Talk:The CW Television Network/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sources to cite Re: Conference Calls

Are there any media reports about them? I heard Tribune's myself and have seen message board posts about CBS's, but we need something we can cite for the article. --David Bixenspan 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Detroit

In Detroit, UPN is on WKBD ch. 50, a popular o-and-o station with good ratings and a newsroom. CBS, due to the FOX network shuffle of the mid 1990s, ended buying WWJ ch 62, a tiny station with bad ratings. Once Viacom owned both UPN and CBS, it seemed the obvious move would be to put UPN on WWJ and CBS on WKBD. It never happened...in fact, WKBD's newsroom eventually shut down. Now with the CW, I wonder if Viacom will take advantage of this and move CBS to WKBD and put the CW on WWJ. It would be the smart thing to do. Of course the loser is the WB affiliate, WDWB ch 20, which may need to change its call letter back to it's original WXON.

What about the other stations

I think it should be noted which stations will be closing and/or going independent as a result of the merger. I assume in areas where both WB and UPN affiliates operate, only one will go to CW. 23skidoo 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a station that loses out on the CW (in a market with both WB and UPN) isn't going to close up shop... they may be shit-out-of-luck, but they won't close, as too much money is at stake - they'll go independent for a while, at least... and if that fails, there's always PAX, i, or whatever *they're* called now... TheRealFennShysa 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I could whip up a section on the repurcussions of the merger (for Fox, Tribune, and the other station owners)? --David Bix 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. --CFIF 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. There's a little bit of redundancy from other parts of the article, but I couldn't really think of a way to get certain points across without a brief reiteration. I think it's fine, but if anyone is able to work some magic to clean it up, I'd love their input. --David Bix 01:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Stickguy did a nice job revising what I wrote up. Kudos. --David Bix 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the latest edit, by 69.230.120.107, should stay or be reverted. The article had several sentences removed without any reason given. --David Bix 11:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A new article on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine's website [1] says that initial affiliation agreements are set to go out via land-mail this week. It also confirms that the Fox-owned UPN stations in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Baltimore & Orlando will not seek CW affiliation, despite there not being a Tribune or Viacom-owned station in any of those markets. Mhking 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Logo Image

People keep trying to add a logo image. Where is this coming from? None of the articles I have read mention or show a potential logo. 209.51.77.64 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Tribune conference call I listened in on this afternoon, there was an logo shown at the announcement, but they stressed that it was NOT a final logo - only temporary, and *would not* be the final network logo... until there is an official logo announced or shown, this unsourced logo people keep trying to add should not be included. TheRealFennShysa 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as it's noted as a proposed logo, it's perfectly appropriate to use here. --Aaron 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I added inline text to the image. Anyone who hovers over the image will get a little popup noting that it's an interim logo, not a permanent one. --Aaron 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the logo and made it a PNG file. 7523 bytes down to 1070 bytes. Be sure to mention it in my eulogy 70 years from now. --Closeapple 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that image was something like 25K when I started on it! (The program I was using to resize it didn't have a "save as PNG" function, heh.) --Aaron 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Programming

Unless there is a press release I missed, no UPN/WB series have been renewed for the fall yet, therefore any titles being cited in the media are speculative and/or examples at best. The wording should reflect this until such a time as CW actually announces its fall schedule which will most likely not be until the other networks do so in May. Several of the shows mentioned as "shoo-ins" such as Smallville and Veronica Mars have been mentioned in other sources as being unlikely for renewal ... so let's wait till actual titles are announced before setting out TIVOs. ;-) 23skidoo 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I seem to remember reading that Gilmore girls was renewed (prior to the merger announcement), I agree that everything is just speculation at this point. 209.51.77.64 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If there have been pre-merger announcements, this is worth noting if citations are provided. That said, it'll be interesting to see if such renewals are still kept with the merger (though I doubt any would be rescinded). I wonder if the cancellation of 7th Heaven might be reversed? 23skidoo 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, Gilmore Girls, Smallville, and Supernatural have already gotten pick-ups, and they were mentioned specifically as CW shows in the presentation Moonves made, which can be seen online at CNN. Everybody Hates Chris, Veronica Mars, and Girlfriends were also specifially cited as CW shows. The WWE show is different - he *specifially* did not cite Friday Night Smackdown, but simply called it WWE Wrestling - which leads me to believe that it will not exist in its current incarnation past the fall... 7th Heaven was going away anyway - it's been on ten years, and was getting expensive to produce - the network was beginning to lose money on the show, and it's ratings weren't what they once were, so it was time for it to go. TheRealFennShysa 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The list of shows mentioned in the CW press release:
America's Next Top Model
Beauty and the Geek
Smallville
Gilmore Girls
Supernatural
Veronica Mars
Everybody Hates Chris
Girlfriends
Reba
WWE Friday Night Smackdown
During Tribune's conference call, all of these shows except for Girlfriends and Smackdown were mentioned as being locks for The CW. It was strongly implied that Gilmore Girls will be the lead-in for Veronica Mars by Les Moonves and Tribune. --David Bix 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

