Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force - Misplaced Pages

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.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DreamMcQueen (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 30 July 2012 (→Style and formatting issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:18, 30 July 2012 by DreamMcQueen (talk | contribs) (→Style and formatting issues)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Television/Television stations task force page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Template:TelevisionStationsProject


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcut

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Déclic-Images --Gwern (contribs) 16:41 7 March 2010 (GMT)

Style and formatting issues

I'm gonna offer up a chance for those who follow this page to compare and contrast these two introductory paragraphs.

1) This is a revision I made recently at WVNS-TV, and incorporated into three other articles (WOWK-TV, WTRF-TV, and WBOY-TV):

"WVNS-TV, channel 59, is a television station licensed to Lewisburg, West Virginia, USA. Owned by West Virginia Media Holdings, WVNS is the primary CBS affiliate for the Bluefield-Beckley television market, which also covers portions of southwestern Virginia. WVNS also carries programming from Fox and MyNetworkTV over its second digital subchannel (59.2). The station's studios are located in Ghent, West Virginia, and its transmitter is near Alderson, West Virginia. WVNS-TV is one of four West Virginia television stations owned by West Virginia Media Holdings; the other outlets are fellow CBS affiliates WOWK-TV in Huntington and WTRF-TV in Wheeling; and NBC-affiliated WBOY-TV in Clarksburg."

2) This is what is on the WVNS-TV page now, a version that a couple of editors "prefer":

"WVNS-TV is the CBS affiliate for Southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia that is licensed to Lewisburg. It broadcasts a high definition digital signal on VHF channel 8 from a transmitter on Keeney's Knob between Alderson and I-64. Owned by West Virginia Media Holdings, the station has studios on Old Cline Road in Ghent along I-77. Syndicated programming on WVNS includes: Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy!, The Oprah Winfrey Show, and Rachael Ray."

At issue here is what includes the most relevant information and makes for a better, easier read for the average (non-enthusiast) reader. My argument is that not every minute detail (no matter how "important" it may be to some editors) needs to be included, and that intros should be written very simply. In my opinion, the intros written by Strafidlo and endorsed by Neutralhomer, are long-winded and distracting from a writing standpoint, not to mention confusing to the average reader.

Another issue I'm having here is overall uniformity. What is done for one should be done for the whole lot of them. No one editor, or group of editors, should be given a tight grip of control over a swath of articles that when another editor comes along and makes valid, good-faith changes, they get immediately dismissed as "unhelpful" (as Neutralhomer said to me) or even worse (vandalism). How is this acting in good faith? Someone please explain, and give me an honest opinion. DreamMcQueen (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I know you and I have had our issues, but I can agree that there should be some sort of uniformity on these TV station articles. Quite frankly, as someone who has viewed many, if not all, of the TV station page here, many of them are written very "piss-poorly". I'm created some here, and I've done my research on these subjects and even going on personal memory, and I take pride in the work I do here. There are people, whether intentional or not, that have their own agendas, and it ultimately destroys the fun on being a Misplaced Pages editor. That said, I don't believe in "dumbing-down" things, as you're basically suggesting...it shouldn't be our problem that the average reader can't understand the information presented on these articles. It's going to be real hard to get everyone on the same page, in terms of editing.

Just my honest and humble opinion... ShawnHill 19:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

