Misplaced Pages

Talk:.2 Network

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTelevision: Stations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Television Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Network logo

I think we should include a network logo, if possible, since it would improve the quality of the article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unknown Affiliates

The sad part is that I have a good idea of who the new affiliates are, just no confirmation.

KBCA and KLWB air CW+ primarily and are co-owned by "Wilderness Broadcasting," and fit the pattern. WBKB, KXGN, and WBUP/WBKP are owned by the same owner and fit the pattern as well.

Portland is probably KPDX and Kansas City is probably KSMO. I know KSMO isn't doing any HD at the moment, can't comment on KPDX. Both would be possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TripEricson (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Glendive, Montana is listed, and considering theres only one full power network affiate there (KXGN) that could be listed but it would violate WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Mr mark taylor (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. Common sense is also a guideline for Misplaced Pages, and since KXGN is the only DTV station in the Glendive market, it follows logically that they are the affiliate. dhett 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I'm listing WBKB as well, as it's the only commercial digital station in Alpena. TripEricson (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the KLWB/KBCA combo as the possible Lafayette/Alexandria combination. Another Laf/Alex combo is KADN/WNTZ (CCA/WHITE KNIGHT properties)...i guess we will just have to wait for confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.122.254 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My thought process is that if it was KADN/WNTZ, it'd show up on other ComCorp stations than just those two, whereas KLWB/KBCA are the only two stations owned by Wilderness. TripEricson (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the Marks Broadcasting stations being here - certainly listing Marquette, Michigan through Glendive, Montana points to multiple stations in this group, but I'm not sure that KXGN-TV even has a .1 up yet let alone a .2; they were talking "flash-cut" due to the prohibitive cost of building a second station for digital simulcast in such a small market. It also seems odd that they'd be looking at a new/unknown for a .2 affiliation when there are big-three networks still not yet represented in these markets. Dunno. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dot2 announced affiliates in those markets, and there's nothing else in those markets going digital. TripEricson (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The Glendive market only has 2 stations: KXGN and an analog translator of KUMV. Since I highly doubt the analog translator will start broadcasting in digital with its own programming, KXGN is the only possibility, and they are broadcasting in digital. The Alpena market has 4 stations: WCML (PBS), WBKB (CBS), and two other low power analog stations. The analog stations are highly unlikely to convert to digital. The PBS station, being publicly funded, is highly unlikely to carry a commercial network. That leaves WBKB as the only possibility. —70.240.101.127 (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

notice to all

just because a city only has one (or 20 stations) does not mean that station (or any of the other 20 stations) will carry .2 net. so the list on carriers of .2 net is wrong since its just hopeful thinking by editors in those areas. please come up with a real list of .2 net affiliates. -AMAPO (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If a market has been confirmed as an affiliate by the .2 network, and there's only one station in the area, then that station is carrying it unless the contract falls apart. TripEricson (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
confirmed by whom? the www.dot2network.com confirms only about 6 affiliates in USA... is there a link where all the stations on the wiki list appear? like I said its only wishful think by editors... or where are the references to each station stating it will carry the .2 net? -AMAPO (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It's confirmed in there by this quote: "Schilg says that the network has a smattering of other affiliates in small markets—Roanoke, Va.; Lafayette and Alexandria, both Louisiana; Alpena and Marquette, both Michigan; and Glendive, Mont." I confirmed the Roanoke affiliate with the station owner who I know on a first name basis, I made assumptions (see above) about Lafayette, Alexandria, and Marquette, but since those are not certain, I've not added them to the list, and Alpena and Glendive markets each have only one commercial station, so there's no other place for an affiliate to end up, not to mention the fact that those two stations have the same owner. In each market, the other commercial stations are all translators and none of the parent stations' markets were confirmed as affiliates, so it has to be WBKB and KXGN as there's literally nowhere else it can go. TripEricson (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything indicating that ".2" will be able to crack the tightly-held and highly-exclusive Glendive metropolitan region market as anything more than a secondary affiliation? There's a huge difference between getting one or two programmes a week onto the main signal of a station which primarily carries someone else's TV network vs. actually having the 24/7 use of a full subchannel... and KXGN-TV is pretty much the textbook example of the "we're the only game in town, so we shall affiliate with everyone and everything" model which used to be common in the days of small-market analogue television where there were no subchannels and no competitors. I'd think that the chance of KXGN telling ABC, Fox, PBS and every other locally-unrepresented network to go pound sand and instead putting this on a subchannel would be close to nil? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Was .2 Network canceled?

The official website says to call a number for more info, I called it and there is no mention of .2 Network, just channel 23 in Columbus, Ohio. Does anyone have any info? I searched for .2 net online and there are hardly any sites that mention .2 net.
thanx,
-AMAPO (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No Network Materialized

This entire article should be redone to say that it was a planned network that never got past the planning stages. All of the information is not even verifiable as of May 2011 and could therefore be challenged as having no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.176.57 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories: