Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Contents
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Shortcut:
WT:TVS


[edit] Separate articles for digital subchannels?

I didn't think we were doing this, but I found one for KBJR-DT2 that was created in October 2007. I'd like to see an explicit consensus on this. For my part, I oppose separate articles for digital subchannels; they should be part of the article for the primary station, especially considering the likelihood that there will be very few, if any, reliable sources for subchannels. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to be in the FCC database so I'd say merge into the main article. It remains to be seen what the stations will do with the extra channels in the long run. Maybe at some point separate articles might make sense, but today I don't see that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
They are in the FCC database in a round-about way, by being an child of the licensed station. The FCC doesn't regulate what programming is on ANY station (they don't care when a radio station changed from country to talk radio, and they don't care when a TV station drops Everybody Loves Raymond) they regulate the content that a station programs. I'm for the additional stations having their own seperate articles ONLY IF they're affiliated with one of the major networks, The CW, My Network TV etc, but not the numerous NBC Weather Plus stations and the PBS subchannels, because those are all rebroadcasts of networks that already have articles (PBS Kids, Create! and so on). Mr mark taylor (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that these are not separate stations; they are merely separate feeds on the same station. I don't see a reason for a separate article for KECY-TV's 9.2 subchannel, which airs ABC programming, or KSWT's 13.2 subchannel, which airs The CW. In each case, only the programming is different; the station location, transmitter location, major channel number, staff, and station history are identical. I can see your point, however, if a station with different staff and history and with original content signs on as a subchannel of another. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
WNYF-LP and WWNY-DT2 are one and the same; a Fox TV affiliate. If it deserves an article as an underpowered analogue -LP, it deserves one as a full-power -DT2 (but not two articles, if one is a repeater of the other). So .2's are notable if they carry unique content, but if they are repeaters then their notability is no more (or less) than that of repeaters on their own individual channels. --72.140.46.227 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KARE-TV and WCCO-TV ratings dispute

A dispute about ratings information and sources in the KARE-TV and WCCO-TV‎ articles began last month on Talk:KARE#KARE and WCCO ratings (it came to my attention because it was posted on WP:3O) which has apparently involved edit warring and even 3RR violations by two editors.

I am not confident that any of the WP:3O volunteers will be able to handle it, so I also appeal to the topic-specific expertise here on this project: could some of you look in on the recent Talk:KARE‎#Reverted discussion with an eye for what might resolve it? Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Followup: Many thanks to Dhett for stepping in there! — Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of SVG instead of PNG

It seems that several templates related to this project make use of Image:Television.png as an Icon. My I recommend instead the use Image:Blank television set.svg which is a vector graphic.

Also, have a look at how that SVG tv icon and flags or text can be combined, e.g.:  ;  ;  ; .

--Inkwina (talk · contribs) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cable slot charts

Recently, editor RingtailedFox has inserted a table of cable channel positions in articles for television stations in Detroit and Toronto (see CIII-TV and WXYZ-TV for examples). Are these allowed by Wikipedia standards? I recall someone dinging another editor earlier for adding cable slots to articles. -- azumanga (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea if you list major systems in the market... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
When does the information become non encyclopedic? Adding that information makes the entry appear more of a TV guide. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if the station specifically mentions it in it's marketing (KBCW and WFLD both on cable 12 in their respective markets), it's fine, or if it's placed within the text of the article and has a pretty set channel market-wide. But a grid (or a station with more than six channel assignments in a market) takes it into Not a TV Guide territory in my eyes. Nate • (chatter) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I could see it on some stations, mostly the UHF stations because some channel positions depend on the system or the station does not use channel number in it's positioning at all (i.e. "Fox Anytown, USA") but most Channel 2's are on cable channel 2, most Channel 3's are on cable channel 3, etc. so there's no need for a channel chart for a station unless it's on a different channel on every system. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That logic does not always work, especially areas where they are close to the transmitter; because of interference issues, a station would be on a different channel. For example: in Northern Pinellas, WTSP ch.10 is on Bright House cable 12, and in west Pasco, it's on cable 9. Also, UHF stations most often than not take a lower cable channel position, often in the 2-13 range. For example: Bright House carries WTOG ch.44 on cable 4. -- azumanga (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
To list *one* cable channel assignment might be justifiable in rare cases where that number appears in the station's branding or advertising (CJOH-TV used "cable 7" [its Ottawa assignment] instead of its real channel numbers [6, 8, 13] during the 1980's, CIII-TV chose its callsign to match its cable position on various systems - not one of its real OTA channel assignments, WSTQ-LP used its Syracuse cable assignment in its "CW 6" branding instead of its real number - 14 UHF). Unless the station is using it as part of its on-air identity, I don't see its importance; there are too many CATV systems with too many arbitrary channel assignments for them to be notable. --carlb (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BenH, again

76.7.107.66 ... back to Embarq this time. Blueboy96 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way--already splatted. Blueboy96 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Educational Television as former affiliation

Just wondering, I know we had a problem with some IP's adding NET as a former affiliate to PBS stations; it is OK to remove this, right? I don't remember what we came to about this. I find it annoyingly redundant, and some of the stations I've seen it added to probably didn't carry NET shows back then because they were meant as local educational stations. Nate • (chatter) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What we really need is a reliable source which lists NET affiliates from back in the day. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to assume that the older non-commercial educational stations and intrastate networks -- WNET, WGBH-TV, WQED, KUHT, KQED, UNC-TV, etc. -- were certainly part of NET. It's the smaller ones, and obviously those stations that signed-on after 1970, that could create uncertainty. I'll try to find a list of some sort. And welcome back Firsfron, nice to hear from you again. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: I found one source here ([1]). Rollosmokes (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a huge page. I don't even know where to start. Are the individual pages available? BTW, thanks for the welcome back. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried searching for another source/other sources, but this was the only one I could find. It may or may not be all that helpful, but it's a start. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The "signed on after 1970" category isn't even a straight-forward case. For instance, WPBS-TV signed on 1971 as WNPE-TV 16 but as a spinoff of WWNY-TV 7 Carthage-Watertown. Its "St. Lawrence ETV" programming ran on 7 (a CBS station in a one-station town, with secondary affiliations to everything, including NET and DuMont) before then. The articles currently list NET as having been on the commercial station, not on WPBS-TV itself, although it was WPBS' parent organisation that put NET there. --carlb (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WVVA

Rollosmokes and I (mainly Rollosmokes) have been trying to keep Bandit5257 in check -- this user keeps insisting on including past personalities in the article for WVVA, even though the personalities were not notable/ The big question is -- are they notable, whether they made it big or not? -- azumanga (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From a few articles I've seen (WBZ-TV, WHDH, WABI-TV etc.) if they can be tracked down to their whereabouts now or the years they worked there then I think they should be listed, but if we're talking about a weekend reporter/interns that never worked at any station again, then they shouldn't be listed. Mr mark taylor (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Rollosmokes on this one ... unless someone has a really long tenure at a small-market station or made it really big somewhere else, it doesn't belong in articles on small-market stations. Blueboy96 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamesinc14...

...has been on a rampage the last couple of days. Through an IP sock, he keeps insisting that Noggin is now "Fox Noggin Channel". And each of my reverts have been met with a revert back to the vandalised version. Keep a sharp eye on him. -- azumanga (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dropping the "-TV" suffix

There are several instances where a station dropping the "-TV" suffix from its calls, but making no substantive changes to the callsign, is noted as a call letter change. Somehow, I think that's way, way too trivial. Thoughts. Blueboy96 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blame New World Man for that -- as he's been overupdating the infoboxes he has done that a few times. I've fixed a few of those such articles, like WJW and WNBC. For the record, dropping the suffix is simply a modification, not a whole call sign change; NWM didn't see it that way. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not just him. I've done it, too, but if the consensus is that it's way too trivial, I can live with that. The FCC listed them separately, so I did, too.
Rollo, please stop beating up on the other project members and contributors. Just because you have a deep disagreement with someone doesn't make them evil. Please. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not beating up on anyone. I'm only expressing my opinion. Apologies if it comes off as a tad strong, but that is how I feel. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dingbat2007, again

now Word58. -- azumanga (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And Word56. Only now, he attempts to cover his tracks by editing in conjunction with an anonymous IP address. See KVIJ history. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COL on the topic of "markets" at List of Gannett Company assets

I have quite a bit of information in the broadcasting field but am new to Wikpedia so please excuse me if I do not do everything right on here. I will post my opinion as seen on the talk page of

Main article: List of Gannett Company assets
There is a dispute on this page where it says market for Gannett owned stations. Market means what area the station is in and serves and has NOTHING to do with COL or (City of License). Although there are markets where 1,2,3 cities are noted such as Dallas-Fort Worth the COL of a particular station is NOT its market. For instance WLVI-TV is in the "Boston" TV market. But its COL is Cambridge and is listed so on the WLVI page. Its not called the "Cambridge-Boston" market but just the "Boston" market. The issue here is rather COL should be included in the market list. Keep in mind its MARKET we are talking about and not COL. By including COL it can confuse as to say that the particular COL is part of market ID when it is not. That provides inaccurate information. You can see the markets by theirofficial names on the link below. The next 2 also show on how stations are shown when "market" is asked for. Just to be clear on this I am not talking about each article for each station I agree COL should be displayed. However when articles of market relay to showing ownership and affiliates we should be doing it like they do in the broadcast industry--showing the market. And I for one have never heard of the "shaker heights-cleveland-akron market". Or the "Cambridge-Boston" market. Thank you.


List of MyNetworkTV affiliates -- you will notice WPWR-TV has a COL of Gary IN and WWOR-TV has a COL of Secaucus, New Jersey but as the issue is "market" its Chicago market and New York market. Oak999 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of ABC television affiliates (table) --ABC Tv station WJXX #49 has a COL of Orange Park but again in this article the issue is market not COL so the COL is left off on this list and the market is Jacksonville FL.

List of CBS television affiliates (table) ---CBS station WOIO-TV has a COL of Shaker Heights but is in the Cleveland - Akron #17 market. Since market is the topic COL is left off.

Raycom Media ---You will also notice on ownership it lists which market the station is in.

To conclude I do not feel COL is relevant and is confusing when talking about "market". If we put COL along with market in the page of affiliates and ownership it is not as accurate as it should be. Nielsen Ratings makes clear what "markets" are. Oak999 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "Talk:List of Gannett Company assets"

As Dhett (at KPNX) and myself (with the Gannett lists) have told you, it was by a consensus: City of license first, market's main city/cities second. The network lists are arranged by market name, but lists of commonly-owned stations have the COL placed before the market name.
The COL is VERY RELEVANT because that is how stations identify themselves, as they are required to by the FCC. You may not feel that way, but the majority of us here don't share your opinion. So please work with the consensus. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes- That issue is done. That is NOT what I am talking about. If you click the links I provided you will see what I mean. What is being asked for is "market" not COL. I understand you want COL below on station pages--fine. I too never disagreed with that. COL does not mean that much anymore its not my opinion its the info given to me by many engineers that work for stations. COL just means a station has to cover that city with a city grade signal and give a ID included at the top of the hour. But you all made your call on that and I respect that--fine. I urge you to click on the links to see what I am talking about. In the context Gannett Company it lists what "market" they are in. Why are we confusing and including COL? The New York City Market is NOT the Secaucus, New Jersey- New York Market. Thats not how it is. GIVEN--WWOR-TV has to ID itself at the top of the hour as WWOR-TV Secaucus-New York. But it is not the Secaucus-New York market its JUST the New York market. In the article about Fox O&O it lists the stations owned by Fox in the Market. So if its asking for market why are we giving the COL on the list of Fox O&Os? Oak999 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I do not see COL on WWOR-TV here or WPWR-TV Gary List of Fox television affiliates (table)

I do not see COL for WOIO-TV Clevland here (Raycom Media)

If we want to put COL on these--FINE. But then I would recommend on the top of the bar we put COL/market. Because when you put Gary-Chicago for WPWR-TV in the Fox O&O its wrong. Its not the Gary-Chicago Market its just the Chicago market.

If you're going to list EVERY DAMN ARTICLE that you have an issue with, all you're doing is wasting your time. As I said before: work with the consensus, not against it. If you don't wish to do so, then perhaps you shouldn't edit television station-related articles here. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am new to this site but you may want to read the sites " code of conduct" it seems you are WELL out of bounds. The articles I listed where examples. I have seen no one comment on this but you so that does not make a consenses. Oak999 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You will probably find hundreds of examples to back up your assertion, bur you're forgetting one key point: we have only arrived at this consensus recently, so there are going to be many, many non-compliant articles. Slowly, over time, we hope to change them to reflect the consensus (which, as I told you before, wasn't my choice). I hope you'll be a part of the effort. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the whole...