At least we come from the same place on the uniformity issues, but I disagree on the "dumbing-down" of the articles. This sub-community should not be a haven where the uber-geeks and inclusionists have free reign. For example, the average reader doesn't care about the "digital channel number" or the precise location of the station's transmitter, or anything like that. I can itemize line-by-line problem spots and what I think should be fixed and bring it to the community as a whole if given the chance. Change has to start somewhere. DreamMcQueen (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a 💕 that everyone can edit and everyone has a different writing style. We don't do uniformity on really any of the articles here because it would create something that isn't "free". It would require everyone to write in the same style...and since we aren't all little gray blobs with the same personalities, styles and everything, we are all different, a uniform version of anything will never happen. It would be nice, but with so many different writing styles, it would be impossible. Plus, I am pretty sure it would violate a couple WP:NOT rules. Unformity would change this project and Misplaced Pages itself to a point it would no longer be "free". So, a uniform television station article (or any article) is 'not a good idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Since when does "uniformity" equate "not being free"? I don't see the correlation in that. What I am advocating is how the articles should be formatted and structured, and that includes what/what not should be included and where everything should go. Of course you need a template, then you take it from there. I acknowledge that there are many different writing styles, but there are also various levels of enthusiasm when it comes to this topic. Some editors need to be tamed in that respect. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We have a template right here. The infobox is the other template. There ya go.
As for your "uniformity", what you describe is not "free". When you have that many rules in place, that isn't free. Maybe you need to read Misplaced Pages:NOT#Community. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Try reading it again...and then maybe a third time. I'm going to bed, cause this conversation couldn't bore me anymore than it already has. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy. The encyclopedia is "free" in that it's available to all at no cost. Everybody is "free" to edit the encyclopedia (minus a few folks that have earned a ban) because all are welcome without regard to credentials or even verification. But it's not a "free-for-all" in the sense that there are no rules. There are plenty of rules, mostly established by consensus over many years, and any editor would be wise to follow them. (Yes, "ignore all rules" is also a guiding principle of Misplaced Pages but that's a call for judgment, not a license to run wild through the streets with no pants and your hair on fire.)
Personally, I think the lead sentence of every American broadcast station (radio or television) should start something like "WKRP (1530 AM) is an American radio station licensed to serve the community of Cincinnati, Ohio. Established in 1979, WKRP is owned by Carlson Broadcasting and the station's broadcast license is held by Turkeys Can Fly, LLC. The station broadcasts a talk radio format including programming from CNN Radio." For obvious reasons, the TV stations will include variants on this style as in the first example listed above. Listing specific programs in the lead paragraph? No. Giving the street address (or major intersection) of studios and transmitter? No. I'd even save the sister stations for the second paragraph along with any details of ownership beyond owner and license holder. - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What I said was it was free...we do have rules, yes, but we aren't all conformed to certain writing style or a template to create articles. Each one has a little something different. None are exactly the same, which is what DreamMcQueen is proposing. What he wants is uniform conformity of all articles. That just won't and can't happen. I use my gray blobs analogy again, if we all had the same writing style, the same way of creating things, the same speaking style, then we could, but we can't. We are all different and we write in different ways, then there is the whole "💕" thing.
I am fine with a little uniformity in the lede...a little, but not much. Most articles have it, but beyond that, it is, kind of a free-for-all in writing styles. And in my defense, "as God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Dravecky. This is one of the points I was trying to get across:
"Listing specific programs in the lead paragraph? No. Giving the street address (or major intersection) of studios and transmitter? No. I'd even save the sister stations for the second paragraph along with any details of ownership beyond owner and license holder."
Now, we're getting somewhere in terms of dialogue. DreamMcQueen (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
In both versions I have a problem with the license to a city. With that clause it seems like the city has say who has the station license. I think we have to mention that they are a TV station as we need the basics and there are radio stations and cable channels that have name using the K/W??? format like WOLV (TV), WWOR WGN, W/TBS. Some of the Ion affiliates are just cable channels, too (not that I expect that they have an article) but indicates that just mentioning the network affiliate is enough. Basically, any encyclopedia including WP needs to cover the basics. It isn't here as a programming guide or recreation of the stations website's information. The basics are call letters/sign/name, that it is a TV station, virtual channel number, location/(market?), 1st year of broadcast, owner, current affiliations, previous call letters and whether or not it plexes (uses subchannels). So I prefer Dravecky's version the most then DreamMcQueen's. Not sure that the licensee holder is need as the FCC still treats ownership changes of the licensee corp. the same as a change in licensee. Spshu (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
On owner vs licensee, in radio Clear Channel Communications owns thousands of stations but thanks to mergers, swaps, and restructuring the license-holding corporations have more than a dozen different names, without consistency in any media market. (This is less of a problem on the TV side, obviously.) Often the license holder can stay the same while actual ownership changes. Listing both allows a reader to see both the legal entity holding the license and the probably more familiar corporate umbrella under which it rests. Dravecky (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I am out of the penalty box I intend to continue this dialogue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Spshu is suggesting that we stop mentioning city of license. Actually, the correct term may be "Community of license" as opposed to city. But any way you slice it, the FCC licenses these stations to a particular community and that community has to be mentioned first when the station IDs itself. We all know that WNET, for example, serves New York City. But the FCC assigned its channel to Newark. Technically it's incorrect to call WNET a New York City station according to the Commission. That is a whole 'nother argument in and of itself. But I agree with Spshu about the basics and not all of this extraneous clutter, especially in the opening paragraphs. And when it comes to networks, perhaps we need to reestablish just exactly who they are. In my opinion, Fox Kids, Kids' WB, and syndicated packages like PTEN and NTA Film Network should not be considered networks. Take it from there. DreamMcQueen (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: List of CBS television affiliates (table)

