Template talk:American broadcast television
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Regarding latest edit
I thought this was too long to put in the edit summary line, so I'm putting it here instead. First, UPN and The WB are not merging; they're shutting down. The Tribune_Company is not going to have any stake in The CW beyond a 10-year affiliate agreement for its O&O stations. Second, I don't think we should shunt the two networks off onto the side while they still exist, which they will for a number of months. Third, I put them back in alphabetical order. Personally, I'm not sure we should even have anything in the template for The CW beyond the "planned launch" notation. That's the thing about Wikipedia: We can just leave UPN and The WB in the template until the day they actually shut down, and then yank them. --Aaron 02:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Even though the space is actually there, with the current font styling it looks like it says Planned launch in September 2006 following shutdown of UPNand The WB --David Bixenspan 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't make that latest edit (though I like it), but I have to admit that last line looks awful on the Mac; it's just too small. I'm not sure what would be the optimal way to fix it though.--Aaron 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Tube
I added The Tube to the broadcast television template since it's becoming more availiable in the country. Both Tribune and Sinclair will the network (which is 100% music videos) to some of their digital channels this summer. Nemalki 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning of "Major"?
|
The table at right, taken from: contains the number of viewers (in millions) that each network averaged per hour of prime time, for the week of June 5-11, 2006 and for the season. This table challenges the meaning of "major" in the template. The template can be fixed in one of at least two ways:
I'm changing "major" to "English language" for now, but am curious about what others think. 66.167.136.10 06:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC). |
|
[edit] Defunct networks
Since this template does not indicate that it only lists currently broadcasting networks, I am assuming UPN and The WB will continue to be listed after September (and if not, they should, IMO, otherwise the template wording should be changed to indicate it only lists current networks). If this is the case, we should also be listing the DuMont Television Network as it was a major network during the first decade of TV. 23skidoo 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smile of a Child
This appears to be digital-only, but I'm wondering where it should go, since it's nothing like Weather Plus or The Tube? I think I'll created a "Digital-only religious networks:" section. Any comments? --CFIF (talk to me) 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bloomberg?
Are they on broadcast TV somewhere? Lambertman 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MyNet
Given the ratings, how long before we can consider moving this down to "specialty networks"? :) Lambertman 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
My consideration is not so much the ratings but the long-term programming strategy. If this is only to be primarily 12 hours a week (two of which will be recycled content) — plus all of the content will be only one genre — I'd be for the move. But I'll also happily wait for others to weigh in on the issue. — ArkansasTraveler 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Plus, they have much more clearance than i, A1, ecetera.... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- CFIF has a point. Even if MNTV's ratings are incredibly low (and they are), they do have clearance in 95% of the country. Compare that to i's less than 70% or A1's clearance, which is much lower. In other words, MNTV could conceivably achieve fairly decent ratings, while smaller networks could not, not without suddenly gaining dozens of new affiliates. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- An argument for demotion could be made in that their ratings are figured weekly and not included in lists such as this one [1]. Lambertman 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think the key difference between MyNetwork and networks like CW is the type of programming, which is clearly specialty and does not resemble that of the major networks. Combined with the fact that their affiliate count is only somewhat higher than that of the i network (which is listed as "specialty") and its viewership is comparitively small compared to CW, I moved it. JMyrleFuller 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- CFIF has a point. Even if MNTV's ratings are incredibly low (and they are), they do have clearance in 95% of the country. Compare that to i's less than 70% or A1's clearance, which is much lower. In other words, MNTV could conceivably achieve fairly decent ratings, while smaller networks could not, not without suddenly gaining dozens of new affiliates. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why I don't think Digital specialty nets should be separate
- Digital doesn't mean "higher prestige", as more people know I than qubo.
- Digital doesn't mean "lower prestige", as more people know NBC Weather plus than ImaginAsian.
- Some areas get CW, My, and even the occasional Big Four net on a digital subchannel.
- This template is very large and combining two categories with little apparent difference makes sense.
That's why I lumped them together and maintain they should return to that way. Lambertman 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The difference is availability-- whether or not the network is available via analog broadcast or digital broadcast. Analog broadcast, at this point in time, is far easier for the average consumer to get, and cable providers have been reluctant to add most digital specialty subchannels thus far. Come 2009, this will of course change. JMyrleFuller 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
