cable or satellite package, you should be able to get the CW. If you're a cable subscriber in the Montreal area, it looks like the CW will air in late night on Fox 44. Otherwise, you're probably out of luck. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what Canadian station(s) will air their shows? Myciconia 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Existing shows will most likely continue to air on whichever Canadian station has aired them in the past, so whatever stations showed Veronica Mars, Smallville, et al., will probably remain on their usual stations. Network changes in the US are typically unrelated to overseas markets. --Psiphiorg 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo, again

I've reverted the latest attempt to bring back a non-clean, white-on-green version of the network logo. The user(s)' rationale has been that the colours are reversed. As I recall the consensus viewpoint in the past, that is precisely the point, because:

• Judging from some of its uses by individual affiliates and on CWTV.com (e.g. ANTM ads), the green-on-white version appears to be no less acceptable than white-on-green;
• The official logo is just the lettering of "The CW" and does not include any other shape, i.e. a rectangle, or any special background;
• The default backgrounds of Wikipedia pages are white or light colours, and in this regard, using only the lettering (in green) on a transparent background is the most suitable version.

Of course, consensus is subject to change, so I'd like to hear some other viewpoints. We had a clean white-on-green version before and it shouldn't be too much trouble to bring it back if that's what people want. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this clean white-on-green logo? I have been trying to find it for the last few minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.218.234.136 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a local copy of it, but it looks like it was removed from Wikipedia (when the current version was converted from PNG to SVG format). Again, as this is a consensus decision - changes such as yours have been reverted a number of times, and not just by me - please wait before making any further changes to the logo. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can I see this logo?

From the CW Logo Usage manual: The CW Logo consists of two elements: 1. The combination of the CW letterforms. 2. The letters "THE". A green background block is not necessary, as it is not part of the actual logo form - thus, the green-on-white logo currently used on this page is the most accurate and correct version, and should remain the standard presentation. TheRealFennShysa 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but every CW promo and the CW website have white-on-green. It is the most common form of the logo.

Please be aware if you keep reverting to white on green the page will probably be locked from unregisted users so you would not be able to edit it at all. So I would just stop reverting it and talk about the subject here. Green on white stays for now please - Mike Beckham 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it in a way that's easier to understand; white on grey, like your logo isn't very visible at all. Green on grey, much more visible. That's why it's green, because the white version doesn't make sense for the page and is harder to see. That's why we keep reverting it, because we can't see your version of the logo. Please keep the green version. Thank you. Nate 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see it perfectly and it's in the logo's most common form. It's also quite clean.I don't see what's wrong wth it. And you still haven't shown me that other "clean white-on-green" logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.40.239.111 (talk) .

There's nothing wrong with it. But, again, if you look at CWTV.com, if there's a light background, green lettering is used. See, for instance, the "Network Launch Party" ad towards the bottom-right. They don't put in a green box just so they can use white lettering. That's a clear sign the current usage is acceptable. And it better suits the aesthetics of Wikipedia. Anyway, the "CW White" logo that someone posted earlier is pretty much identical to the white-on-green version you're asking for. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At one day before the launch...

....seems this would be a good time to archive this talk page again. Anyone not on a work computer want to handle that? :) Lambertman 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm home now so I'll do it. My other question: what would be the consensus towards possibly creating an article to deal with the specifics of the merger, allowing this page to focus on the network's history post-launch? Lambertman 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable, the page is a bit cluttered. --Dleav 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Perhaps "The WB, UPN Merger" or alike would be good. - Mike Beckham 02:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How about 2006 United States TV network realignment. Most of the station- or ownership-group-specific stuff should be moved over there, but a short history of the network itself should remain on this page; same for MyNetworkTV. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article started at 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 03:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

An excellent start. I've moved some more stuff over there. Thoughts? Lambertman 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Performance section

While I think a "Performance" section is ok (with proper citations), do we really need a daily break-down of the CW's ratings? Seems overly crufty, and parts of the section are poorly written ("the second week premieres did as follows"). Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this information would seem trivial in the future (see Wikipedia:Recentism). If anything, the section should be rewritten in prose without the cruft, or simply deleted altogether. —Whomp ^(myedits) 18:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Performance should serve the purpose of initial performance in comparison to the CW's predecessors.--Dleav 02:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guam

I am a huge fan of wwe. But I can,t wach smackdown. Does anyone knows what channel it is on guam.

look around for the CW website and which channel it is in Guam, if there isnt one, youll need to get a satellite dish 216.239.82.82 14:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CW video quality HORRIBLE

Since CW has taken over the WB, we have had horrible video. There have been numerous mornings when we have turned on at 5:30 CST to watch Daily Buzz and either the show is on but the video stops every few seconds or the video is stopped on an infomercial (such as this morning, 10/17/06). This video issue goes on periodically throughout the day and evening. What is going on??? I hope this is just a "transitional" thing and not a sign of the quality we can hope to expect from CW. We have enjoyed various shows on the WB for years and hope to be able to continue viewing CW if it maintains the quality of viewing the WB offered. 205.172.49.63 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Roach, Ruston-LA

This is an article about The CW, not a contact page for the network. Judging from your comments, the problem is with a local CW station (not the network itself), which you may be able to contact here (assuming I'm putting you in the right TV market). Thanks! — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does CW stand for?

I've been looking all over for this, and if it stands for something other than "CW" it should probably be included in the article. OneofLittleHarmony 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't stand for anything. The name derives from the "C" in "CBS" and the "W" in "Warner Bros.", but the name is not an abbreviation of "CBS Warner Bros.". It's just a name. --Psiphiorg 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning, it does stand for something, CBS & WB. It's in the fourth paragraph of the section entitled origins. Bmitchelf 02:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct TV

I was there when the WB first started and long before also. I live in an area of western MA that does not offer cable tv. Satellite is the only option for television viewing. DirectTV being the only one of the 2 sources for satellite to offer local channels was the best way to go. Now this merger has left me out in the dark. There is no available CW station in my area. This merger has dropped so many viewers that its no wonder they can't get the numbers to compete on all nights. For being such a fan and loyal viewer of the WB for so long, I just feel betrayed. —the preceding comment is by 14:13, 1 November 2006 (talk • contribs) 72.70.233.220: Please sign your posts!.

[edit] SmackDown a reality show?

I don't know why SmackDown was labeled as a reality show. I know it wasn't really a sports program (like NBC Sunday Night Football), but why putting in this category if WWE wasn't related with reality TV and also this company was born before the reality TV-boom? That's why I remove the yellow in the bar. Xbox6

Personally, I'd call it a drama since it is (allegedly) scripted, but add the purple coloring for the sports if you think that would be correct. Bmitchelf 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)