I'm not sure if you people welcome the removal of the DMA numbers from this article. This makes the affiliate listings inconsistent here. I am currently in edit war with the editor responsible. Please remember to indicate talkback on my talk page. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DMA listings are NOT allowed per an OTRS ticket. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
+1. Do not readd them FOPF, DreamMcQueen has it right. We're not allowed to use those rankings at all (see the archives for the many discussions about how we're not allowed to use them or face a Nielsen cease or desist. There are other issues between that user that you need to work out though, so I would suggest you take a break and let the admins sort things out. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Can some representative from the project begin stripping DMA numbers from the NBC and FOX tables and begin merging the two tables together? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of media markets and college football

Dealt with via a G12 template and a SNOW close over at AfD. Nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page has been explicitly using Nielsen's DMAs since before the takedown, apparently flying under the radar by not actually being part of WikiProject Television Stations, despite linking to its market templates. As such, I expect that the expertise of someone familiar with that situation will be greatly welcomed in this deletion discussion. Morgan Wick (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Morgan, you have a good argument for deletion for sure. No cites and arbitrary criteria, and copyright-violating information? It's a textbook AfD case for sure. Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KTSB-CA

Wondering if someone wants to take a crack at the best way to clear this up. The existing article represents the facility ID that the FCC reflects in their archival records as DKTSB-LP, channel 43 in Santa Barbara. I can't determine the reason that the license was cancelled/call sign deleted. Meanwhile, the station currently holding the KTSB-CA call sign is what was previously KTSB-LP's Santa Maria channel 35 translator, K35ER. Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

KTSB-LP went off the air on November 12, 2008, and its license automatically expired a year later when it did not return to the air. For whatever reason, Entravision's attorney sent a letter at this time requesting cancellation of the license (although it would have expired on November 13, 2009 whether or not they had done so, by statute). The original application for remain-silent authority, BLSTA-20081217ABB, states fairly clearly that the station was destroyed in a fire (as were several other stations located on Gibraltar Peak). Six months later, they filed for an extension of the STA, stating that they were planning to rebuild. Speculation: if they had been given more time, Entravision might perhaps have rebuilt that facility, but the Act gives the FCC no discretion whatsoever to extend licenses of stations that have remained silent for a year. Due to the large number of stations which were affected by the fires, it is very likely that they could not have arranged for site access and trained contractors to rebuild the station before the one-year deadline expired (at least not without spending more than the station was worth). Some of the transmitter buildings burned to the ground and would have had to be rebuilt before station construction could begin. 121a0012 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

HELP!

On List of CBS television affiliates (table), I slightly changed a sentence from "This list does not include other CBS Corporation-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with The CW Television Network", to this: "This list does not include other CBS Corporation-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with The CW Television Network; a list is available the article CBS Television Stations." Is this allowed per guidelines? Because User:DreamMcQueen has some issues with this and keeps reverting my edits. Please be advised of an edit war history.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 01:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't List of CBS television affiliates (table) be at List of CBS television affiliates? There's nothing that "(table)" appears to be disambiguating from that I can find. I'd just boldly move it but since it's under discussion, I thought it prudent to ask first. - Dravecky (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, wait, there's List of CBS television affiliates (by U.S. state). This just requires a dab page. Never mind. - Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fixed for the four major U.S. networks. It seems to me that these pages could be merged but unless and until they are, they need to be easily found by readers. (Done.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, are you guys gonna help me deal with this issue or not? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Recomendations

