Talk:Citytv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to 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.
Canadian TV shows
This article is part of the Canadian TV shows WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Alex Pierson

I believe Alex Pierson is back at City/CP24. No mention of her on any of the websites but she's been reporting regularly for a few weeks now. Info Inc Oct 12 2006


What is the difference between Citytv and CityTV? RickK 06:10, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nothing...but technically, it is spelled Citytv. Adam Bishop 06:12, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is there any benefit in being consistant within the article? :) RickK 06:16, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yes, would you like us to call you riCKk every so often, just because we feel like it? - user:zanimum

Supporting documentation: the Citytv home page and the CHUM Limited web site both use the Citytv spelling, *not* CityTV. If you feel minded to change the spelling to CityTV, don't start at Wikipedia; start by visiting 299 Queen Street West. 64.231.183.40 20:07, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Moses

by the by...Moses said it's the flow, not the show that matters...you have noted the reverse.

[edit] Lay offs

Does anyone know the exact number of people fired from City on the day of the takeover bid. I think it was something like 250 but I don't want to include a guess. I'm surprised nothing was mentioned about the layoffs in the paragraph on the takeover. There's been plenty of coverage so if it was removed on grounds of unverifiability, I suggest checking any Canadian newspaper. 23skidoo 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

281 people got layed off. Anonymous 15:56 17 July 2006 (PT)

[edit] Vandalism

Is someone from Wikipedia at some point going to block these IP addresses that keep vandalising this article about one particular subject (I won't mention the subject b/c with mentioning it and getting the word out about the subject it makes more publicity, thats what the vandals want). I don't know if its one IP address that keeps vandalising the article or if its several but its always about one thing. It's happening a lot, so I think something needs to be done about it.

  • Unfortunately, this pinhead seems to be using different IP's every time. Fortunately, he seems to do the same few low-level, easy to spot, easy to fix bits of vandalism and always on the same few pages, like this one, Ed the Sock and Liana K, before quickly fading away. He's just a weird little nuisance who obviously has a bug up his but about something nobody else cares about. A couple of his early IPs got sock-puppetted. Ironically enough. :-) Doug A Scott (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Hunter

Robert Hunter [1] was a significant figure in citytv's history but is not mentioned at all in this article. Look at article

[edit] External links

I have been combing through Canadian broadcasting articles to do some cleaning up on links, spelling and grammar. An anonymous editor has contested one edit that I have been making, and this has led to a bit of an edit war, which is just a waste of everybody's time. Since I cannot contact the anon ed directly, I have made the change once more to stimulate a discussion here. I ask the anon ed to talk it out here -- let's try to resolve it. I will not make this edit again on any article until the issue is resolved here, and ask the anon ed to desist also. Comments from other editors would be particularly welcome.

This is a really small issue, but it is irritating to me to have my work undone, and I am sure that the anon ed finds it irritating that I am making a change that s/he thinks is unnecessary.

I have been changing the description of a station's website from "Official Website" to "Citytv website" (for example). The anon ed argues that her/his version "is more accurate". Here are my reasons for preferring my version:

  1. "Official" is one of those words that has become meaningless through overuse by marketers -- "It's the official film of summer fun!"
  2. There are no "unofficial" websites for Citytv. If there is, then please identify one.
  3. Even if there is an unofficial website for Citytv, "Citytv website" makes it clear that it is the website of Citytv. If it is some other website, that it cannot be described as the Citytv website.
  4. "official Site" is not as clear as "Citytv website" -- the reader has to assume that "official" refers to the subject of the article, and not, for example, to the regulator of broadcasting (the CRTC), or to the owners of Citytv, whoever they happen to be today. "Citytv website" wipes out that uncertainty.

I welcome comments from the anon ed and other editors and hope that we can sort this out through discussion rather than edit warring. thanks. Ground Zero | t 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Official means to the average reader that this will be... well the official site of the related subject. There really isn't much more you can say. It's a more formal and professional way of writing it in the article.

And how do you know if there is or isn't another "unofficial" site out there. I don't know of one, but there could be. And to respond to your comment about "official" being thrown around too lightly, well this is an encyclopedia, this is not a promotional or marketing ploy, the word official holds a different status here and readers know that. And if you say "Citytv website", who knows, it could be some fan site or something about Citytv, saying its the official site of Citytv, they know what it will be, it wwill be the Citytv site. MusiMax 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I disagree that it sounds more professional. I think clearly identifying what the link is by saying "Cityv website" is more useful for readers and therefore more professional and more useful. If there is an unofficial website, please let me know what it is. Clearly, there isn't. It isn't a Citytv website at all if it is not authorized by Citytv. A proper description of a fansite would be "Fansite about Citytv", not "Citytv website". there is no room for confusion there. Let's wait to see what other editors have to say. Ground Zero | t 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television Network or System?

Is Citytv, along with A-Channel and E! a television network or "system" ? If it's a system, then what does that mean? I've always thought it was a network, like CTV, only smaller. Jmacgrath

The difference is that a 'network' is licenced by the CRTC, a 'system' is not. CTV is no longer a network as it let its network licence expire. The only networks -- in the Canadian regulatory sense of the word -- are CBC, TVA, and APTN. -- Gridlock Joe 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Read Television system for a more eloquent explanation. -- Gridlock Joe 02:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That has actually cleared quite a bit up for me. -- Jmacgrath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacgrath (talk • contribs) 02:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know if the national network itself is necessarily owned by Rogers.

  • Trying to access the "index" page redirects to Citytv Winnipeg.
  • Sources only say the CRTC required Globemedia to sell the 5 Citytv affiliates, not the network brand itself.
  • Could Rogers really air CHUM/CTV Globemedia programming if Rogers owned the national network brand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)