With the appropriate citation, I see no reason why this list shouldn't be included. I'm curious about Smackdown as I recall they were supposed to be leaving UPN in the spring anyway... 23skidoo 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Smackdown's running through the end of the Summer at least. WWE's deal w/ UPN expires at the beginning of the '06-'07 season. So anyway, does anyone have any good ideas for integrating the list into the article? --David Bix 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read the press release and was unable to find a list of programs. Can you verify where you found that list? Jtrost 22:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From the press release:
As the top creative executive, Ostroff will have available a line-up of some of the most popular programming that appeals to young adults in the media business. These programming assets range from hit reality series such as "America's Next Top Model" and The WB's "Beauty and the Geek," to hit dramas like The WB's "Smallville," "Gilmore Girls," "Supernatural," and UPN's "Veronica Mars" as well as UPN's hit comedies "Everybody Hates Chris" and "Girlfriends" and The WB's hit comedy "Reba." In addition the WWE's "Smackdown," which has been a mainstay at UPN, is expected to play a role in the schedule.
During the Tribune conference call, all of those shows except for Smackdown and Girlfriends were confirmed as being part of CW's lineup. --David Bix 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
With Time Warner being involved, it is possible that SmackDown! might be renewed, because perhaps THEY would like to have WWE on the new network. For The CW, it's not just CBS' call, Time Warner has some say here, too. Plus, without Jamie "I hate wrestling" Kellner in the way, that does open the door for wrestling to air on The CW. John 09:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Smackdown was quietly renewed for 2 more years. It's buried in the middle of the cited Variety, "Mixed views on WB, UPN merger - Some exex left jilted" (subscription required) article --David Bixenspan 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like America's Next Top Model has been confirmed via Zap2it:
Ostroff, currently president of UPN, will run the new network, and she's bringing "Top Model" with her: "We're still committed to that and excited about it," she says.

I've googled the Variety website, and I don't see any official confirmation of shows that will make it to the CW. The article claims that the Tribune conference call confirmed, but I don't see a citation for that, either. Is that list speculation, or are there real network announcements out there? Please either cite the list, note that it's speculation, or remove it. Elwood00 T | C 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Variety story confirming Smackdown's renewal 14th paragraph:
'It doesn't help that, per CBS ParPar Group toppertopper Nancy Tellem, UPN has quietly worked out a deal to keep WWE's "Friday Night Smackdown" on the air for at least two more seasons.'
As far as the conference call, well, I haven't seen any actual media reports on it. I listened to it myself. There are posts on Television Without Pity's message boards from myself and others about the Tribune & CBS conference calls. I understand the need for citations, but the fact is that they did happen even if the media didn't repoort on the details. Is there anywhere on Wikipedia where we can get an "official" recommendation for how to resolve this? --David Bixenspan 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the call itself archived anywhere on the web? Maybe a link to that would suffice. Elwood00 T | C 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. It was archived on the conference call centre's phone line for a few days, but it's expired. --David Bixenspan 18:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The original press release doesn't confirm any shows...just lists all their "star" shows. So I removed the word "confirmed" from that section. GrahameS 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It didn't say that the press release confirmed any shows. The shows I listed were confirmed during the Tribune conference call (except for Smackdown, which was confirmed in a linked Daily Variety article). --David Bixenspan 06:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-affiliated stations

The only affiliates that are for sure right now, according to CBS Corp., are the 28 that are a part of Tribune and CBS Station Group.

Media reports from other areas (check out http://southflorida.bizjournals.com for example) are stating that non-affiliated stations are going to go independent. One executive in South Florida told me his three stations were going independent. Syfymichael 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)syfymichael

Announced this past week, MyNetworkTV affiliates are WTTA/Tampa, WCWB/Pittsburgh, WRDC/Raleigh, WUXP/Nashville, WCGV/Milwaukee, WSTR/Cincinnati, WBSC/Greenville, KRRT/San Antonio, WABM/Birmingham, WTVZ/ Norfolk, WNYO/Buffalo, WUPN/Greensboro, KVWB/Las Vegas, WFGX/Mobile, WMMP/Charleston, SC, WDKA/Paducah and WNYS/Syracuse.MyNetworkTV signs Sinclair stations

Past names

Past names are listed in the sidebox as "United Paramount Network" and "The WB."