Oak999 is just another editor who wants to be difficult. Changes I made to the top of KPNX were unnecessarily changed by him/her and a random IP over the last 24 hours. Though I reverted back, Oak999 has gone over and flipped twice. This is the same thing he/she has done with the Gannett article; he/she isn't interested in consensus or compromise. Someone needs to set this new jack straight. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He just did it again with the MNT affil list, changing the entries to put Secaucus and Gary first within New York and Chicago, which I reverted. He quickly re-reverted me. I'm not going to fight with him about this; the style was unchanged since the article first went up, and it's set in stone that Nielsen market city is first, always. Nate • (chatter) 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The solution to all of this

Just create a separate field for "city of license" before the market name. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NWM/Infoboxes

Once again he reverted back to his "correct version" of his infoboxes on the Eastern Wisconsin TV articles (filled with fields that will never be filled) without any comment or regard to what I told him at all about how his edits were unneeded. If this happens again I will ask for admin action. I feel frustrated that he would add this cruft without any regard to any editor here at all and what they've told him is the correct way to collaborate. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also making my skin crawl is NWM's insistence to add "Inc." to the broadcaster's name in the infobox, even though it really doesn't needed. And not just that, but the way he adds it (see the code and you'll know what I mean). Apparently, he doesn't take the acronym "KISS" to heart. -- azumanga (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That did it for me--it's RFC time. I've already started one, but would appreciate if you guys could help find more diffs ... I have to go to work tonight and don't have time to do much diff digging. Blueboy96 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing I would like to add -- if we are against adding so much minutae to the infoboxes, why are the fields there? Personally, I would remove the unimportant fields so that there would be no place for them. -- azumanga (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm already working on that -- removing some of the extraenous blank fields and anything else added unnecessarily that is taking up space in the infoboxes. I'm also removing the BIA links, which I don't think really add anything. I've started with the stations in my main NYC area of interest, and will move on from there later. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
While you're in there, could you add a Virtual Channel heading? We should publish the virtual channel for DTV stations who do not ID by their actual RF channel, as well as the actual RF channel (for purposes of informing readers of whether they need a UHF or VHF antenna for over-the-air reception.) dhett (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been adding mini-tables for DTV in several articles, just showing subchannels and brief info on where the station(s) will be broadcasting after 2-17-09 (including references to pertinent FCC documents). I'll see about that request, but I'm still pretty much a DTV novice myself. Rollosmokes (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK - don't worry about it then. It isn't needed right away, so I can get it later. Thanks. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried editing down some of his "improved" infoboxes by removing the coordinates, but he just reverted my edits. At least he's finally leaving Independent linked and not rev'ing that as well. Though I think he's still unlinking and uncapitalizing Independent in new infoboxes he comes across. Kimmykun (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BIA links and "founded"/"airdate" fields

I put the BIA links in the TV station articles because they contain studio and mailing addresses and telephone numbers. Why would these be unimportant?

Also, dhett created the "airdate" field after an argument that he had with me on "founded" dates. As a result, I think the "founded" field has become obsolete.

New World Man (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the BIA links -- so does the stations' websites. And if they have none, I'm pretty sure the FCC has them. -- azumanga (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagreed with you about deleting the founded dates, and still do. It was my understanding that we would use both, but decided it wasn't worth making an issue over. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The FCC does not keep records of studio or mailing addresses for stations. The address listed for each station is that of the license holding company, which is often not in the area the specific station serves. That's one reason I added the BIA links. New World Man (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the BIA/fn link, and if this is correct, it's value-added without being a directory. I have more of a problem with articles that list the station's address and phone #. That info doesn't belong in the article, but I think a link to a site where that info can be found is appropriate. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin Public Television

Resolved. Conflicts have been resolved, and network/ECB articles more accurately reflect the network structure. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunprairie has been involved in a editing conflict with me for the last two months over Wisconsin Public Television, where they keep removing information about affiliate stations in Milwaukee and Duluth which air instructional and network-produced programming from the network, which takes up to nine hours a day on their daily schedules during late night and school time.

I feel it is important to reflect this in the article and have tried to accomodate their concerns with several compromise edits to break them out and make it clear they just air the stuff and they aren't owned by them. However their will not allow the content to appear in any way shape or form, and the brusk style of their edit summaries, their edit history of only editing this article and the lack of communication suggests he may work for the network in some form, feeling as if the affiliate stations are inferior to the network. I have attempted to remind them of the conflict of interest guidelines, but have been unable to recieve any kind of response from him beyond complete reversions of my edits. So I'm taking it here to see what the appropriate next step is. I gave him a level three warning with an explanation after their last blanking this afternoon, and I'm unsure of the next course of action beyond giving up and letting them have their way. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if they are affiliated with WPT, they should be included in the article. In my opinion, I would stay the course. -- azumanga (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And they are, as the stations carry the 'Instructional programming is provided by the Wisconsin Educational Communications Board' disclaimer (WPT's parent) during the instructional programming blocks, along with how their schedules are filled with the programming (up to a 1/4 of their broadcast day) and they cooperate with the other stations because they have to cover the entire state with their shows. They responded to my concerns through my talk page just after I posted this by saying that by 'my standards' (paraphrase), it should be inserted that WPT is an affiliate of WGBH and WETA because they carry Arthur and the NewsHour. I have broken the information out and added as many disclaimers as I can, but he continues to revert wholesale and claim I'm bolstering the stations for the sake of the network. I don't want to hit 3RR with them so I'm asking for a second opinion. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Following this is my response on Mrschimpf's talk page. The entry is about Wisconsin Public Television, a distinct network of stations that cover all of Wisconsin with the exception of Milwaukee, which is covered by a distinct public television outlet -- MPTV. That said, in this editing struggle, I have stated that explaining that these other stations carry some WPT programming and vice versa is fine and the current edit includes that. But, to include detailed informtion about these stations in the WPT entry -- both in the top info box and in a chart that mirrors the actual WPT stations is a tactic that only leads to confusion. This content should appear on MPTV's and WDSE's entries -- not WPT's. And, as a further point, the information Mrschimpf cites about instructional programming is untrue. Only WPT's content is bound by ECB to include certain instructional programming during the day. The other stations, MPTV and WDSE, have no ECB affiliation and are therefore not bound to and don't carry the same shows.
Original Talk note to Mrschimpf: I have read and understand the rules. I am unaffiliated with the organization, nor do I hold any beefs with those stations. I am merely trying to improve the article to reflect the truth of the entry. The paragraph on the article about those stations carrying some programming is enough to display their "affiliation" with WPT.
That said, WPT is a self-contained network within the PBS system and to muddy it up with outside stations is a disservice to the truth. If we are to include MPTV and WDSE as affiliates for WPT simply because they play a couple of WPT's programs, then we should also include WPT as an affiliate of WGBH Boston and WETA Washington simply because WPT plays some of their programs. That would be absurd and more importantly untrue -- just like including detailed information on MPTV and WDSE as affiliates of WPT is. And, I see the threat of blocking me from editing this article on the basis of this being an "impartial" encyclopedia as a ridiculous threat that only works to protect your apparent bolstering of these two stations. Why should your assertions of their affiliation be any more valid than my assertions of them not being affiliates, especially when I back this up with fact?-- sunprairie

Maybe put a 'graph in there that say WMVT and WDSE also carry some WPT programming? After all, if it can be verified ... Blueboy96 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that the station grid can be removed, as it is superflouous and can easily be replaced by prosed. But it should be noted that both stations carry the entire instructional programming schedule and a check of schedules for both WMVT and WDSE can confirm this. I will rewrite the paragraph slightly to reflect this, but I do ask that the link to the network's blog be removed as it provides nothing but promotional information. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to suggest keeping the prose, but not the chart. I also favor the paragraph about the affiliated stations being at the end of the article, as they are actually outside of WPT. The reference to the blog should also go; it is redundant, as the first link from the WPT website is to the blog. I generally disfavor links to blogs are as they are not reliable sources, and since the WPT website already provides a link, those interested can access it from the website. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have rewritten that heading and paragraph one last time to insert links to the stations and further information gleaned through the station's TV listings, and if someone could read it over and make sure it's neutral I would be grateful. Hopefully SP's concerns have been addressed through this edit. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also to note, the above information about the "entire instructional programming schedule" is incorrect. Just looking at the WDSE, WPT and WMVT online schedule for today, 4/17/08 shows that:

WPT at 9:15 -- "Know it All" WDSE at 9 a.m. -- "Assignment the World" WMVT at 9 a.m. -- ITV from ECB.

If anything it should be noted that those stations get some instructional programming from ECB, not WPT. And that the schedules aren't identical -- especially WDSE which is a Minnesota station and therefore is no more affiliated to ECB (a Wisconsin governmental institution) than any of the other stations in the country that use ECB-produced programming like "Into the Book" and "Democracy It Is." If anything, to avoid confusion, the instructional ties between WDSE and WPT and/or ECB are no more than between ECB and Iowa, Nebraska or even Utah public television. sunprairie —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WMVT's schedule is identical to ECB's, they just don't break out the programming within their listings or that of other listings providers for some reason (likely simplicity). As a viewer of WMVT I can confirm that the programming airing between them and WPNE (the WPT station I recieve) is identical. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's the real issue here. It's not a WPT thing. It's an ECB thing. And even though ECB is a co-license holder of WPT with UW-Extension, it is in-fact a self-serving production house. These programs (and schedules) are coming from ECB -- not WPT. That's why this paragraph, with an inclusion of WPT carrying the programming would be a better fit and would be more relevant and truthful on the ECB Wikipedia entry.sunprairie

Since ECB is a distinctly separate production entity from WPT, perhaps the paragraph added to Mrschimpf would actually be more accurate if added to the ECB's Wikipedia entry, as opposed to the WPT enry. I have added it to the ECB page and ask your opinion on removal from the WPT page.

Some network programming from Wisconsin Public Television and the ECB is broadcast on stations in areas of the state which do not have a WPT-owned station due to PBS member stations having been launched in those areas before the network's expansion in the 1970's. Milwaukee Public Television's WMVT (Channel 36) in Milwaukee, and WDSE (Channel 8) in Duluth-Superior carry the instructional programming of the ECB, with WMVT carrying the full ECB schedule, while WDSE carries all except the 3am-6:30am block and Reading Rainbow, along with the early Saturday morning telecourse from UW-Madison; at these times the station is off-the-air. During summer vacation and school recesses, WMVT airs the Create network overnights, and a PBS Kids block during the daytime programmed by MPTV and called Vacation Station. MPTV and WDSE also coordinate the telecourse assistance with faculty and teachers in their area. sunprairie —Preceding comment was added at 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it is about programs provided through WPT's infrastructure and airing through the network, it should stay in the article, though the ECB article should be expanded a little with this information also. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But, that's just it. It isn't provided through WPT's infrastructure. It is provided through ECB's infrastructure -- two distinctly separate things.--Sunprairie (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I have now addressed these concerns as shown;
  • Within the lede, referred readers interested in ECB to that article, and rewrote ECB to reflect the WDSE additional notes found through here.
  • Excised mentions of ECB instructional programming within the WPT article body.
  • Reflect that MPTV and WDSE air WPT programming and vice-versa with MPTV stuff, and kept it as the last heading.
Are you satisfied with this rewrite now as it stands? Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the article now correctly reflects the network and its work.--Sunprairie (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased that we could come to a consensus about the article; thank you for working with us to make things right. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] But now a new question...

Should WDSE and WMVT be considered "affiliates" of WECB in the infobox, since they practically take their ITV programming from a "network"? -- azumanga (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean within the individual station infoboxes, it can be stated. Nate • (chatter) 11:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

All topics from December 1 of last year until March 31 of this year have been archived to Archive 7. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Man In Black is back...

...and is again on an anti-logo rampage.

RingtailedFox recently reinstated classic logos to the WGN-TV article -- only to be removed by MIB.

I take it a valid FUR means nothing to him. -- azumanga (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's another logo image war

The same thing is happening with the WJW-TV article, as BKNFCC (contributions) twice deleted the gallery of properly-attributed and properly-tagged logos, with the same claims A Man in Black uses. I restored it twice, most recently this morning. We don't need the free-image police on our backs again, this is just plain ridiculous. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BKNFCC is maintaining a list of articles that he and the rest of the image police feel are excessive in their use of non-free images. They have a list of talking points to bolster their claim that the images should be deleted; I have refuted them in Talk:WJW (TV). We can help preserve the logos by following a few steps:
  • Use logos sparingly. Is it really necessary to add an image because the new logo has a shinier look? (See KNXV-TV). Ten images seems to be the point at which the image police begin to take notice, so be sure there's a good reason to have them.
  • Provide critical commentary to each image. One of the arguments used for deleting them is that they are purely decorative and provide no critical commentary. What is significant about the logo, other than the years in which it was used? Be sure to state that the purpose of the logo gallery is to provide a visual reference to the evolution of the station's brand over the years, which is something that prose cannot do.
  • Be bold in the wise use of logos, and don't be afraid to object when someone tries to delete them. The use of historical logos does not infringe on any copyright - the logos are historical - and do not damage in any way the free distribution of Wikipedia. The logos have a purpose in the article; they are not merely decorative. Do not buy the argument of excessive logos; there is no stated limit on how many properly-used non-free images are appropriate in an article, and the arbitrary establishment of such a limit by a group of zealots bears no weight. Just because some of them are administrators doesn't give them more say over the matter than you have. Wikipedia is about consensus-building, not authoritarian rule.
dhett (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At WJW's talk page, I left some choice words on the situation, practically saying that either the logos stay, or they might as well make Wikipedia a strictly-text service, focusing only on post-graduate topics. This was after BKNFCC refused Dhett's comments on the situation. It very well looks like BKNFCC and Man in Black want to make Wikipedia, if not the internet as a whole, a dictatorship. Stay the course; defend your rights. -- azumanga (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again?!? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
BKNFCC was right, though. Your choice words were not civil. Battle with your head, and keep your heart in control. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the articles on BKNFCC's hit list that are relevant to us (in addition to the aforementioned WJW-TV) are: CBNT, CBWT, CKND-TV, CNBC, KCBS-TV, KSTP-TV, KTEN, WBBM-TV, WBYD-CA, WFTC, WKBW-TV, WLNE, WMAQ-TV, WNET, WOIO, WPRI-TV, WTVT, WUAB, and WYTV.
Other television-related entries he/she's also targeted are: CNBC Asia, Disney Channel India, Headline News, History of BBC television idents, ITV television presentation, List of BBC test cards, Major League Baseball on NBC, NBC Sports, Nikkei CNBC, PBS idents, and Showtime.
Now we do what we must to protect our rights. Rollosmokes (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being a little hot-headed, but everytime an editor acts "high and mighty" in disregard to established standards, it makes my blood boil, to a point where if it's worth getting involved at all. All I can say is to keep up the pressure, stand up for your rights, and make sure no one is above the rules. -- azumanga (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More about our rights to use historical logos

I've been doing a little research on copyright laws, and gleaned some interesting information. As expected, copyright laws are not simple. If they were, why would we need attorneys?

