Talk:WISN-TV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Television Stations This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Call Sign Meaning

I've been adding WISconsiN as a call sign meaning for quite some time now only to have it deleted by another user who INSISTS that the only possible meaning for the calls is the defunct WISconsin News newspaper. As far as I know, there is no official documentation or credible source that states that the calls are a reference to the newpaper and the newspaper ALONE. So who's to say the calls weren't also chosen because it was an abbreviation of the state's name? There's plenty of examples of a station using calls with multiple meanings (such as WBBM-TV out of Chicago). But my main sticking point is that WISN has referenced the calls while advertising itself as "WISconsiN TV" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JFirQUXfc8) My theory is that the station chose to keep the calls after the newspaper folded because they referenced the state's name as well (the station had only been using the calls for a few years when the paper folded, so the "name recognition" argument is moot). But regardless of why they kept the calls, I think the fact that the station made a conscious decision to use them to brand itself as "Wisconsin TV" deserves mention. --Illwauk 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have been putting up your interpretation of the ID. It is conjecture and not a FACT. If you can verify that meaning, I won't revert it. Until then, I consider your opinion to be unverified. The next time I'm there (I'm writing a history of Milwaukee TV.), I'll verify with the station's management.Nitelinger 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In a discussion this morning at the station, I brought up the call letter meaning. they essentially told me that I had a better handle on the history than anyone there did. The ID you used to base your contention was from the 1980s apparently. I was told that it was not meant to imply that the calls mean "Wisconsin", and that you misinterpreted it to do so. Nitelinger 18:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course "WISconsiN" is my interpretation... the id TOLD me to interpret it that way. I hardly see how the fact that it's from the 80's makes it irrelevant. Especially when Wisconsin News refers to a newspaper that went defunct in the 1950's. But for whatever reason, you've taken a ridiculously militant stance and have been acting as the gestapo of this article. I simply can't dedicate as many hours to wikipedia as you can, so I'm done with this. All I'm gonna say is that if you had better people skills, maybe you'd have better things to worry about than whether or not you get your way an online encyclopedia. --Illwauk 08:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you had better people skills, you would understand someone trying to get the facts correct. Which part of their management telling me that the ID was not meant to imply that the calls meant "WISConsin" was so hard to understand? If they had said that the calls meant that, I would have changed it here, as well as on my Milwaukee TV history website, where I originally compiled a list of all the stations' call letter meanings. Getting the facts right is important to me. Whereas being right seems to be important to you. Nitelinger 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's tone down the personal attacks and stick with discussing the content. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake

Sorry about the mistaken revert. I accidentally clicked the button. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KOMO

Should it be worth merit to list KOMO-TV to the article in terms of successful ABC affiliates, in addition to WISN? I vividly recall reading a book about the history of the ABC network that IIRC had a copyright date of 1990 and it mentioned KOMO as being one of their most successful affiliates as well. As soon as I can locate the book (and its title), I'll supply the page number where the mention occurs. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)