I believe "United Paramount Network" as an actual moniker was dropped when Chris-Craft was bought out by Viacom, and later was known simply as "UPN." While I think "United Paramount Network" works as a past name, but so should "UPN."Syfymichael 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, no one ever called it United Paramount Network in the business - it was always UPN... I say list it as such in the infobox... TheRealFennShysa 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Past Names shouldn't be listed as this is not a renaming of the networks but rather a new network. Deathawk 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. When you see the merger of AOL and Time Warner, you still say that they were formerly AOL and Time Warner, even though the two old companies no longer exist to form a new company. Assets from both were merged together, including station affiliations, management, and even shows. I believe the line should be restored of "Former names" to include United Paramount Network, UPN and The WB. While "United Paramount Network" may not have been a name that was used commonly when it was still active, it was still a name, just as not everyone says "Cable News Network" for CNN.Syfymichael 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The AOL-TimeWarner situation is a different one. The assets of the two were directly combined. This situation is more of a revival from the ashes of The WB and UPN, IMO. Mhking 01:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I completely disagree. While stock swapping and such was not discussed as part of this merger, there is nothing to indicate there wasn't. A merger is a combination of assets, sometimes forming something news. When GTE and BellSouth merged, they combined their assets and created a new company, Verizon. In this instance, Warner Bros. and CBS Corp. combined the assets of two of their subsidiaries and created CW. The new company has combined assets of both previous companies, including personnel, station affiliates, and programming. While stock swapping is common in a merger, it is not NECESSARY as part of a merger. And I'm sure there were some stock swapping on this issue anyway. There could've been some stock exchange that just has not been announced, and is not yet available in either company's SEC filings. However, like I said before, it does not have to contain a stock swap in order to be considered a merger. How would this NOT be considered a merger? if the two networks were disbanded, the two companies decided to work together, but with completely new assets, including personnel.Syfymichael 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
(Off-topic: GTE and Bell Atlantic merged to form Verizon. BellSouth is the only Baby Bell that hasn't merged. --Closeapple 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
Oops! Sorry, wrong Bell, hahaha! Thanks! :) But my point is still there. :)Syfymichael 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If this were an actual merger, then Tribune would be an equity partner - they're not... also listing "United Paramount Network" and "UPN" together is saying the same thing twice, essentially... if someone *has* to list them, it should only be as "The WB" and "UPN" - otherwise, you should also list the WB as "The WB Television Network", which is just overkill, especially in an infobox... TheRealFennShysa 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Move?

The logo lists it as "The CW Television Network". I think the page should be moved. --CFIF 22:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although it is doubtful the full name will be used much, the article should be listed under the technical name. 209.51.77.64 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree since The WB is under WB Television Network, etc. I suggest going with whatever the press release states is the official name of the network. 23skidoo 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreement here. Syfymichael 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move it. If someone does not agree, they can post here and we'll discuss. --CFIF 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Flagship