Prior to January 1, 1978, copyrights were in effect for a 28-year period. During the final year of the copyright, it could be renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to do so. Depending on renewal, copyrights expired after 28 or 56 years, and could not be renewed for a third period. In 1976, Congress passed copyright reform, effective in 1978, in which, for our purposes, i.e., works created for hire, the copyright is in effect for 100 years from the date the work was created, or 75 years from the date that the work was published, whichever occurs sooner. There is only one copyright period, and the copyright cannot be renewed.

Congress also passed a series of laws that in effect, extended those new copyright protections back to 1964 by means of an automatic renewal, but only if the work had a copyright notice. Per the non-free content guideline, for works created before 1978, if there is no copyright notice, there is no copyright, and the work is in the public domain.

Here's what it means to us: nearly all logos created 56 years ago or earlier are now in the public domain. Therefore, use of any such logo in Wikipedia no longer falls under the non-free standard, and should not be deleted, as it is not a non-free image. The exception are those logos still in use, such as the CBS Eye, which almost certainly are still protected under trademark laws. What's more, any logo created before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain.

Any logo from 1951 or before can have its licensing changed from copyrighted to public domain, and the fair use rationales can be deleted. Any logo from 1977 and earlier can also be changed to public domain, provided it is not still in use, and provided it does not have a copyright notice. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are some good nuggets. Thanks for that, and let's see what the Policy Police have to say about it. Rollosmokes (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Since we have federal copyright law to back us up, I hope this is the thing that will cause the uptight editors to give in. Then again, they'll probably find some other excuse that would keep the logos off. Here's hoping something good comes out of this. -- azumanga (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And not a moment too soon. Policy Police Officer A Man in Black deleted the galleries from WGN-TV (again) and KNBC (again) and has also done it to WFMY-TV. Check out his comments for the deletion at WGN-TV: "This is a gallery of non-free images, none of these are the subject of commentary, so they go away now." And for KNBC: "Attribution doesn't suddenly make this use a fair use." He's so full of himself, someone needs to bring him off his high horse. Rollosmokes (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
His tone is certainly objectionable; he seems to no longer assume good faith. dhett (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What can we do to get him to keep quiet AND keep the logos where they are? It seems that everything we do is for nought, and that AMIB and BKN have their own personal standards. -- azumanga (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Unless a thorough search is conducted to determine that a copyright has expired or not been renewed, it should be regarded as copyrighted."
"As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?' and 'Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?' If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion."
"As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
Meditate upon those things, and eliminate the logos that don't meet that standard. That may be all or some; at this point, I can tell you without a shred of a doubt that it isn't none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Meditate on this:
  • Any work published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice is irrevocably in the public domain. That's the law; no further search is necessary. Post-1978, the logo is automatically copyrighted for 95 years, regardless of copyright notice, and so, must meet the standards set forth in WP:NFCC.
  • For a logo gallery, the answer to both questions on the quick test will always be no, as most logos created since 1978 are non-free and cannot be replaced by a free image (pre-1978 logos are free images, see above) and it is preposterous to even consider that the evolution of a station's logo could be adequately described without using visual references.
  • For there to be displayed an evolution of the station's logo, there must by definition, be more than one item.
  • Not only is non-free content significant to the understanding of the evolution of the station's logo, it is critical.
I will agree with you that the answer isn't none, but I can also tell you without a shred of doubt that the answer isn't all, either. If you're so interested in the good of Wikipedia, why don't you roll up your sleeves and actually contribute something? Add critical commentary to a non-free image; change the licensing of a logo to public domain whose copyright has expired. Given your history, I no longer believe you're acting in good faith; helping rather than senseless deleting just because you can would help to restore your standing, at least in my eyes, if you're so inclined. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't see this issue just being about what's free and what's not but what adds irreplaceable value the article's content. One of the primary means stations have to identify themselves past and present is the on-air logo. Television is a visual medium and their frequent and historical use gives them an entirely different context and weight than simply trying to label them as a "gallery of non-free images" to be deleted at will. Tmore3 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!! That's someone who GETS IT!! Rollosmokes (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If we can establish that some of these logos are indeed public domain, then we can do whatever we want. I don't think it's as easy as you imply, but it'd make all of this a lot easier.
I would caution against just going and changing tags now; I would suggest starting an RFC, especially to get the attention of whoever the Foundation lawyer is at present. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The logos' presence here is on account of history, not mere decoration. If you are so intent on removing all logos other than the current one (or maybe all logos period), why not ask the federal government to close the Smithsonian Institution? Why not ask for the closure of all libraries and museums? I bet what they have there is as obsolete and old-fashioned as the old logos. -- azumanga (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're so intent on not talking about the issues at hand, why not bring up a non sequitor? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing licensing to public domain

Wikipedia has a template we can use, {{PD-Pre1978}}, to properly tag a logo published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. I have already re-tagged the four oldest logos from WJW (TV) and will be looking for others in days to come. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's gone too far now

As I write this, A Man in Black has again deleted the logos from KNBC and WGN-TV. I've reverted them back, and have copied Dhett's recent comments on fair-use copyrights onto his talk page. Perhaps this will consider AMiB to engage in discussion with us about this issue. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well he has, and it's not what we hoped. Direct quote:
“ Right now, these are tagged as non-free images. Until you can make a case to tag them as free (and I don't think your case is very good), they need to be treated as non-free images, with all the requisite bullshit. This hasn't changed since the last time we went round this merry-go-round.

Besides...it is the law of Wikipedia, though. If you don't disagree that Wikipedia policy prohibits these images, then I don't think we have any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck

 ”
There you have it. Abuse of authority? I say yes. Fight for your right to party...and keep the logos. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Work up some good descriptions of the images. It's our only way to innoculate ourselves against such abusive zealots. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Given everything we try, I have a strange feeling that AMIB will continue to trump us. Has anyone tried reporting him for overstepping his authority? Also, are there any license tags that would tag them as free, in accordance with copyright laws? AMIB's main issue is that the images were tagged non-free. -- azumanga (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Work up some sourced descriptions of the images, based on commentary on the logos or logo changes in reliable sources. Don't look at the images and say some stuff about them; that's particularly empty original research.

I believe I mentioned that the first time we discussed this. Go do that. It makes the encyclopedia better. AMIB's main issue (since you get to refer to me like I'm not here, I get to refer to myself in the third person, mwa) is that the images aren't free, and need to be treated as such. Arguments about whether they are or are not free are a red herring while they are still tagged as non-free. Trying to tag them as free with a spurious claim is going to generate a whole bunch of new problems.

BTW, having not deleted anything, locked any article, or blocked any users, I'm not really seeing any use (let along abuse) of administrative authority. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you want us to find a source that thoroughly describes the logo, instead of merely describing the obvious. More often than not, the logo itself is a source of a description -- putting too much work into something simple and obvious is wasting too much time. -- azumanga (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sort of. I'm saying that if you want to have historical logos, you're going to have to say something about the historical logos, and if you're saying anything in Wikipedia, it's going to have to be sourced. Trite original research (It was blue, and now it's green!) isn't any better (or any more allowed) than a bunch of non-free images with no commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Find me a policy or guideline that says that the commentary must be sourced. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive, and that is a violation of policy. We're making a good faith effort to make non-free images conform to policy; you're not satisfied until all non-free images are gone.
BTW, the law is not a spurious claim. Anybody without an agenda can see that. dhett (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you a copyright lawyer? Are you offering your professional opinion that such-and-such logos aren't currently copyrighted?
I am not, so I am erring on the side of caution, as Wikipedia policy instructs. The way to stop having to err on the side of caution is to properly establish that images aren't copyrighted, something I strongly suspect is going to need to be done on an image-by-image basis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, but I can read and I can count. I don't need a lawyer for that, and I don't believe that your "caution" is warranted. As for your insistence that commentary must be sourced, it is neither necessary nor advisable to source every statement, especially when the commentary is self-evident. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, take the example image from the article you linked above. It was taken from a website that is clearly and prominently copyrighted, and the owner of that website's copyright would be the same one to make a copyright claim on that image. "I can read and I can count and I don't need a lawyer for that" is a far cry from the "Unless a thorough search is conducted to determine that a copyright has expired or not been renewed, it should be regarded as copyrighted" in Wikipedia policy, especially when the image was taken from a prominently copyrighted website.
Trite commentary is valueless; a section with inane commentary on the superficial differences in the different versions of a logo would be deleted as junk if it wasn't being used to justify 12 non-free images. Putting bad, unsourced prose to say, "See, there's commentary!" is the tail wagging the dog. Write good, sourced commentary, then use the images you're talking about and only those images, and it's a different story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Trite" and "inane" is your opinion, and it is not shared by this project. If you don't like the commentary, improve it. Deleting the image is not improving Wikipedia. Regardless of website's copyright, the images were first published prior to 1978. Just because the station chooses to use a public domain image in its website doesn't make the image copyrighted. The image is irrevocably in the public domain. This path of deleting legal and acceptable content is getting dangerously close to vandalism. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I AM improving the commentary by removing all of the unsourced parts. Sadly, this is all of it. Deleting images that damage this encyclopedia's ability to be redistributed is improving Wikipedia.
The images were first published prior to 1978. How do you know for certain that they were published without a copyright notice? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You yourself said they were from a station website. If the images had a copyright notice, I'm pretty sure the station's website would have included it. dhett (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Wjkw-logo 1977.gif is from here; which clearly states "TM and (c) 2008 Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its related entities. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication, or distribution in any form is expressly prohibited". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record only, because I believe Mike Godwin has provided necessary guidance, the trademark and copyright you cited were for the website, not the image. The image itself was pre-1978 and had no copyright notice of its own (i.e., as part of the image - see KSAZ.jpg for an example), and is therefore public domain. Use of a public domain image in a copyrighted website does not make the image copyrighted. It is irrevocably in the public domain. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You haven't yet established that it's public domain. It's a moot issue, apparently; the fair-use claim is valid, so there's no need to make questionable claims that it's free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(discussion continues from "You have't yet established...")
Steps to establish public domain: Image created before 1978 + No copyright notice with image = Public domain. It's that simple. But don't believe me; believe Cornell University's copyright guide. How do you specify copyright notice? The US Copyright Office published the standard. In the case of the WJKW logo, the image was on the former copyright holder's own website and displayed without any copyright notice. The fact that the website is copyrighted is immaterial. The image wias not created in 2008, so the copyright notice was not the image's. The image was first published prior to 1978. Thus, it is public domain. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
After some time as an inactive editor, I'm slowly returning to activity. I'm disturbed to see the edit warring going on at WGN-TV. Some of the images certainly serve to establish the station's affiliation history (DuMont, independent for 40 years, then WB, followed by CW... a 1950s WGN logo showing the very early CBS affiliation would be nice). Blanket removals of the images are to be avoided, as this puts them in danger of deletion. I hope we can all agree that several of these images should be preserved no matter what, and so blanket removals aren't helpful here.
I understand AMIB's reluctance to use copyrighted logos in galleries, per the policies on copyrighted material. (As an aside, something that our current WGN article only briefly touches upon is that much of the "DuMont" programming carried on the network actually originated from WGN (for example, Music From Chicago). A screenshot of one of the Mutual-DuMont programs (produced by Mutual's WGN, aired on DuMont) would be a boon for this article. Unfortunately, most of the DuMont programs no longer exist. The DuMont programs, however, are in the public domain, according to the Internet Archive. I'm not certain if this includes the logos accompanying the programming, but one might naturally assume that since the DuMont collection was trashed, their copyright was not renewed. The U.S. copyright office seems to confirm this. This site indicates that works originally published between '23 and '63 where copyright was not renewed are in the public domain.)
At any rate, AMIB has, I believe, conceded somewhere in this conversation that network affiliation changes might well be a fair use for a logo, so at least four or five of the logos should be able to stay, yes? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I, too, understand the reluctance to use copyrighted images, but don't believe that we should be unnecessarily restricting ourselves by calling copyrighted that which is in the public domain. I believe that we've come to a consensus that there is a fair usage for historical logos under copyright; I'm working to ensure that we can put out as rich a product as possible and still maintain our freedom of distribution under copyright law, at least as it applies to the United States. That means taking full advantage of public domain. I will also be looking into the copyright registration process, because, according to the Cornell guide, images as recent as 1989 may also be in the public domain. If so, I say let's use them to the fullest extent allowed. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
People, there is such a thing as "fair use". A series of TV station logos over the years is perfectly acceptable in an article about the TV station. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No. A TV station logo is perfectly acceptable in an article about the TV station. A series of logos is not. That's the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That is pointless. Suppose there is a computer museum that only has the latest technology. You came to see Altairs, Apple IIs and IBM PCS with CGA monitors and Intel 8088 chips, but all you see are Windows Vista PCs with Intel DuoCores and Macs with OSXs. Suppose Cambell's soup introduces a new label for its soups, but not only orders a recall of all soups with the older label, but orders the destruction of Andy Warhol's famed Cambell's Soup painting, just because it has an old label. What if the Louvre museum in Paris only has their modern art section open, and only featuring works of the past five years? The TV logos are not just a mere collection of logos -- they are history. If you can tell us EXACTLY where in Wikipedia that say that the older logos aren't welcome, regardless of fair use laws, fair use rationales or copyright status, please tell us. Furthermore, I have a feeling that you're only here to wipe out the old logos -- you do your work, take a long hiatus, and come back for more. I don't think your actions are fair. We should have a say in what belongs, not just you and you alone. That is what Wikipedia is all about. If you want to control content, open a blog. -- azumanga (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a museum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, I want you to remove EVERYTHING that has to do with history -- wittle ALL articles down to just the basic facts; if you want to know any history, go somewhere else. The logos are about history, and as long as they meet well-defined requirements for their inclusion, and as long as EVERYONE's okay with it (not just a select few or just one person), they should be included. This is the message that everyone on this board is driving at, and, so far, you're the minority. -- azumanga (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're so intent on not talking about the issues at hand, why not bring up a non sequitor?
This is an encyclopedia, and it is free content. Wikipedia's policies protect its encyclopedic nature, but they also protect its free nature.
Things that are useful or interesting to someone that nonetheless violate WP policy are deleted or transwikied. This is as old as WP:NOT, and isn't going away. Stomping your feet and staging a protest and saying, "They're useful, we should keep them!" doesn't negate or even address the fact that they're a pretty blatant violation of the policies that keep Wikipedia free. Were these images actually free (and for those images that can be properly vetted as not copyrighted), I would have no objections and AFAICT there would be no problems (assuming the galleries were actually in articles and not spun off into standalone galleries, but even then, wouldn't do much harm). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly I'm also having a hard time of seeing exactly what your point is and would ask that you point out the particular fair-use guideline you are using to justify your edits. Would also like a reference that expressly limits an article to x amount of fair-use images as well as where specifically the authority is granted for an individual to delete without consensus, images that have been appropriately tagged, sourced and provided with fair-use rationale. Until then if you're truly interested in working together as you stated on your talk page, I might suggest refraining from continuing to try to delete these images as your edits communicate quite the opposite. Tmore3 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:FUC, Wikipedia:Copyright.
There isn't a hard number because it doesn't work like that. In fact, such a hard number would be detrimental; I can see a good reason to have many non-free images in a station article (if that station were repeatedly resold and rebranded, for example). There is almost never any good reason to have a gallery of non-free images; a gallery doesn't allow for sufficient commentary.
Two non-free images isn't necessarily too many, but a gallery of two almost always is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We have never had an issue with the images used in E/I until tonight, with anyone, and they have been properly rationaled. I've taken out one redunant image and added commentary to meet the guidelines and feel that it would be useless to not illustrate the article without examples of the E/I bug (of which there are multiple versions mind you, defeating AMIB's assertion that it is 'redundant') because visual illustration is important within an article.

