Talk:A-Channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canadian TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canadian TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Dispute regarding the individual station articles

There is a minor edit dispute over content on several of the individual A-Channel stations (specifically, CFPL-TV, CKNX-TV, CHRO-TV, and CHWI-TV at present). 72.60.128.187 added the following text to the article for CKNX-TV:

"On July 12, 2006, CTV owner Bell Globemedia announced plans to purchase A-Channel owner CHUM Ltd. for $C1.7 Billion, with plans to divest itself of the A-Channel and Access Alberta stations." (similar text was added to the other articles)

Ardenn is reverting the edits, summarizing as follows:

"Why do we care? How is this relevant to this article?"

An additional comment from the ensuing discussion was:

"The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles."

I think it's relevant, but I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. So, the question is, should this information go in the individual articles, or just in the main A-Channel article? Your thoughts? --Ckatz 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This information is relevent, IMO. While I do not believe it has happened with the A-Channel stations, the CityTv network pruned 300 jobs the day the sale was announced, devastating several local stations. A change in ownership, even if it still requires regulatory approval, is very important to a station, and therefore to this article. Resolute 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, reverting the edits on this proposed sale because it has not yet gained regulatory approval is a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The sale has happened, the approval is not. This is relevent. Speculation about what the CRTC may do is not. Resolute 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, the information is relevant. However, without a reliable source, the information must not be included. Ardenn is right for all the wrong reasons Captainktainer * Talk 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No question about reliable sources - for starters, the CBC story used as a source for the same information in the A-Channel article. (Here's the code: ^[1] - I'll enter it on the respective pages later tonight [Tuesday PDT]) Thanks! --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I must still disagree wholeheartedly over its inclusion per WP:NOT-crystal ball. Ardenn 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't apply here, in my opinion, because it's not saying that this deal with go through for sure, but rather that it's been proposed (and yet to be officially approved). Therefore, it is stating that "the deal has yet to be approved" rather than "the deal will go through," and thus wouldn't fall under the Crystal Ball ruling. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a crystal ball situation. It would be crystal-ballism to make predictions about, say, the CRTC refusing the acquisition or imposing new conditions on it that aren't currently part of BGM's announced plans — but it's certainly not crystal balling to state that a proposed transaction has been proposed. The disputed text quite clearly sticks to the established facts and doesn't speculate, so I don't see what the problem is. Bearcat 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A likely change of ownership is certainly worth mentioning, particularly as its been heavily covered in the media. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

Recently I split off the "former" Craig Media A-Channel into a new article located at A-Channel (1997-2005). While I previously unified the former NewNet and A-Channel articles when each rebranded last August, I no longer believe it's appropriate to discuss both in the same article. My rationale is that despite the identical brand name and current ownership, the current A-Channel is not a continuation of the original A-Channel, as it had a history (as NewNet) separate from that of the Craig A-Channel prior to 2005, is carried on a completely different set of stations and, for the most part, has different programming. Additionally, even though WP:NOT a crystal ball, given that the current A-Channel stations may change branding yet again (as a result of CTV's plans to sell the stations), maintaining a unified page may cause further confusion.

User:69.198.108.51, aka User:Musimax (formerly aka User:Cdn_boi), reverted my changes to the original article, asking for a discussion. I have temporarily reset the new (former A-Channel) article to a redirect to the original.

Notwithstanding the template, please note that in this case I believe a top-of-page disambiguation, not a separate dab page, is warranted at this time, since there are only two entities in question. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to splitting this, if there's a way to do that properly; a proper and legitimate split would not include using "(1997-2005)" in an article title. Better disambiguators might be "(historic)", "(original)" or "(Craig Media)". Years of existence should never be written directly into a title as a point of disambiguation, because they create too much complexity and make the article exceedingly difficult for a person to find if they don't already know the correct years. Bearcat 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So here's a formal proposal, then: undisambiguated A-Channel becomes a brief dab page; old pre-2005 A-Channel goes to either A-Channel (former) or A-Channel (Craig Media); current A-Channel goes to either A-Channel (current) or A-Channel (CHUM Limited). But I do think stickguy is right that the split should happen; in hindsight I agree that we probably should have handled the changeover differently than this in the first place. Bearcat 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having A-Channel (Craig Media) and A-Channel (CHUM Limited). I found it strange to find the former discussed on the same page as the former NewNet, when I clicked a link for NewNet. Dunro 06:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that we should have two separate articles, possibly even branch NewNet off as its own article, but we should wait until Bell GlobeMedia/CTV eats A-Channel and CHUM, Ltd. Once CTV gives a definite decision on what they'll do with the extra stations, then we should act. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)