Everyone keeps assuming that WPIX New York will be the flagship station (most likely because it is in New York) - nothing was said in the press materials that pointed to this. The other things that come into play are the facts that Tribune-owned WGN Chicago is the WB flagship, and KCOP Los Angeles (despite being owned by Fox) is the UPN flagship station. Mhking 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing in the press release from CBS Corp. at least states that WPIX is giong to be the flagship. In fact, the press release states that "Moonves added: "This idea becomes a reality only when a great station group like Tribune comes on board with us and delivers the powerful reach a new network requires. With formidable flagship Tribune stations in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, a great CBS line-up of owned and operated UPN stations, and strong affiliates from every available market, The CW launches as a strong competitor to the Big Four, and that's good for our business, for the viewing audience, and for free, over the air broadcasting." At least from what I am reading, there are three flagship stations currently. Sure, it will most likely reduce to one .. but it hasn't done that yet.Syfymichael 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - technically, the WB has said in the past that WGN, as the lead Tribune station, was their network flagship. But Tribune tries to keep all three (WGN, KTLA & WPIX) on an even footing commercially. The idea of a non-NYC flagship does have precedence, given that Fox's flagship is not WNYW New York, but in fact, KTTV Los Angeles according to NewsCorp's financial report a couple of years ago. Mhking 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that may have just been a typo, or an overzealous Californian writing the annual report. WNYW's own site lists them as Fox's flagship, as do dozens of other sites. There has long been the concept of "West Coast flagships", though, which are generally (if not entirely) the LA stations. In any case, it may be sort of a moot issue. I mean, come on, we're talking about the WB and UPN here. They could pick a station in New Mexico as the "CW flagship" and it wouldn't really mean anything. They're all still operated as independent stations that just happen to carry a couple of hours of programming off the satellite in the prime time. What does it really mean to be the flagship of a real network, anyway, other than that it was either first on the air or located in the same place as corporate HQ, or both? --Aaron 17:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
One wonders if the who idea of flagship stations still even applies these days. CBS, NBC and ABC may well have flagship stations, too, but it really has zero impact on programming. 23skidoo 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The Flagship article covers this in its "Broadcasting" section, FWIW. --Aaron 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My take is this: Until The CW states which of its stations is a flagship-- if any-- we shouldn't bother speculating. The whole "flagship" moniker is a bit outdated anyway, and often is used as nothing more than a declaration of civic pride by New Yorkers. In any case, speculating on the flagships amounts to original research at this point in time. -- SwissCelt 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

IP address 69.122.103.90, I have moved your comment to a NEW section of the talk page, at the bottom. Morgan Wick 04:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

New article about ex-WB/UPN stations?

In my idea we should create an article about ex-WB/UPN stations. What is your opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.162.56 (talk • contribs).

No, I don't think it's worth it. --CFIF 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not worth it either, in my opinion. For one things, apart from the stations we know have signed on to The CW, everything else is up in the air right now. Besides, other than saying "hey, these guys lost out", what would be the point? A notation can be made on a station's individual wiki page, if they have one... TheRealFennShysa 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep at the "The"-d variant. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

  • CW (TV network) → CW Television Network – From most indications (logo and top of press release) the official name is "The CW Television Network". Agree that the definite article should be dropped (per WB Television Network) but do not believe "Television Network" should be dropped. Stickguy 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Request withdrawn, at least for my part, pending determination on final name. — Stickguy 02:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose (Keep), who authorized the first move? CFIF 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I moved it a while ago to be consistent with the rule that the word the at the beginning of a Wikipedia article title is restricted, but then somebody moved it back. Georgia guy 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I tend to agree with the not-so-subtle hint dropped in today's Wall Street Journal that this thing won't even be called "CW" by the time September rolls around, so we shouldn't get too worked up about this. But in any case, "CW Television Network" seems to be the official name, so we might as well go with it. --Aaron 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Where in the WSJ story did it imply that? I read the story about how the Fox-owned affiliates were caught off guard, but I missed the part where it implied a name change ... although I'm sure it's definitely possible. :) Syfymichael 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain unless someone decides which is the proper title. It should include "CW Television Network", it's the "The" (bots, do not correct this) that sends me up in the air. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Vapid, silly comment. Here, bots, chew on this: The The. Ha, I laugh in the face of danger. --Aaron 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tenative Support. (if I even get a vote - I realize I'm a relative newbie) Even if they change the name (don't forget that UPN started life as the United Paramount Network, and almost got called The Paramount Network at one point), "The CW Television Network" is how it was introduced at the big presser yesterday. That being said, I won't lose any sleep if it gets changed here.Mhking 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You get a vote! All users get to vote on stuff like this, regardless of newbieship or membership in dirty secret cabals like CP. --Aaron 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as The CW Television Network until the name is changed. Place redirects at all reasonable variations. Wikipedia strives for accuracy, and that goes for article titles as well. The official name uses "The" so the article should, too. 23skidoo 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep conditionally — As articles in The Wall Street Journal and Variety both indicate, the official network name is a work in progress; the article should be kept in some form even if a name change happens, as an historical item. — ArkansasTraveler 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we get word on a final name, at least. Syfymichael 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I personally have no problem with "The CW..." - I would put it in the same category as The New York Times - but I assumed WB Television Network served as precedence. My major objection was to the use of "TV" as opposed to "television" (but no, I don't object to "CW"). — Stickguy 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. We might as well rename The Price is Right to "Price Is Right" and The Beatles to "Beatles". The CW Television Network is the official name and until the "the" is dropped, I think it should stay. --CFIF 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about the Superstations?

