Template talk:Superstations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] HUGE template

I just removed the flags, the colors, and the unnecessary sections from this template. I've only commented out what I removed so they can be easily restored, but that should ONLY be done after some discussion on this template.

I only noticed this template because I was going to edit the KTLA article. Yes, this template looks nice in isolation, but it is a HUGE, glaring monstrosity when added to an existing article.

The flags are unnecessary and just make the template much larger. They also make the template (and thus the article) load slower.

The template certainly didn't need an extra row for superstations that haven't been added to the template yet. The two notes for Canadian and Mexican superstation are unnecessary in the template IMHO, but are information that should be added to the superstation article.

I also removed the note at the bottom of the template about seeing local markets, because there was no indication why they were included, and nothing in the superstation article gave me a clue either.

As for the colors: I'd settle for restoring a light blue band for the title row, which is a moderately common feature for navigation boxes, but the template didn't need both blue and yellow rows. My personal opinion is that the current version with no color at all is much cleaner and clearer. BlankVerse 09:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there consensus on the new, much smaller version? Should all of the code that I just commented out now be removed from the template?
What about the colors? Please take a look on the pages where the template is being used and compare it to most of the other templates that are used on those pages and elsewhere on the Wikipedia. BlankVerse 17:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian stations

Are all those Canadian stations that Raccoon Fox added superstations? Kimmykun 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this with him before; in the current Canadian media context there is not a single Canadian television station which can properly be labelled a superstation. Every last one he added fails either the "independent" criterion or the "national carriage" one. Bearcat 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Are stations with "National Carriage" equal to Superstations? If they are, then i'd suspect that CFPL-TV, CFTM-TV, CITV-TV, CHCH-TV, CFTO-TV, CFMT-TV/CJMT-TV and CBMT-TV/CBUT-TV would qualify. Raccoon Fox 20:38, 20 April 2006

  • The Canadian stations listed aren't Superstations, I've deleted. The ones listed are: OMNI Television, Atlantic Satellite Network, Citytv, A-Channel, CH, and CJON. OMNI is the branding given to Rogers stations in 4 or 5 markets. ASN isn't even a terrestrial channel, it's a cable channel. Citytv is branding given to a mini-net of CHUM stations in major markets, while A-Channel is the branding given to secondary CHUM stations in some markets. CH is the branding given to secondary Global stations in some markets. None of these are superstations in any sense of the word, any more than CTV or Global are. And then there's CJON. CJON is the sometime Global, sometimes CTV affiliate in St. John's Newfoundland, and yes it's available on cable systems across Canada. But living in Toronto, I get local channels from St. Johns, Halifax, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver on my cable system. They aren't superstations - CRTC regulations are generally a lot more lax than FCC regulations and let cable companies carry local stations from anywhere in the nation. I suppose, if any station fit the superstation bill it's CJON. And perhaps I'll put that one back. But the others ... no. Nfitz 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NavHide

Could someone add the NavHide feature to this template? (My knowlege of HTML is pretty bad.) Thanks. —Whomp [T] [C] 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, anyone? —Whomp t/c 23:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Template_talk%7ESuperstations_0893.html"