We have tried to work with you multiple times on this, and we have pretty much bent over backwards to meet the March 2008 FUR deadlines set by the WP law office to stay within the lines and meet our needs as a project. We have met our burden of proof and worked hard to make these articles meet all the needs between free use and fair use. What else do you want us to do? The Web was created to add graphical content to web pages. That's what we're doing here. It's not as if we're putting in WGN logos and saying 'In 1995, they debuted this logo. Boy, they must've been desperate to look hip and 'wit it!'. How pathetic of them to do that!'. We have shown nothing but NPOV and respect towards the copyright holders, and if we had an issue, someone would bring it up and we'd work with them. Heck, on the WGN-TV page you say is slandering their image, there has been an editor who seems to work for the station and had no qualms with the logos there at all (his argument has been more with the text than the pictures). You'd be surprised that a few logos were even provided by the employees of the stations with their permission to help create a more neutral history of their station than what corporate makes them post on their site, and as a courtesy to help us present information in the cleanest way possible.

This is the only thing I'm going to say on this subject because I've been working within the guidelines and the articles involved aren't in my area of expertise (or my region) beyond E/I. Please try to work with others, not against others. We're all here to build a resource and there's bound to be some disagreements that you need to work on through consensus, not just by hard-pushing your ideas against the community. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We've never had an issue with that typo in the article until tonight, with anyone. How dare you correct it?
The commentary is unsourced and is nothing more than a caption. Images need to illustrate and illuminate text; these images aren't illustrating the captions, the captions are merely explaining the images.
You just don't use multiple images when one suffices, and that includes using many non-free images showing different examples thing when you can show just one example. Now, Image:Cyberchase-ei.jpg is probably salvageable; if you're going to write about FCC standards for what the should be displayed could definitely benefit from an image, probably this image cropped down to the upper-right quarter.
But, if you're not illustrating/illuminating text, you're back at "Can identify this subject with one image? If so, don't use two." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But here's the thing; different networks use different E/I logos. There is no one universal logo in use. The PBS logo is assumed to be a standard, but many syndicators want their show to stand out, so they decide not to use that version. They create their own to stand out while meeting guidelines. This is the same as the NCI and CC-screen logos used interchangably (though only shows using NCI captioners can use the NCI logo). That is what we're trying to illustrate here. No harm will come from illustrating an episode of Teen Kids News; they probably encourage others to show an example of their show because almost no stations ever show the promos they create; they just air the show and move on because of the malignment of E/I. The producers of Little House are probably happy their show is being used to educate (though it's a bit of a gray matter with E/I guidelines, admittedly). If there's an issue, fine, we'll be the first to help them out. But in the two years since the images have been put up, you've been the only one to have any issue with them. Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't need an exhaustive directory of every E/I logo used. Can we illustrate the topic with one image? Then why do we need five? This is different from the issue with historical logos; while those illustrate a progression, these are just multiple examples of the same thing presented differently. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How about if we create an image collage of the examples and post them as one picture, focusing only on the logos without the needless content of the program itself as an example of the use of an E/I bug? Would that be acceptable? Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Same issue, you've just combined the five non-free images into one physical image. It's fewer images, but not less copyrighted material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest breaking up the galleries and using the logos alongside the "History" sections. Many changes to logos happened as the result of a network membership, move to color TV, or corporate rebranding campaign. So instead of having a gallery at the bottom, with long captions that just repeat what was in the text, the logos should be integrated with paragraphs about that era in the stations history, with a one-line caption. This would also make it difficult to find fault with the inclusion of logos in the article. Look at American Telephone & Telegraph as an example. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been tried before, and that was shot down before. As for sources for descriptions, that is impossible and redundant. I bet you will be requiring a source for all of my opinions. I bet you will be requiring a source for what I just type. I bet you'll even require a source for my username. That has gone too far. -- azumanga (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
AZ, who were you responding to just now? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
See Weigh-in from Wikimedia General Counsel on logos, below. -- azumanga (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the image needs to somehow reflect the text; simply putting 1968's logo with text about the late 60s isn't good. However, if you're talking about a station going from one network to another, or changing hands and being rebranded, or other such things that can be illustrated with an example of the branding, you've got a much better fair use claim.
In general, anything you put in an article needs to be sourced, yes. WP:V has been a core of this project for a long, long time. (And I'm guessing your name is from Azumanga Daioh, but that's just original research. ¬_¬) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weigh-in from Wikimedia General Counsel on logos

Mike Godwin wrote:

Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use. I think
it's unlikely that the local stations will even complain about the use
of the logos.

--Mike

On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:54 PM, C J wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I realize you are an incredibly busy individual but am writing to
> you in hopes of getting some clarification that no one else seems to
> have the particular expertise to provide. Specifically a user within
> the project has begun deleting historical logos formally used by
> local television stations within the United States. The logos are
> sourced and tagged with fair use rationale for their historical
> significance but it was argued because they appeared next to each
> other they needed to be deleted as they constituted a gallery of non-
> free images. The other side to the argument has remained that the
> historical logos uniquely illustrate how it identified itself to
> the public during a particular era as well as how that identity
> evolved over time.
>
> We are all hoping to reach further clarification from a definitive
> source to resolve this somewhat contentious issue so any feedback
> you might be able to provide in regards to this would be deeply
> appreciated.

While logos not sourced and tagged with fair-use rationale are certainly challengable for removal, the issue on whether or not past station logos can be displayed together to more adequately communicate historical progression, is done. Attempting to remove these logos displayed in such a way that are sourced and provided with fair-use rationale is not productive and can no longer be regarded as good-faith. Tmore3 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as historical progressions of logos on station articles go, point conceded. I'd still like to see them placed in context in historical sections (and weeded for same-logo-different-context and random screenshots of newscasts and such), but I suppose I was wrong about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable enough. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me, too. As for galleries, what I would like to see is a template for gallery usage, saying that its usage is discouraged (similar to those used for trivia) -- this way, other users can try to intergrate the images into the article, rather than "piling them up" in the galleries. -- azumanga (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, A Man In Black, what point are you conceding here? I removed the logo gallery from WGN-TV per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2; "The use of non-free media in galleries [..] generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)". I didn't see an exception listed there for TV station logos. --Geniac (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. On one hand we have that, on the other hand we have Brad saying it's okay. I was convinced that I was right in saying that these galleries aren't kosher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
But it still doesn't mean that they can be removed willy-nilly, with all logos within being removed. My point is that others should be given a chance to work things out. -- azumanga (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Which Brad and where did he say that? I'm still not convinced these galleries are kosher. --Geniac (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, Mike. Brad is the old counsel. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of the words "me" and "I" in Mike's above email make it sound to me like an unofficial opinion from Mike, not an official Wikimedia General Counsel statement on the use of historical logos in galleries. --Geniac (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then what makes it "official", then? Apparently, Mike has some significant weight, here; otherwise, we wouldn't have brought up his reply. -- azumanga (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
One that doesn't use the words "me" and "I". --Geniac (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of wehther you consider his statement "official" or not frankly is not the point here. The fact remains Mr. Godwin's experience and expertise extends well beyond what any of us can provide on the subject, not to mention trying to debate his response based on the usage of pronouns seems more than a little silly at this point. Tmore3 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon obsession

Is it just me, or is there a lot of extraneous information about cartoons in TV station articles? Just an observation. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to keep it to the bare minimum as possible as far as the current day to mention which station carries which E/I block/shows, but if you're talking about "Who carried the Disney Afternoon/Fox Kids/Comic Strip at this and this a time", it is a bit crufty. Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWCG-LP

Currently up for AfD, despite the fact that it is a licensed station with details listed for it. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very weak article stub that has no references, other than a blog, which is not considered a reliable source. There is no evidence that the station provides locally-produced programming, so it fails even the broader media notability guideline. Someone had better find some good info on this station, or it's a goner. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to build it up as much as I could to a keep; it seems like the station just launched in the last two months, thus the lack of sources. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed - in fact, the station isn't even officially licensed yet. I even did a quick Google on the calls and got Worldwide Church of God. When I try "channel 11", I get WXIA. That's classic non-notable. I'm still at work - Mountain Standard Time - 3 hrs behind the East Coast, but tonight, I'll see if I can find anything else for the article. Otherwise, we'll just have to let it die. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I could not find any reliably-sourced material for this station, so I recommended that it be changed to a redirect to White Springs Television instead. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article was kept. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BenH/Vandal?

[2] - that guy looks suspicious. T--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. Has a fascination with newscast titles. Fortunately, those can be verified. dhett (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mmbabies a month later

So it's been a month since we seemed to finally get everything under control with him, and I think we can call this finally resolved, but I wanted to make sure that it was OK before the tag gets slapped on and we can call him history. Nate • (chatter) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost a month later, and, to my knowledge, he never resurfaced. Case closed? Or do you think he can bide his time for so long? -- azumanga (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone put the case closed on his LTA, so I think we can be safe in assuming that he's gone. Unfortunately our new friend from Tucson has taken up his mantle, so it never ends. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on "-DT"

At the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas earlier this month, I spoke to a few people at the FCC booth, one of whom was an attorney working in the Media Bureau. These people were not able to come up with any more clarity on the issue of "-DT" and whether that is an official suffix that stations are entitled to request, or just an administrative convenience for the Media Bureau staff. However, the attorney said that the Commission intends to take up a wholesale revision of the television rules once the DTV transition is complete next year, and that the call sign rules are likely to be revised as a part of this process. 121a0012 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV schedules under attack

There's a talk over at WP:VPP#Television schedules in network articles where some editors are removing primetime schedules from articles about TV networks, saying WP is "not a directory" and somesuch. There does seem to be a distinction though between schedules that stay the same through a season versus schedules that change often and contantantly get updates, which the editors are pretty unanimous on. It appears that most of the editors who want to take them out are not from the United States, and in other countires schedules may change more frequently or shows begin at odd times. But I do feel that in an article about a TV network, there ought to be some mention of what they show. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall an older conversation on this talk page about this. Dunno what the upshot (or if there was one) ended up being. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word67 (aka Dingbat) is back...

Discussion (and probably plenty of mopping up) here on ANI. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notablilty of repeater and translator stations

Are repeater and translator stations notable for Wikipedia purposes? They don't originate anything. Some have Wikipedia articles; some don't. Wikipedia doesn't list cell sites or other non-broadcast RF emitters, even ones that are bigger than some translator stations.

The FCC broadcast station database shows the class of each US TV station. A standard of notability based on FCC class might be useful. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion from a few months ago is what I found in the archive. As for my .02, right now I've seen TBN translators, DT2 and HD simulcasts of standard deff channels have their own articles. If it originates its own programming (HD channel, DT2 or Low Power/translator) it should have its own article, let all the translators that simulcast another station redirect there, unless it's a special circumstance (i.e. rural translators that simulcast a cable net). Mr mark taylor (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I raised this issue only because there was a problem reported on Administrator incidents with someone bulk-adding phony stations intermixed with lists of real translator stations.[3] The bogus stations have been removed, but there's a question as to whether the translator stations should go too. But I'll leave that to the project people here. --John Nagle (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Translators, for the most part, are non-notable, unless they had been independently programmed in the past. The user you've encountered is a persistent and prolific vandal and has been community banned, so all of his edits have been reverted, regardless of merit, and any articles created have been tagged CSD-G3. TBN translators do have their own articles, although I believe that any listed in its last license renewal as rebroadcasting KTBN-TV ought to be just a redirect to KTBN. However, others had other ideas. DT2 and HD simulcast articles should be merged into the primary station article; they do not warrant articles of their own. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The digital transition begins September 8...