If I read things right, KTLA, WSBK and WPIX are all going to be part of the same network come September. Does anyone know what impact that may have on their availability as superstations via cable and satellite in Canada and elsewhere? Having 3 identical superstations on a satellite feed (with maybe minor local differences such as news programming) could result in one or more of the stations being dropped from cable packages like Shaw Cable. Thoughts? 23skidoo 18:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that WGN the "Superstation" bears little resemblance to WGN Channel 9, which is a WB affiliate. Other than simulcasting the Channel 9 local news, the national cable version is, for the most part, a completely different feed from what you actually see in Chicago; they certainly don't offer any WB programming. Perhaps a road like that could be taken by those other stations, if it isn't already. --Aaron 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the live broadcasts of Cubs baseball, White Sox baseball and Bulls basketball games are simulcast on both feeds.--Desmond Hobson 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, WSBK-TV is going indie. As for WPIX/KTLA, well, those are east coast/west coast feeds respectively, and most digital cable/satellite providers (in Canada) provide dual feeds for the other U.S. networks as it is. — Stickguy 19:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Most likely, Superstation WGN will keep it's distance from WGN-TV, as they have for several years. In Canada, where the Chicago broadcast version of WGN airs, there may be some move to shift to the Superstation flavor, I would imagine. Then again, it still might be of interest to retain WGN along with WPIX and KWGN. I'm not sure how it'll affect Dish Network, whose Superstation package currently includes WSBK, WPIX, KWGN, WWOR & KTLA. Given that they already have three current WB affiliates and two UPN stations, and afterward will have two indies and three CW affiliates, don't be surprised if they maintain the status quo. Most people watch the Superstations for the local programming in any event, in my estimation. Mhking 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Superstation feed of WGN has been carried in Vancouver for many years, as opposed to the Chicago feed. I'm guessing it's the same elsewhere in Canada too. - Hinto 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
TBS is an exception because it doesn't have local programming (at least in terms of the satellite feed). But point taken. The only reason I pay for WPIX and KTLA is to see their news programs and local broadcasts. 23skidoo 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Saturday Morning Lineup?

What is this merge going to mean for the Saturday Morning lineup? What does this mean for shows like "Pokemon", "Yu-Gi-Oh!", or "Loonatics Unleashed"? 71.111.209.99 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The original release announcing the CW says that they will absorb the existing KidsWB schedule. Mhking 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Maybe they'll pick up "Yu-Gi-Oh GX" or some of UPN's SatAm (Saturday morning) cartoons. BTW, where can I look at the original release? 71.111.209.99 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read the release. Still, I hope that they pick up "Yu-Gi-Oh! GX". 71.111.209.99 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You can find the new Kid's WB on the CW lineup on the Kids' WB! page.--Dleav 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this may sound dumb, but I can't believe Yu-Gi-Oh didn't make the cut. 71.111.215.224 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Programming facts

Did Warner Brothers and CBS really hint at programming Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars together? It's unsourced, which means that you should tread carefully and remember that it may be untrue. Is there a source on this? Is it just a rumor that is unencyclopedic? Just wondering. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Tribune rep did during their conference call, and Les Moonves did during CBS's. --David Bixenspan 02:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
A conference call, by itself, is considered original research. Is there a source, available to the public, which repeats this info? -- SwissCelt 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. I'll take it out. --David Bixenspan 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Daytime programming

If the people at CW really want to compete with the other networks, they won't primarily limit themselves to prime time once more. They'll invest in some daytime programming as well. Morning/afternoon news and talkshows. Perhaps even some soap operas as well. Dtowng 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I hope they add some game shows as well. It'll give them direct competition with The Price is Right. 206.211.69.253 12:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What is going to happen to the Daytime WPIX(WB11) Lineup when the merger happens? Will the merger affect shows like Maury, Jerry Springer, My Wife and Kids etc in the fact that the CW station will force to take them out. Or is that WPIX's decision to keep it there or not. Metlover21 9:54, 10 Febuary 2006

WPIX will keep the shows in daytime. The CW will program on a schedule similar to The WB, so it won't change anything. -John 03:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Newscasts

In New York The channel to be chosen to be the CW Affiliate is WPIX(WB11).During the CW announcment about the merger they didn't explain anything about the news. I Knew i said something like this above but news is different. Willl the CW force WPIX to change newscasters or will it be the same.

Networks do not dictate to local stations who anchors their news. Mhking 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_CW_Television_Network_Archive_1_ae24.html"