Hello, I came across a renaming request here and it got me thinking. Is there a preferred or recommended naming style for television "broadcasters" (as I might call them). (Remember I am viewing this from a North American perspective) Do we only use "(TV station)" for actual "over the air channels" aka something with "call letters like "CFCF-TV", and "(TV network)" for what is considered a network, a distributor of programming. I know the line gets blurry with sattelite/cable, and things like "Disney Channel", and others "Oprah Winfrey Network" that in my opinion are essentially the same type of "provider". Some recommendations would be helpful.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a case where the U.S. and Canadian regulatory frameworks are quite different. In the U.S., "cable" channels are completely unregulated, and anyone can start one and program whatever they want, so long as they rent the satellite capacity and bribe (or extort, as the case may be) the cable companies to carry the channel. In the Canadian system, cable channels are regulated in the same way as other "(digital) broadcast undertakings". (It wouldn't surprise me if they were even assigned call signs, although I've never seen any such thing in published sources.) I agree that the average consumer often does not make any distinction between the cable channels that carry local programming and those that are purely national services, particularly now that nearly all cable companies do local advertising. But it is still an important distinction, both to people who don't have cable/satellite and to regulators south of the International Boundary. 121a0012 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, besides the obvious political rantings, what are we suggesting?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
To what "obvious political rantings" do you refer? 121a0012 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
While interesting 121a0012's comments about regulation isn't too relevent here as we must decide using common usage for naming articles. Cable TV can be regulated by the state or their municipalities do to their granting of the franchise. Some requirement have been made in my state for public access channels by the franchising authority (but mostly my state has taken away most franchising authority from local government to low telephone companies to enter the market).
Having been involve with several discussion just over what a TV network is here, your question is very pertinent. A TV network is a group of affiliated stations that broadcast a scheduled programming slate. With cable, the local franchised cable company could fill the role of the "station". After all TV stations can now multiplex and have multiple channels over its broadcast bandwidth. The cable channel always has common scheduled programming since it is centrally programed. PAX/i/ION owns most of their TV stations and operated in a similar manner for those stations and other "owned and operated stations" are cable only. Some TV stations have Broadcast relay station are they thusly networks? They seem only to exist to extent their broadcast range, so perhaps not. NBC Nonstop has common programming but it cannot be confirmed that these programs are broadcast at the same time except for the three California stations that broadcast the same line up or does that mean that they are just in effect repeaters? Also, cable operators also have TV station's channels in their line ups, a superstation affiliate, or some times the national network satellite feed directly. Since trying to decide only between channel and network as a tag is difficult, perhaps having them taged with "cable". (I know they could be tagged IPTV or satellite or DBS, cable just is more available and more commonly used term.)Spshu (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Cable TV carriers are regulated by a Local Franchise Authority. Cable TV channels are entirely unregulated, with the exception of the "must-carry" requirement. 121a0012 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
NBC, CBS, CTV, CBC, FOX, ABC, Global, CityTv, and such are obvious "(TV Network)", WDIV, KTLA, CBEFT, KNOX, and such are obvious "(TV Station)". Now what do we do with Disney, OWN, Space, TvTropolis, Historia, and such. They are distributed through cable/sattelite/iptv only, some self described as network, some as channel, but never as station, are they "(TV network)" or "(TV channel)"?--MrBoire (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Education does not equal common sense., I think that 121a0012 might be suggesting that their might be assigned call signs for cable channels in Canada and thus usable for disamg.
  • 121a0012, yes, but connect the dots.
  • I think that Disney Channel, OWN, etc. since either could be used, those that self indentify as such as Oprah Winfrey Network solve themselves. Lifetime's full name is Lifetime Television although common refered to as Lifetime, so use the full name.

Channel definition

6. electronics a. a band of radio frequencies assigned for a particular purpose, esp the broadcasting of a television signal tv channel *noun a television station and its programs; "a satellite TV channel"; "surfing through the channels"; "they offer more than one hundred channels" Network Random House Dictionary 2. Radio and Television . a. a group of transmitting stations linked by wire or microwave relay so that the same program can be broadcast or telecast by all. Collins English Dictionary b. a company or organization that provides programs to be broadcast over these stations: She was hired by the network as program coordinator.

radio, television a group of broadcasting stations that all transmit the same programme simultaneously

  • Based on the definitions I am leaning towards using (TV channel) as that aboslutely applies (as the frequencies are allocated over a cable instead of the air).Spshu (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Needing clarification of the notability of television station subchannels

User:Spshu has determined on his own, with no consensus from this board or any other, that subchannels (ex: WHSV-DT2) are not notable. In most causes I would agree, but Spshu is claiming that all subchannels are non-notable, no matter their programming. I concede that networks like The Cool TV and MeTV should not have subchannel pages as they are just simulcasting those networks. But in the case of WHSV-DT2, a FOX affiliate in Virginia, it airs programming that is unique to just that station, along with newscasts and other local programming. In more and more areas, stations are adding subchannels with syndicated programs and local newscasts that are unique to that station alone. I am talking about ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW and MyNetworkTV affiliates, not MeTV or Antenna TV affiliates.