Not nationwide, but for Wilmington, North Carolina at least. UNC-TV isn't participating to maintain one analog signal in the area (along with a barely-there LP MyNet affiliate), but the FCC is using Wilmy to test everything out before Febrary 17 nationwide, so we also have a perfect test market to play with anything regarding digital details and template experimentations. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the templates contain digital_temporary as a field to indicate the current DTV channel (where it differs from the final one)? That particular template "experimentation" does not apply to Wilmington (as the NC stations were chosen as guinea pigs because all are on their final DTV channels already). Also, the idea behind that one template field is that reverting the template makes all of the current temporary DTV assignments disappear from the articles nationwide, not just one market.
Currently,
{{Infobox_Broadcast |
  call_letters             = KQRM-LP|
  analog                   = 50 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])|
  digital                  = 21 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])|}}

gives:

KQRM-LP
{{{location}}}
Channels Analog: 50 (UHF)

Digital: 21 (UHF)
Owner {{{owner}}}


That much will remain unchanged, while:
{{Infobox_Broadcast |
  call_letters             = WNFG-TV|
  analog                   = 14 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])|
  digital_temporary        = 66 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])|
  digital                  = 14 ([[ultra high frequency|UHF]])|}}

gives:

WNFG-TV
{{{location}}}
Channels Analog: 14 (UHF)

Digital: 14 (UHF)
Owner {{{owner}}}


WNFG-TV
{{{location}}}
Channels Analog: 14 (UHF)

Digital: 14 (UHF)
Owner {{{owner}}}

In 2009, the template is reverted to remove the temporary field(s) and the extraneous data automagically disappears from every affected page with one click of the mouse. That's not a change that would be advisable if just Wilmington NC were completed; it affects every page that uses this. --carlb (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP block request

75.108.83.180 (Talk • contributions) has been vandalising various articles again, making unnecessary changes in the infoboxes. A block of longer than 24 hours is recommended. Thanks. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two weeks later...

...And still no action. More poop to clean up from this IP vandal at WJZ-TV, WBAL-TV, WRAL-TV, and WMAR-TV. If we can block the BenHs, Mmbabieses, Jamesincs, Codyfinkes, Elladogs, and Dingbat2007s of the world, then why can't anyone block this one?? Rollosmokes (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After little notice or no interest from any admins from the group, the IP was blocked by Acalamari for 24 hours. As soon as the block was over, the IP started his sh*t up again, and I'm cleaning it up again. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you reporting this user to WP:AIV? I don't see either your handle or the vandal IP, so I'm assuming no. That's where you need to report the vandalism to get it blocked. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why I never thought about that before, but this is now DONE. Thanks for the suggestion. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV page needing attention

The page for WSCP-CA has been tagged requesting expert help. That's us, so if anyone has the time... dhett (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little and added links and such to make it look better :). Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV stations by State

I have another different issue with the TV stations by list. Sometimes the anchor city or market a station serves is different then its COL. For instance WJXX in Jacksonville which has a COL of Orange Park. So on these lists we see WJXX- Orange Park (Jacksonville). In the top of the paragraph it states these lists are based on COL. I included in that that the Designated Market Area is in parentheses when the COL is different then the market served to clarify it. Does anyone have any issues with this? Oak999 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See link for example List of ABC television affiliates (by U.S. state)

Do you have a problem with every affiliate list? The line about DMA clarification is not necessary. That is why there are TWO lists for each Big Four network -- the state-by-state list, and the market-by-market table. The state lists are arranged by COL (the recording is scratching); the second city is there for the casual reader -- not necessarily the TV junkie -- to identify the larger city the station serves. The market tables get more technical with the fill DMA names and links to the market templates. That stuff is absent from the state lists, and there is no reason to add an additional line about DMA. BTW, would you please stop deleting KPNX from the NBC affiliate-by-state list? ([4]) Rollosmokes (talk)

" to identify the larger city the station serves." What is that called? What does that mean? Answer--Its called the Designated Market Area. Its already included in this list. I think it should be added in it to make it clear to people in the top paragraph. The bottom line is you have included DMAs in this list BUT did not clarify what it is in the top paragraph. For some people who look at WJXX for example (one of many) they might ask since its not included in the top paragraph "what is Jacksonville there for?" What is the cities in brackets for? The addition I have proposed will clarify this. This is not hard stuff to get.Oak999 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • There are some similar questions being raised with radio stations by city categories. It might be nice to reach a common solution that covers all broadcast media in the US. I think that the market area nav boxes do a good job for navigation and the actual city of license can be covered in the infobox. So what should the category be used for? I'd say either the COL or where the station is actually located. This works if you say that there is no need to categorize by market. The other option is to categorize by market. This happens automatically in some templates where the category is added for some radio markets, not sure about the TV ones. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian- I agree. But what I am proposing is not that we add DMAs to each station. The reason is because they are already by each station in Brackets example (Jacksonville). So it looks like this "Orange Park (Jacksonville) - WJXX 25" this is not the issue. The issue is that DMA--(Jacksonville) is already included in this article in the list but at the top paragraph the intro it makes no mention of what "(Jacksonville)" or any other station that has a different COL and DMA actually are. So in the end a reader will read the top paragraph see its listed by COL but may ask himself-herself what are these cities in brackets ()? The answer should be in the top paragraph the answer is "This is a listing of ABC's affiliates, arranged alphabetically by state, and based on the station's city of license and Designated Market Area in parentheses when the COL is different then the DMA." Oak999 (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, have no problem with the concept of what you're doing. I've changed the wording to something a little less cumbersome (IMO). dhett (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Vandal

He's back, this time as User:24.207.163.11 (as if he ever left). Is there ANY way we can get rid of this moron? --Mhking (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, unlike other vandals, this vandal never established an account to which we can link him/her, so until I started my list, there was no vandal category to link this person's "contributions". Furthermore, this person doesn't generally come back to the same IP address, so it's like playing whack-a-mole. I've started to 4im-warn any talk pages that have been the source of recent vandalism, so that if the vandal does ever come back, we will have basis for a lengthy block, and perhaps even a range block. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital-only stations in market templates

How do we wish to list these? By virtual channel or by RF channel? An example is in the Phoenix template, where digital-only KAZT-CA had been listed by its virtual channel, 7, but someone has changed it to its RF channel, 27.

I believe the stations ought to be listed by virtual channel, as that is what you key into your remote to tune to the channel. Also, full-service stations with companion channels are listed by the analog channel, which will be the virtual channel after Feb 2009, not by the DTV RF channel, even though the separate DTV subchannel feeds are listed. Please share your thoughts. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should list both PSIP and actual channel? In the case of Phoenix, it's especially tricky, as viewers there tuned into channel 27, before it became a digital-only channel. -- azumanga (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
We do list both in the article, but in the template, that might be cumbersome, especially in a case where two or more stations are simulcasting and have different RF channels than virtual. Such an example is WTTO/WDBB in the Birmingham market. RE: KAZT, it's true that viewers used to tune to channel 27, but now, they tune to channel 7. Plus, KAZT uses 7 in all of their promotional material, not 27. In all aspects, it's as if KAZT changed channels, even if its RF channel stayed the same. Having to choose, I think the virtual channel is the better option. dhett (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
They don't tune to 7, but to 7.1 - the virtual .0 position being reserved for the companion analogue broadcast. Would this format work? :
v • d • e
Broadcast television in Phoenix

Local over-the-air television stations
KTVK 3 (Ind) - KPHO 5 (CBS) - KAET (8 PBS, 8.2 Create, 8.3 World, 8.4 KBAQ) - KSAZ 10 (Fox) - KPNX (12 NBC, 12.2 WX Plus) - KNXV (15 ABC, 15.2 GoAz.tv) - KPAZ (21 TBN, 21.2 TCC, 21.3 JCTV, 21.4 Enlace, 21.5 Smile) - KTVP-LP 22 (Almavision) - K25DM 25 (My2Fish) - KCOS-LP 28 (LFN) - KTVW (33 UNI, 33.2 KFPH-CA) - KFPH-CA 35 (TFU) - KTAZ 39 (TEL) - KPDF-CA 41 (AZA) - KVPA-LP 42 (silent) - KEJR-LP 43 (MTV3) - KPHE-LP 44 (Multimedios) - KUTP 45 (MNTV) - KDPH-LP 48 (DS) - KPPX (51 ION, 51.2 qubo, 51.3 ION Life, 51.4 Worship) - K53GF 53 (Ind) - K57HX 57 (HSN) - KDTP-LP 58 (JTV) - KASW 61 (CW)
Local digital-only television station
KAZT-CA 27 (7.1 Ind)
--carlb (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elladog

We have a new TV-related sock on our hands -- Elladog. In the last three days alone, he used three different sock accounts to vandalise, and in the past, he used various IP accounts. His MO is that he comes from Tucson, Arizona (it's your beat, Dhett), he has Asperger's Syndrome, and he has an affinity for the El Con Mall, a Tucson-area mall. Be alert, everyone. -- azumanga (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fate sealed for an indef block thanks to a death threat to an admin, but keep your eyes peeled for socks. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Tucson - that figures!  ;-) dhett (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
One more MO -- he denies that he's Elladog; see the talk page of his latest sock, Supermall. In reality, all his socks matched to a T. -- azumanga (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure he's not...he needs to get his MO's straight. Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
He's now Stick Figures On Crack; he's been banned, but now he wants to be unblocked, saying that he hasn't even heard of Elladog. Hopefully someone will do the right thing and reject his request. I also would like to put some sort of protect on his usual suspects (El Con Mall, Template:KidsTVBlocksUS, etc.). -- azumanga (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Caught him today trying to kill my RFD nomination his incorrect redirect for El Con Plaza (which I did because a typo speedy was denied). For a Slovenian he speaks perfect English (shakes head). Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
He's now Damplips, a 20-year old from Trenton, New Jersey who, strangely, has the exact same likes for department stores and cartoons like Elladog and all their socks. And yes, he's been blocked. And yes, he's playing the denial card. -- azumanga (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
He's now Skinnydipping, a Latin teacher from Denver. Who also likes dogs and malls. -- azumanga (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KCPM folds months ago, but its schedule lives on

This past February, a MyNetworkTV station in Grand Forks, North Dakota, KCPM, has left the air. This past Thursday (5/22), KCPM notified the FCC, saying that they have ceased operations, due to the economy.

However, I noticed that KCPM still has a current schedule at tvguide.com.

If the station was dark since February, why would the station still file a schedule with tvguide.com (and, presumably, the other schedule services)? Has KCPM been a cable-only offering since closing its analog signal? -- azumanga (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the KCPM staff had filed their schedules with TV Guide/other schedulers months in advance, and simply failed to notify schedulers when they went dark. It's not hard to imagine the station managers letting go of the very staff who would be in charge of scheduling notifications before letting go of staff in charge of the most important station components. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
What's just as unusual is that KCPM's shutdown has been all but ignored in its market -- a Google check revealed nothing about its demise; not even northpine.com, which generally thoroughly covers midwest radio and TV, had nothing about KCPM's closure. -- azumanga (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the channel lineups for the cable system websites in Fargo and Grand Forks; Fargo it's off, while GF hasn't been updated yet. I assume that they just quietly went off the air one night and didn't come back and since the newspapers up there don't seem to pay attention to television all that much (and The Fargo Forum has a good reason to not report about other competitors), nobody noticed. Plus the schedule can pretty much work until September since small network affiliates don't change schedules all that often and can program months in advance. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital stations

I'm having trouble understanding how digital stations in the US work. The digital section of the article for Los Angeles' KABC-TV#Digital television doesn't give much info, except that 7.1 / 53.1 is for ABC, 7.2 / 53.2 is for ABC Plus, and 7.3 / 53.3 is for The Local AccuWeather Channel. How does this work for picking up the digital channels? What would a viewer push on a remote control? Because I use Time Warner Cable, and ABC+ and Weather channels are in the 200s on the programme guide, I haven't thought about this before. Thanks. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are the OTA channels (for those of us still with antennas on top of houses). I think on the remote controls it doesn't matter which channel number you push, both would take you to KABC's digital channel, most new TVs/converter boxes have a . button to go directly to 7.2, etc. Mr mark taylor (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I get it now. It will help with my a new list I'm creating. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The ATSC specs for digital subchannel indicate that the number of the (former) analogue channel is used as the base, so 7.1, 7.2 are valid per the standard - whether tuning to the physical channel number (53) will work varies between receivers. What works on a Samsung ATSC TV doesn't necessarily work on a Panasonic DVD+-RW unit, for instance. I'm not sure why we're listing both numbers in the subchannel section, unless the second set of numbers is for a repeater on another channel (such as WPBS-DT 41's 16.1 as WNPI-DT 23's subchannel 18.1 - the same channel on a full-power translator) --72.140.46.227 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The PSIP standard is here: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a65.html as "Annex B, ATSC standard A/65". It indicates:

  1. The virtual channel numbers are based on the current analogue NTSC channel number for the same station, where available.
  2. For new broadcasters without an analogue license, the virtual channel number will match the physical channel number.
  3. A change in the physical channel assigned to a digital broadcast does not change the virtual channel numbering.
  4. If a frequency used by a former analogue channel is reassigned to a new station, the new station will use the digital channel to which the old station was moved as a basis for its new virtual channel numbering.
  5. A broadcaster controlling two channels in the same area may use different subchannels of the same virtual major channel number for both if this does not overlap other local broadcast numbering.
  6. A transmission may contain information on broadcasts available from other channels, if their source and location are correctly identified and there is no duplication between broadcasters in the same area.
  7. A station retransmitting a different licensed broadcaster may use the major/minor channel numbers of the original broadcast if these are coordinated in the local area to avoid conflicts.
  8. Virtual channels 2 through 69 identify the individual licensed broadcasters in a community, to guarantee that the two-part channel number combinations generated will remain locally unique.
  9. Virtual channels 70 to 99 may be used if a broadcaster wishes some individual service to be identified by a different channel number, but these must be coordinated so that they are kept unique in each potential receiving location.
  10. Virtual channel numbers for broadcast translators remain the same as the original station unless these conflict with another broadcaster in that area.

Fine mess... and most of these are rarely (if ever) used. So, in general, the channel number the station *used* to be on when it was analogue-only is the official numbering used to generate the virtual channel numbers. --carlb (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New idea for list

I'm working on a new List of broadcast television in the Los Angeles, California market in my sandbox. It's basically information pulled from the infoboxes of each broadcast station listed at {{LA TV}}. I think it will be the first of its kind, so I'd like to hear from other Project members what information should be included. I've already made a start with 6 channels. The problem right now is that the columns are narrow. I'm wondering if the transmitter height, power and coordinates are necessary. Any feedback would be appreciated. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you're trying to cram too much info into the list, and the narrow columns are a function of that. That, in turn, causes a cluttered look due to split lines in the columns. I'd drop the VHF and UHF from the channel numbers, but then the separate analog and digital channel numbers, ERPs and antenna heights will all be obsolete next Feb., meaning you'll have to redo all those lists then as well. I would certainly get rid of the transmitter coordinates and abbreviate some of the headings. I hate to be a buzzkill, but you might want to forget about the list until the DTV transition is complete. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it, Matthew. I would spell "analogue" as "analog", since this is a U.S.-centric list. I would keep the stuff that will be obsolete next February (because there's still plenty of time to complete this list), and the UHF/VHF. I like the transmitter coordinates: I wish more locations would have been preserved for stations during early broadcast history. One word of advice: absolutely do not do as {{LA TV}} does and have "unknown" elements in the box. For example, KCIO-LP 6's affiliation is actually listed as "unknown"!) Someone knows what the station's affiliation is, even if the person adding that information couldn't find out). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys. I would like to keep as much information as possible, but it is hampering the presentation. Perhaps the former callsigns and affiliations should go, because a some channels may go through quite a few in their lifetime? I left former owners for that very reason. Dhett, you said drop "VHF" and "UHF", but separate digital and analog channel numbers. They are currently separated by being in different columns. Do you have another way in mind of presenting it? Also, why will ERP and antenna height info be obsolete come the switchover? If they're being used currently for digital signals, surely they'll still exist when analog switches off, so it's just a case of removing the analog columns? Firsfron, if you had to get rid of a couple of things, what would it be? Also, I would assume that KCIO [5] is an independent station given it's low power signal and is located in Barstow, California (a city in the middle of the desert with no surrounding areas). Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't feel it's overcrowded. The columns all fit into my browser nicely. I certainly wouldn't get rid of the affiliation column; Wikipedia is so much better at collecting affiliation information than other sources. As far as KCIO-LP goes, I wouldn't just assume it's independent (with companies like Ion, A1, TBN, etc, willing to affiliate with LP stations in the middle of nowhere...) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I was saying was to drop the "(VHF)" and "(UHF)" that accompanies each channel number. Then, in an unrelated thought, I was reminding you that separate channel numbers, ERPs and HAATs for analog and digital will be obsolete in Feb 2009. I was using "separate" as an adjective, not as a verb. :-) If you're going to have both analog and digital, though, I agree with Firsfron: drop the -ue from analog, giving you the customary American spelling, and saving you a little space in the process. Another thing you might do is, instead of restating kW and m in every entry for transmitter power and height, you can have "Transmitter Power (kW)" and "Height (m)" as your heading, eliminating the need for the units of measurement with each entry. You'll gain more space when you don't have to list separate facilities for analog and digital, although with the channel number, you should list both virtual and RF channels, plus you'll have to adjust the DTV channel when they go to their post-transition assignments. For example KCBS-TV is on analog 2, digital 60, but will move to 43 after the transition, keeping 2 as their virtual channel. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
At first I thought the table was overcrowded, but as I look at it a second and third time it doesn't look as cluttered. I would get rid of the former callsign columm and possibly the former network affiliations because those can change as often as call letters for some stations. Maybe digital subchannels affiliations/channels could be added?Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More BenH

76.7.106.194 this time. I blocked him for 31 hours, but he started right back up again. Now he's anonblocked for six months. Thought for sure he was finally tiring out.

Wcquidditch got most of his poop ... I got the rest. Blueboy96 22:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local templates/digital subchannels

I'm playing with the Milwaukee TV and Green Bay TV templates as a testing ground to try out breaking out the digital subchannels into their own sections rather than listing them in the general map and making them overly long (PBS, ION and TBN being notorious cases of this). The problem is, how would I make it so that a section would have two columns rather than just one? I don't want to add too many more lines to the template, so if I could keep one section down to four lines that would work. Also, how would you split up digital subchannels yourself so we can get more ideas ahead of 2/17 of how to work on the templates? Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DTV info in the Infoboxes

WPXN-TV
New York, New York
Branding ION Television
Channels Analog: 31 (UHF)

Digital: 30 (UHF)
Subchannels 31.1 WPXN-TV/ION
31.2 qubo
31.3 ION Life
31.4 The Worship Network
Affiliations ION Television
Owner ION Media Networks
Website www.ionline.tv

Is this the way we're including post-transition channel numbers and subchannels inside the infoboxes now? I'm just curious because this is the work of a IP user, "66.102.80.212" (talk • contributions) and not anyone from the group. This is an inconsistent editor; I had to delete some extraenous stuff the IP added on that was redundant and unnecessary. However, I'm reluctant to remove the infobox stuff unless a consensus can be reached on keeping it in. That is, unless a consensus has already been reached and I didn't know about it. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The DTV information fields were added Sunday by Carlb by a request not debated on the Infobox Broadcast talk page. The post-transition field doesn't work for me (because we'll have to remove it on 2/17 anyways), and we have enough boxcruft as it is with the subchannels, which should be mentioned in the affiliations. I really don't like these changes and would endorse reversing them. Nate • (chatter) 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with you 100 percent on removing this stuff. I differ with you on the subchannel affiliations; as they differ from the main channel, I think they are better off (at least for now) with the mini-table I've inserted into several articles. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: just noticed something -- Carlb is from Kingston, Ontario. 66.102.80.212, the IP that made the changes in WPXN-TV and other articles, is also from Kingston, Ontario. That raises an eyebrow on me Rock-style, if you can smell what I'm cooking. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I do prefer the subchannel table more to make them stand out (or writing text about the subchannels), so I do agree with you about that. Putting them in the infobox is more about tradition that I am trying to pull away from. As for the IP match, definitely makes you wonder. What I think we should do is add a link to here on IB Talk for additional debate about anything involving IB because it seems that he took the lack of debate as an OK to go forward. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The subchannels shouldn't be in the affiliation table; that was intended for other purposes. For instance, presume that KXGN-TV is the only notable US station because of the monopoly stranglehold it holds over the entire Glendive, Montana market (210 of 210). If it isn't on KXGN, it isn't on in Glendive. A station with that form of monopoly control would be free to exercise its massive market power to cherry-pick programming from as many networks as it chooses. For instance, primary affiliation to CBS in order to run that network's prime-time lineup, then secondary to NBC or another network to pick-and-choose whatever from those networks the station chooses to run. A powerful monopoly can do that, so the infobox would list CBS, NBC and whatever other networks are at the mercy of the whims of KXGN. There is no need to re-purpose this to be something completely different (a list of .2's and .3's) as those are (or should be) already in the "subchannels" field. A separate subchannel table in the article only leads to the info appearing on the pages twice - once in the subchannel table, once again (misplaced) as a list of secondary affiliations. That field was intended for something else, let's not turn it into a subchannel list if there is an available subchannel field in the infobox for use. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That raises one more question; are the old-style "secondary affiliations" (where there are more networks than local stations to carry them, so stations cherry-pick from multiple sources KXGN-style to feed a single channel) and the use of multiple DTV subchannels mutually exclusive? A station with a single channel joining multiple networks used to be very common in small markets, but now one -DT could carry each of various multiple networks in their entirety - one per subchannel. --carlb (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the project going to deal with these after conversion? That should drive what we do today. If you look at the infobox on the project page it says uses the 'affiliations' parameter for network affiliations. Why not list the affiliations by HD channel there? A likely solution in the future and it works today. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We won't be removing the post-transition field on 2/17 - we will be moving its contents into the digital field on that day and removing everything else. There are quite a few entries with content like "analog 6 VHF, digital 69 UHF, post-transition 7 VHF" where a channel 69 after this is over would be nonsense - the UHF band will only go up to channel 51 at the end of this process. As for whether "six" and "sixty-nine DT" should be moved to "former channels" on 2/17? Dunno, my first inclination is "no" - the analogue channel number already appears as the base for the subchannel numbers (which are now in the infobox) and the out-of-core -DT is only a temporary assignment and therefore not particularly notable.

The one case in which the "post-transition" field is omitted should be the one where it matches the current DTV channel. That's the usual case. Anything else should be in the box. Opinions? --66.46.167.154 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the analog should change over to the PSIP assignment I think, probably under the listing "Previous analog/current virtual PSIP" (or something shorter). No matter what though, using that post-transition field isn't going to work because it will break many boxes if it's removed on 2/17. It should not be there and the post channel should be mentioned within the text of an article rather than within the infobox because right now those post-transition channels can still change up to the last minute. Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case I would use terms that reflect the future, say 'DTV channel' rather then 'post transition'. That way a simple change to the template and you can automatically update what is displayed on all stations at transition. The old data can remain in the info box and we just don't display it. A lot less work at the time of conversion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So "analog", "temporary_digital" and "digital"? Might work, hopefully not too many of these edits have been made to remove the info on the permanent DTV assignments after this is all over. Renaming "analog" to "PSIP" won't work, though, as the template is on stations like CBOT/CBOFT which won't be shutting down full-power analogue transmitters when the US does so - as they transmit from Québec.
One possible option may be to modify just the template on 2/17 to use some sort of #if: if post-transition channel exists, display it *as* the digital channel instead of the temporary information that's there now. Still, your idea seems to be a cleaner solution - although the analog info will still need to be removed when this is over, at least the "temporarily on DTV channel 60" entries could be made to disappear cleanly.
That still leaves, in either case, the question of how to make the effective-radiated-power info for the defunct transmitters "go away" after they shut down on Feb 17. All of the power levels (analogue, digital_temporary, digital) are in the same template field, separated by <br/>'s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.227 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just ERP for the temporary channel assignments that needs to go away after this is over; some of these boxes list different antenna heights or other info for analogue vs. digital. I'm not sure how to handle these. --carlb (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The only other solution I could see is some sort of robot update - and it would need to get robot status here just to run once, on the 1800 or so US stations, to remove defunct analogue channel assignments (PSIP is already under "subchannels" so no need to create a PSIP section) and to remove out-of-core temporary DTV assignments. I don't expect post-transition channels to be changed that much, given that this is about the US channels primarily and they're less than a year from analogue switchoff. I do expect trivia like "WNET-DT digital: 61 (UHF)" to lose its notability very quickly after this is over; the permanent channel is thirteen and 61 will be out-of-core. Removing TV from 52-69 was the whole objective of this entire hideously-expensive endeavour, no? --66.46.167.154 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that we really can't mod the analog field (because it's still in use for many of the analog stations outside of the US in North America and for LPTV's after 2/17), so we will have to keep it for the other stations in North America. Probably we should go with some kind of bot to edit everything out, but we have to be careful because in the power level field there's no separate sections for analog or digital. And even then there are going to be analog stations shutting down before 2/17, so we might need to go with more human work than bot work on this one. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a robot replace {{Infobox Broadcast}} with an identical copy of the template under some other name (maybe {{Infobox Broadcast-DTV}}) on all US full-power -TV articles would provide a template from which you could remove or modify the analog field on 2/17 without affecting -LP, -CA, -FM/radio or non-US articles. At this point, though, I'm more concerned with the question of whether we even *have* the final channel frequency assignments for many stations post-2009.
All U.S. post-2009 DTV channels have been assigned. A handful may change on a case-by-case basis, most likely for stations that need to flash cut to digital and whose DTV allotment hasn't been formally approved pending international coordiation (KAJB and KFTU-TV for example), but the volume of changes should be very, very low. A lot of stations have invested a lot of money into the DTV transition so far. In addition, many stations that are giving up their temporary DTV allotment and going back to their old analog channel have already filed applications for their new facilities with the FCC, so those should be readily available. dhett (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There's also the question of what to do with the channel-numbered categories post-transition. Currently they're based on the analogue channel, but what happens when that signal is shut down? Should channels be categorised by analogue channel, digital channel, temporary digital channel, virtual channel or is it time to give up and just hit buttons on the remote control at random? If everything in Category: Channel 5 stations in Glendive, Montana just needed to be moved en-masse to Category: Channel 10 digital stations in Glendive, Montana that might be manageable, but add the other 209 markets and their 1800 or so channels to this and it quickly could become very unwieldy.
The entries that have digital subchannels listed as "affiliations" could also be awkward to update en masse as too many of these are listed in "some network, some other network (DT2), some other programme (DT3)" format without indicating the base number for all these virtual channels. Presumably the PSIP numbering uses the (former) analogue channel as the base for numbering virtual channels, so that's still in almost all of the articles at the moment, but at some point post-transition all of those analog numbers will be removed from the infoboxen. A format like "subchannels: 37.1 DuMont<br/>37.2 NET<br/>37.3 The Tube" would be preferable, but that's a lot of affected articles. --carlb (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now, I'm really perplexed

I'm not sure what Carlb is trying to accomplish here, and I'm sure his intentions are well-thought. But I think there's way too much experimentation going on with the fields in the infoboxes. First I see "Post-transition", and now that's been replaced with "DTV (temporary)". Then there's the subchannel field, which can get a bit lengthy with some stations. And finally, in WNET, for example, ERP for the final digital frequency is listed next to its channel assignment.

From what I've gathered, there is still no clear consensus on how to approach this. So for now, I think we should all go back to the previous status quo and revert the infoboxes until we come up with a suitable format that includes the post-transition information. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed here, at length. "Post-transition" was replaced as a result of that discussion to ensure that, once all of this is over in 2009, the final info is already in the digital field and other fields with obsolete DTV transition info are simply deleted from the template. To do otherwise would increase by far the number of manual edits needed on February 17, 2009 when this is finished; already a problem. Deleting information from the articles is not helpful, please don't do this. --carlb (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue I have is with placing both the current (pre-transition) DTV channel alongside the post-transition channel. What we should remember is that there are readers who may not be "into" this stuff to the extent we are, and we should't make things too confusing for the average reader. It was confusing for me, and I've been here for over two years now.
The fields are already there, and that is important. But I think they shouldn't be fully utilized until, say, two or three months 2-17-09, and kept blank until then. With the Wilmington, N.C. market making the early switch on September 8, there will be enough time to test and tweak the infoboxes before the rest of the country follows suit. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the data that needs to already be there, not just a field name. The displayed names beside the fields in each of the respective #if options (DTV stations which are moving, DTV which are staying put) are trivial to change, hide or redefine just by changing the template. Adding channel numbers to hundreds of individual articles that are missing the final DTV assignments, however, will be no small task and not something to be left to the last minute before transition. I do suspect that the continued removal of information from articles will mean that many will have no final channel info (or wrong info) come 2009. --carlb (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further testing needed

I've been reading over and over again, and I've found a lot of talk on what to do with the infoboxes post-transition, with lots of ideas being tossed around. But in searching for some kind of general agreement, I found no clear and consensus.

Like I said before, I'm sure that Carlb means well. But I think what he's done is a bit too much right now and is more confusing and complicated than helpful. The point I'm trying to make here is this: there is such a thing as "too much information". It may be all relevant, but does it all really need to be in there, right now?

For example...there is no need to put post-transition effective radiated power in the infobox, because it's presumptive. There is also no need to list post-transition channel numbers yet, also because the switch hasn't happened yet. I will reiterate again that we all should remember that these articles should be easier to read for the novice (average) reader who is not a television geek. There will be no wrong info in any article come next February. As for subchannel information, the mini-table I've plugged into many articles should take care of that until the switch. Subchannels are a minor thing right now, and should be treated as such.

I wanted to tweak the infobox so that the "permanent_digital" data field becomes optional rather than required, but this stuff is beyond me. While Carlb did a good job in adding the new fields, the "Post-2009" line isn't really necessary right now and should not be a required field in the box. Also, there is no reason to add post-transition power in the boxes as well, but he's plugged that into many articles.

It may be necessary to start fresh, have more discussions, and do more testing before we go changing everything en masse. So, on that note, I've reverted the Infobox Broadcast template and several of your favorite station articles. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were looking for a way to simply hide the final channel assignments until transition, reverting the infobox is not the way to go about it. That reversion forces everything to display as they would appear after the transition is over; the "revert the infobox to make the temporary channel assignments go away" behaviour is by design and the explanation as to why this is true is above ("The digital transition begins September 8..."). It is possible to have the info present (and not displayed) everywhere by editing nothing but the infobox, if there were consensus here to do that. What you've done is not the way to go about this, however.
The choice of frequency and power to be used by stations after this is over will determine not only what antenna is needed to receive them, it will in some cases make the difference between receiving a good signal or nothing at all. Subchannels are also not just "a minor thing right now" in all markets; there's little of note on them in NYC but in other markets they are the current means of adding networks like Fox and CW.
If you're not certain as to how the template works, please don't make edits like this. The result you've created is quite clearly not what you intended and will need to be undone (at least at the template level) until this is all over. --carlb (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, what's there now is a compromise version (the full template, with the "post-2009" junk commented out somehow)? No idea why someone keeps changing this to break the template, but "analog 10 (VHF) digital 10 (VHF)" on the same channel at the same time because someone who doesn't understand templates is editing templates? No, thank you. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power levels

One more issue; listing the final channel assignments with no power level is giving some strange results in cases where UHF channels are returning to VHF after all this is done. For instance, WJW "Transmitter Power 236 kW (analog) 625 kW (digital)" with "WJW-TV will move its digital broadcasts back to its present analog channel number, 8." More than half a megawatt of power on channel 8 would be impressive, only problem is that it isn't going to happen that way - Fox 8 will be back on eight but at greatly-reduced power, gracias FCC. *sigh* --72.140.46.227 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Listing the final channel assignments with no power level is giving some strange results...?" Read my response above: it isn't necessary for that yet. No reason to overload with information that is still useless right now. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dingbat, yet again

He's back as User talk:76.195.180.84 this time. But when I tried to report him, I got chewed on for posting a sock complaint in the "wrong place" by User:Doczilla. So he still lives. Just damn. --Mhking (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I filed a sock report, so at least someone is working on it. I also had a run-in with Doczilla — you can see my exchange here and here, and draw your own conclusions. dhett (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, an obvious sock of a block-evading vandal can be banned on sight. I personally would love to bust a block-evading vandal. But I have to know that's what it is. I've seen too many people hurl sock accusations -- many but not all of which are correct -- to take a sock accusation at face value. To give the accuser the benefit of the doubt would mean not giving it to the accused; so either way would fail to assume good faith about somebody.
Believe me, I know how frustrating this can be. A vandal once known as Creepy Crawler drives us nuts. A ready evidence list appears at Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler so that any admin available to evaluate the sock can quickly take action. The evidence list doesn't quite speak for itself, though. Someone referring to it would still need to point out which parts of the list match what the sock is doing.
If you want the person blocked quickly, please explain or point to evidence more clear than the person's unexplained edit history. At first glance, that person's edit history looks similar to the histories of those of you who combat him/her in terms of which pages are getting edited. When I look through the specific edits, it just looks like a content dispute. I can't know if the year 1995 or 1994 is right when that person has changed a year. So the edit history in this case is not enough for an admin to see what's wrong or to see proof that this is a banned vandal, at least not without investing an awful lot of time that you who know the case could have saved the admin.
So where should this have been reported?
  • To report a sock, see WP:SOCK for information. Notice one thing that it says: Sock puppets typically are identified through requests posted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets based on their visible edits and/or requests posted at requests for checkuser based on edit information that is accessible by the few Wikipedians who have checkuser privileges.
  • To report immediate, obvious, blatant vandalism that meets the criteria for going on right at that time, make an AIV report and, while you're at it, mention that it's a block-evading vandal, preferrably linking to the evidence. If it's not obvious, then you can still report at AIV if you clearly demonstrate why it's vandalism and why the perpetrator is obvious to you as a block-evading vandal. (You should still make periodic checkuser requests to establish the history more clearly.) You need to make it obvious to the person who will be doing the blocking, not just obvious to yourself. Doczilla STOMP! 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I submitted another vandalism report, and the account was immediately blocked for 31 hours. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so, but socks of a banned vandal will be blocked indefinitely if you make your case correctly. Doczilla STOMP! 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's OK: I like making sock reports, remember? Perhaps you care to educate us on the correct way to make one's case? So far, you've been no help at all. And you certainly didn't do anything to block this vandal, even temporarily. On the contrary, you stood in the way, choosing to investigate my history instead of his. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
One source for the requested education can be found at Wikipedia:Guide_to_administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#When_reporting_at_AIV_is_not_appropriate. Note where it says that when a report at AIV is appropriate, you should link to the sock report. Doczilla STOMP! 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive template change

If you haven't already noticed, someone created a new username MadeForMe, and immediately made wholesale changes to each state's TV network templates. I'll assume the edits were good-faith, but it's still a change I don't agree with. User:Enric Naval has opened an incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive425#New_user_mass-editing_templates and has invited MadeForMe to a discussion there. He also notified WikiProject Television of the discussion, so I'm posting notification here. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the Wisconsin templates and support rollback of every edit made. This does not have a consenus, is disruptive and pretty much redundant as each template is categorized in the intrastate and regional network templates categories already. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I got a tool that automagically adds summaries to all the rollbacks you make, and I rollbacked all the changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)So, what is left of this user's contributions is this list of templates that he created in order to use on the other templates:

Please, look at them and say if I should nominate all of them on WP:TFD templates for deletion or if you can use them somewhere --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't use them, the postal abbreviations in some cases are incorrect and there's no context to say what they're showing. They're already listed in the categories for intrastate and regional templates and are basically redundant. Nate • (chatter) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed--I can't see where in an article you're gonna put these templates. It would just take up space where text could go. Blueboy96 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's strictly extraneous material, not to mention that he left out some states (such as Hawaii) and gave incorrect USPS abbrevs to Wisconsin (I didn't know they were "WS" instead of "WI"). Delete them. -- azumanga (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
They've been WS ever since they became part of West Samoa, as far as I know. --carlb (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The part of Samoa that is American territory is American Samoa, whose USPS code is "AS". Western Samoa, now called just "Samoa", is its own country, not part of the US. -- azumanga (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the templates at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_2 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional callsigns

We have various pages, such as WAMY-TV, listed under fictitious callsigns. These stations were typically WB 100+ (CW Plus) affiliates originally created as cable-only channels with nonsense as call letters. These broadcasts are now finding their way onto legit digital subchannels of real TV stations under common ownership - so WAMY-TV is merely a fictional cable television brand name for the real WZDX-DT2. As much as an encyclopædia of fiction may be amusing, shouldn't these articles be using a real station callsign instead of a fictional one? --carlb (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a long complicated story behind this...pretty much they started out as cable channels programmed by the cable providers and WB homebase in Burbank carrying the WB in markets without a broadcast WB station, and then with the digital age they turned into affiliates for the CW and some of them were picked up by broadcast channels (or programming rights were purchased by the broadcast channels) for a DT2 affiliation. The call letters may be fictional but they serve a purpose to give the station a branding beyond the digital subchannel and allow stations to have a unique identity. There's no need to change them; even if the scheme got convoluted by the digital age, the branding is consistent. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The branding is consistent unless and until any of these calls are assigned to legitimate stations. At that point, we have a problem. They are not a unique identity. There is also the not-so-minor detail that these are fiction, not encyclopædic fact. --carlb (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that call signs of that type have no legal standing in an FCC sense, in situations like this the article titles also have to give some consideration to how readers are likely to identify the topic. I sincerely doubt that one reader in a thousand, if looking for an article on their local CW Plus cable carrier, would know to look up "WZDX-DT2" instead of the call sign, be it FCC-assigned or not, that the station actually uses in its identification breaks. I just thank gawd that the only station of this type in Canada, Atlantic Satellite Network, uses a brand name and not an unofficial pseudo-callsign. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that some are constructed to look like real ITU callsigns for their respective area, ie: someone picks WTWB "we're the Warner brothers" for a fake callsign, puts the signal on cable television and doesn't bother to check whether there is a real WTWB on some radio station in Florida... --66.46.167.154 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The common viewer wouldn't notice, and since they're just fake call letters, theres nothing to be confused about (unless the cable channel picked similar calls of an area station in which then the real station can force the fictional calls to be changed.
Aren't most of these fictional call letters going away anyway? Most CW (since I think thats what this discussion is mainly around) stations being grabbed up by the licensed stations are starting to position themselves as "The Valley's CW" or whatever their market area is. So only markets where the cable company keeps control of the cable channel is where we would have an issue. Mr mark taylor (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
One can hope, yes. Legally, going on-air with a nonsense ID "This is WABBIT-TV 1 Albuquerque" is a far more serious matter than using this as a station's ID within a closed system such as cable. I doubt a legit OTA station would want to risk the wrath of the FCC by using an ID of some other distant station on the air, and they will be going away largely because they use -WB suffixes and WB is no longer WB but CW. --72.140.46.227 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WKTV-DT2 is still listed as WBU (The CW Plus) in Wikipedia, but no sign of this particular fake callsign on yourcwtv.com/partners/utica/contactus.php - just "WKTV/The CW P.O. Box 2 Utica 13503" --66.46.167.154 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subchannels of physical channel numbers?

I notice the convention of using the physical channel number of a digital broadcast, followed by '.' and the minor virtual channel number is appearing in quite a few places here. This should be avoided. For instance, I note that the page for WNBT Channel 1 in New York has been edited to "subchannels: (see article)" as a bookmark to this text:

"The station's digital channel is multiplexed:
Digital channels
Subchannel Programming
4.1 / 28.1 main WNBC-TV/NBC programming
4.2 / 28.2 NBC Weather Plus
4.4 / 28.4 WNBC 4.4 (proposed all-news channel)
"

It looks innocuous enough, but a look at the PSIP standard (ATSC A/65C Annex B, linked from psip.org's main page) indicates the following naming convention:

  • WNBC's analogue channel is currently 4 (due to longtime abolition of Channel 1) so its virtual channels are numbered 4.1, 4.2... based on this NTSC branding.
  • WNBC therefore keeps this 4.1 virtual channel indicator regardless of where its digital signal is moved (in this case, channel 28 as the permanent DTV assignment)
  • When WNBC shuts down analogue simulcast in 2009, channel 4 becomes available for assignment to new applicants in New York City, but with a digital power limit of 20000 watts or less - likely much less. Odds are high though that eventually someone will apply for NYC VHF 4.
  • The new licensee will not be able to use 4.1, 4.2... as their virtual channels (as they're in use by WNBC) so the ATSC standard defines a convention in which WNBC-DT's physical channel number (28) is used as the base major channel to number the new station's virtual channels as 28.1, 28.2... on physical channel VHF 4.

Confused yet? Good. Nonetheless, I believe the correct designation is "WNBC-DT, ATSC channel UHF 28, subchannel 4.1" and *not* "subchannel 28.1" on its own or in conjunction with other designators. It's a technicality now, but it will come back to bite us some time post-transition if handled incorrectly. JMHO. --carlb (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what's listed is correct. The low VHF channels are probably not going to be reassigned at all except to low-powers because of their lousy reception (WBBM-TV being a perfect test subject of this), and most every station except a few is preferring UHF to transmit digitally. If there's going to be a channel 4 assigned after the digital switchover, we're sure to find the appopriate way to disclaim it. Plus really most of the PSIP and branding has been done voluntarily and with consistent support through all the broadcasting standards organizations outside of the FCC.
As for going on about Channel 1...that was taken care of sixty years ago. There's nothing to apply an example of it to digital television. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I mention it only as in the case of multiple channel moves (analog 1 -> analog 4 -> digital 28) it's the last channel to be licensed to the station in NTSC analogue that is used for the virtual channel numbering, regardless of how many other times the station would have moved in frequency before or since transition. In this case, UHF 28 ATSC subchannels are 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4
WBBM-TV is going to a higher VHF channel, not to UHF, and I'm aware of the low power limits on 2-6 VHF DTV. Nonetheless, even if a one-watt station were licensed to take over the former channel 4 in NY, it would indeed have "28.1" as its virtual channel number. That much is spelled out in Annex B, ATSC spec A/65C, available on psip.org. If the ATSC standards work in such a way as to split physical UHF 28 NYC into virtual 4.1, 4.2... we should respect that convention instead of trying to turn subchannel "4.1" arbitrarily into "4.1 / 28.1". 28 does not and should not appear in WNBC-DT subchannel numbering. --carlb (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. WNBC should only be listed as 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.4, and the only place channel 28 should appear is with a specific label of "RF channel". After the transition, should any TV station choose to use RF channel 4, its virtual channel will be 28, unless it's a repeater of another station, in which case its virtual channel would be the same as that of the station it's repeating. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-transition DTV frequencies

I notice that there are still many US stations which will want to (or will have to) leave their existing digital frequency assignments when this is all over, but where the permanent channel numbers are not in the articles. Even if it's just some non-notable backwater station like KCBS-TV, to list channel 60 as its only digital assigned frequency if that frequency will be out-of-core in 2009 is incorrect. Nonetheless, looking up all of these on FCC.gov and updating the pages is no small task, as they're scattered across eighteen DTV channels and across hundreds of markets from coast to coast. Many US stations can stay and will be staying on their existing DTV channels, but not all. BTW, the permanent allocation for KCBS-DT is channel 43. --carlb (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We have until February to add the information. I'll add post-transition info as I work on an article, but if you wish to organize such a project to get it done sooner, please feel free to do so. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retro Jams

What is the status of Equity Broadcasting-owned Retro Jams and the various affiliates which listed it in their individual articles, including KIMG-LP 23 Ventura, California WJXF-LP 49 Jackson, Mississippi and WUHQ-LP 29 Grand Rapids, Michigan? It seems many stations which used to carry the channel are now carrying RTN instead, and there's no mention on Equity's site (emdaholdings.com) to say whether Retro Jams as a network is even still active. There appears to be a "Retro Jams by Request" which ran as a regular TV programme on some other channel, but is the full-time channel defunct in the finest tradition of The Tube? The article and related pages are a mess, I'm not getting anywhere trying to sort this out. --carlb (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The main trouble is very few people even watch the channels -- I didn't even know that WUHQ started carrying Retro Jams in late-2007 until after the demise of its former network, LAT TV (and that's after I commented about it on the Michigan Buzzboard). For many LPTV and minor-league stations, it's very difficult to keep current, unless you actually live within the coverage area and have an antenna (being a cable person, the only time I watch aerial TV is at the thrift shops). -- azumanga (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; with most of these networks airing on lower-tier cable networks and small television stations, you have to realize that usually, there is nobody watching, literally. Your audience is limited to non-cable households unless you can scrounge up must-carry and that most of the time these small networks just don't survive. NOYZ is a good case of this, where I could pretty much only go on some local stories saying the network was dead along with my personal observation that MavTV wasn't airing it anymore. Also WUHQ is notorius for picking the most out-of-luck networks in the industry. Once you dip below America One and the more established shopping networks most of them you have to scrounge up info that most of the time isn't there. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oddly, some of this stuff is visible across most of the North American continent with a good, strong signal here: http://www.lyngsat.com/galaxy10r.html - it's just once it lands on the ground that it gets turned into underpowered UHF that no one watches. I used to be able to see Retro Jams (and before that, The Tube) but it looks like both may have gone the way of the dodo. I only raise the question of Retro Jams as the article is a mess and doesn't make it clear whether the channel even exists anymore. It might be long gone, in which case the page should be updated to reflect this. --carlb (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

(cc: Television and Radio WikiProjects.) Due to the use of a variety of different title formats, Category:Lists of media by city needs a review to determine a consistent naming standard. I've initiated a discussion at Category talk:Lists of media by city around this. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] krca62.tv

Any idea what will become of KRCA after 2009? It appears to be a live Riverside, California station, but it has no channels (and no FCC construction permits) anywhere in the 2-51 core spectrum. I'd be surprised were the FCC to allow it to stay on 62 (or 68) but where else is it going? --carlb (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is the point of all these questions? We've answered many of them above. If KRCA doesn't have a digital signal yet, obviously the FCC hasn't gotten to it yet and it doesn't need to be addressed. Please utilize the talk pages of the individual articles if the question doesn't deal in a broad sense and just applies to one topic. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added the post-transition information to the article. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On virtual channels

What do we do if a station's virtual channel maps to something different than their analog or digital channel? For example, I recently found out WWSB is on virtual channel 7.1. Is that significant enough to be listed in the infobox? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd presume a virtual channel is handled in the same manner as a subchannel; no idea how you folks intend to handle subchannels. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WWSB's use of "7" as PSIP (instead of "40" or "24") adds to the headaches on how we should treat TV stations in this new era. This also adds another problem to categorisation and listing the channels -- examples being WSWG, which is still categorised as "44" (its PSIP) instead of "43", despite broadcasting only on 43 in digital; and KAZT's Phoenix repeater, which is now listed in that market as 7 (its PSIP) instead of 27 (its actual channel, in digital and analog). Should we now move WWSB to 7? Also, does anyone have any aspirin? -- azumanga (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Man, we've got it bad. I could use some headache medicine myself. What should we undertake first? Rollosmokes (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WSWG and KAZT are identifying by their correct virtual channels, per FCC. WWSB is not; they are supposed to identify as 40.X. MHO is, we should be using the virtual channel for all identification in categories, lists, infoboxes, etc. The only reason the RF channel needs to be listed anywhere is for a situation like Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, where the market has been an all-UHF market for over 50 years, and it's common to see UHF-only antennas on rooftops, but now WYOU-TV 22 and WBRE 28 are broadcasting on VHF channels, 13 and 11, respectively, but their virtual channels are UHF. I'm thinking perhaps that the channel given by default should be the virtual channel, and any time the RF channel is mentioned, it should specifically be labeled "RF Channel". In the case of WWSB, even though their identification isn't FCC-compliant, they should still be listed under channel 7. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we use virtual channels in navboxes, I think the "actual" digital channel deserves little more than a mention as people don't watch a station on its "actual" DT channel. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse... the virtual channels on a transmitter don't necessarily all even have the same base number. KWBF has
42.1 MyNetworkTV
42.2 RTN
7.1 KATV (due to KATV Tower collapse) --66.46.167.154 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
KESQ-TV in Palm Springs CA is the same way:
(The lineup in the KESQ-TV article is actually incorrect.) dhett (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Which I have now corrected. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It gets worse...

WWSB is on virtual channel 7.1; the article for that station is now worded to claim that it is doing this in violation of FCC rules. So who should be on 7? A repeater of underpowered Ft. Myers WEVU-CA, serving Naples, Florida. From that article:

Caloosa Television, the then-owners of the low-power stations, picked up the WEVU-LP calls for channel 7 on November 6, 1995. At that time, the station referred to itself as "The Real Channel 7" (this was a result of WZVN billing itself as "ABC 7" after their cable channel placement; WEVU-LP was on cable channel 8 on the Fort Myers cable system). Cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.167.154 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for Digital Channels

I've noticed that carlb has now set up categories specific to digital channels per channel number -- for an example, see Category:Channel 7 digital TV stations in the United States. With analog sunset coming in February, and all full powered channels in the US being digital, are categories like this necessary? -- azumanga (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord, no, they're redundant (ugh). Will he ever get the point that these category and template changes are clearly against the consenus? Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention his creation of a brand-new infobox strictly for DTV, {{Infobox DTV}}. I'm not sure what he wants to prove, but he's gonna learn one way or the other. As I write this, I'm reverting ALL of his changes over the past 24 hours or so. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
WLH for Infobox DTV. Plenty switched over without any discussion. Could this be block-worthy since he went around us to institute these changes? Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree -- since the regular TV template has been blocked, he decided to roll his own. He apparently refuses to take "no" for an answer. One more thing I should add -- earlier, he accused me of being crystal for saying that a new station run by Gainesville's WGFL will be on digital channel 9 and analog 29, in which I added that it's unlikely that 29 will be lit; the new station's FCC records and the closeness of the analog sunset confirms it all. I say he should be blocked for acting too "high and mighty". -- azumanga (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, he labeled me a vandal for labelling him as a sockpuppet. Last time I checked, he's earned that accurately. I second a motion for a block, and I was thinking about drafting an RfC against him, but I'll hold off on that unless he tries to force-feed his stuff on us again. I'm also considering slapping his DTV Infobox with a Templates for Deletion tag. What do you think about that?
BTW, I could use some help reverting his changes. Damn, there's so many. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: I'm also considering slapping his DTV Infobox with a Templates for Deletion tag. What do you think about that? -- Good idea. Same for his categories. We are already too close to analog sunset for this. -- azumanga (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I'll get to it sometime later today. I'm gonna shut it down in the next 15 mins. or so. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on reversions tomorrow afternoon, I'm off too. I got the Wisconsin stations covered for tonight. Nate • (chatter) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All templates (beyond a userpage experiment page unrelated to Carlb) have been reverted to Infobox Broadcast. Nate • (chatter) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollosmokes WP:ANI notice

Carlb has served Rollo with a WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rollosmokes. -- azumanga (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Rollosmokes (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Mendte

We're going to have to keep a close eye on this article for the next couple weeks now that he's under FBI investigation about the Alycia Lane fiasco involving access to an email account or other things. This might be something that could bring Spotteddogsdotorg or impersonators of his style out of hiding. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Dingbat sock

This time it's Word35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and he's left quite the mess to clean up. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First report on AIV declined by Doczilla on the technicality that I didn't link to the SSP report. Anyone with the sense to look at Dingbat's suspected sockpuppet category can see that Word## is his naming pattern. Reporting should not be this full of bureaucracy. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Second attempt resulted in indef. Nate • (chatter) 06:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added the remainder of the socks to the SSP so that the pattern among usernames can be quickly scanned. I'm really getting tired of this; battling vandals was bad enough; now we have to battle administrators on power trips as well. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Him again? I thought he'd gotten the hint he wasn't welcome. Anyways, drop me a line on my talk page the next time he shows up ... he's banned as far as I'm concerned. Blueboy96 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the Infobox Broadcast template issue...

...I'll reprint a comment I made on the template's talk page:

"Recent changes made by Carlb and his suspected IP socks, 66.46.167.154 (talk) and 72.140.46.227 (talk) have been reverted. At issue is the inclusion of post-transition digital information, such as virtual channels and effective radiated power.
"Some of us, myself included, have argued that including some of this information isn't yet necessary, as there is still eight months to go before the transition deadline. That leaves us with enough time to tweak the current infobox format and, if necessary, create a new infobox. While a notable concession is made on the inclusion of subchannels, the other issues are still being discussed. This user has been making the changes without engaging in dialogue with other users, or waiting for a consensus on how to approach them. Should this continue, I suggest requesting some form of protection for the template."

Azumanga1 and myself have been doing the reverting. All other concerned editors should be on the lookout. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted the post-transition channels hidden, the version that was there *before* you started vandalising the template by going on a revert spree does exactly that. The version that you keep posting and reposting does not. It is quite clear that you do not understand the operation of the fields which you keep changing. Stop doing this. --66.46.167.154 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: The template has once again been reverted, and has been reported to WP:RFPP, with a request for full protection. Carlb and his IP socks have been reported to WP:AIV. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Further update: It was an ugly process, but the template is now protected indefintely, thanks to Rudget. Rollosmokes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wtvg1

User:Wtvg1 has been adding news music information to articles. I believe it was a consensus that this was trivial information that doesn't need to be included in articles. Can someone do something about it? Ntropolis (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed some of that crap from WCVB-TV, WRAL-TV, and WIS-TV, but he's got more. Let's keep an eye on him. Rollosmokes (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I advised the user specifically that news music is considered trivial. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
His overall body of edits suggest something that can be more of a problem, at least to me: He seems to be contributing nothing more than (mostly) unsourced and trivial fancruft. All you have to do is read his user page to see what I mean. And he didn't listen to us on adding news music to articles, because I cleaned up WSFL-TV earlier this morning. We should keep him in our cypher. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another IP vandal to watch...

"24.207.239.71" (talk • contribs) has been hitting up WNBC, WCBS-TV, KSNT, KUSA-TV, and WXIA-TV with lots of poop. Rollosmokes (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another instance of the St. Louis vandal. Is there an "original" ip/username this person had so that we can point there and start sockpuppet reports against this goon? --Mhking (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that he's ahead of the game by not registering; this way, a track record would be difficult to create, unlike some who had "graduated" from IPs to full Wiki accounts, for socking purposes (<cough>Elladog</cough>). -- azumanga (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he hasn't registered, so we can't start a sockpuppet report due to no puppetmaster account, but I have been keeping track of this vandal, with lots of help from others. See User:Dhett/IPVandals/St. Louis signer. I just added him. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
After the IP laid a few more eggs this morning, I've reported it to WP:AIV. Lradrama has blocked it for a full 24. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mmbabies rampage killed aborning

70.132.142.185's first edit was to blank my userpage. Happened to do a whois--and wouldn't you know, it's AT&T in Houston, stomping grounds of Mmbabies. Blocked 31 hours--I think I stopped another Mmbabies rampage. I'm still laughing at how dumb it was--if you want to vandalize, the last place you want to go is an admin's page. Blueboy96 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was mmbabies, it was just as I thought -- he only bided his time until he found another opportunity to attack. And as we already experienced in recent days, we already have our hands full with other socks and troublemakers as it is. -- azumanga (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlb @ ANI

Carlb started a topic heading at ANI/User:Rollosmokes accusing Rollo of having an 'axe to grind' and that he keeps reverting his changes because of single-handed consensus from him. I've tried reasoning with him that this is not the case, it is project consensus, and that his rounding of consensus with the DTV box is against guidelines, but he won't listen to me. I'm ready to abstain from this one because his incommunication has gone beyond frustrating. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just love when people attempt to hide their mistakes by making someone else look bad. What a loser. Rollosmokes (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox DTV

Template:Infobox DTV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rollosmokes (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KXAN-TV

Can someone take a look at KXAN-TV, specifically the structure of the on-air talent section (but the whole article might need a review)? There's been some long-term editing conflicts going on; it'd be nice for someone with experience editing tv-station articles to clean it up. Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I hope that I helped. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)