Spshu, again with zero consensus or discussion, has unilaterally decided all subchannels (no matter their programming) or non-notable, even edit-warring in some cases. The user has not come to us or any other board to establish consensus and is relying on old discussions of this board (dating from 2006 to 2009) to show his consensus, which there is none.

So, I would like to do Spshu's work for him and come to this board and ask...are subchannels that carrying unique programming (ie: syndicated programming, newscasts, local shows, sports seen only on that subchannel) like ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetworkTV affiliates notable? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

360 North airs coverage of the Alaska Legislature and the Alaska Supreme Court, historical media from the Alaska Film Archives, Alaska magazine and the University of Alaska Museum of the North (amongst others), original programming (perhaps most notably ANCSA at 40), national public television programs of particular interest to Alaskans, "and so much more!" I'd call it independently notable. Right now, the only mention I can find is in Template:Juneau TV, as its "flagship station" is actually a subchannel of KTOO-TV. The channel is centered around, but hardly limited to, Juneau. I believe it's also a subchannel of KUAC-TV and aired on a number of cable systems. KTOO-TV itself is independently notable, however the station's article currently redirects to AlaskaOne. To complicate things even further, there is an entirely different "Alaska network", with programming geared towards tourists, so many people get to see that instead of 360 North.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I gave notability and unref. notices for these articles for some one to establish notability. And we have been through this already, Neutralhomer. You have claimed that this has been discussed before when we deal with subchannels (Talk:WNEM-DT2) and they were and they went against keeping these articles but you shut down discussion there and failed to note the previous discussion that I request that you point to. You where taken to ANI for your warnings/bullying of other editors and where pointed to the below as proof that you were lying to every one (and doing my homework):

If you bother to look I had this discussion on my talk page with Strafidlo. It is you "running roughshod around the rules". Don't threaten any one again with blocking. Spshu (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If we come to a consensus about subchannel articles notability, that consensus would still have to follow WP:Notability#General notability guideline which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Therefore, if the subchannel article does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then that subchannel should not have an article. If there comes to be a consensus here that does not follow WP:Notability#General notability guideline, then that consensus is invalid per WP:Consensus#Level of consensus which says "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Powergate92Talk 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the notability question here. We're talking about secondary program services airing on stations that are presumably already notable. It seems like the real question is whether they deserve a separate article, which depends not on notability but on how much WP:V there is to be said about them, same as any other subtopic article split out from a larger parent. 121a0012 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability has to do with WP:V, 121a0012. So to have its own article, the subject must be notable. Spshu (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, for something to have an article on Misplaced Pages, it must be notable. For something to be notable on Misplaced Pages, it must meet WP:Verifiability. See also, WP:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence. Powergate92Talk 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this is about article notability, I think it would be better if this were discussed at WP:Notability/Noticeboard. Powergate92Talk 22:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Spshu, you were shut down at Talk:WNEM-DT2. The decision was no consensus. Let me repeat that again...no consensus. Yet you came back two months later and continued like you have consensus for this. You don't. You have "no consensus". If a TV station is notable, the TV station's subchannels (operating from the same signal as the original TV station) is also notable. You can't cherry pick your notability. But again, you have no consensus as demostrated at Talk:WNEM-DT2. Also, remember, consensus can change...and the posts you continue to link to are from 2006 to 2009. Not current, not consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Powergate, are you honestly saying you can't verify that these stations exist? I can, pretty easily. I can show that they are on-the-air, on a certain frequency, with unique programming, with a unique affiliation, with local newscasts exclusive to that channel. If you can't do that, then you need to take the blinders off and start looking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not that I'm saying I "can't verify that these stations exist", it is that we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for subchannels to have their own article. Powergate92Talk 02:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand what a subchannel is? It is a second (or third, etc.) channel on the main signal. It is independent of the main station. Let's say WXXX-TV (also called WXXX-DT1 on HD TVs) is an ABC affiliate, WXXX-DT2 is a CBS affiliate. WXXX-DT2 operates on the same signal (we'll say channel 2) as WXXX-TV. WXXX-TV is 2.1, WXXX-DT2 is 2.2. It is independent of the main station, but on the same signal. Stations like WXXX-DT2 have programming unique to that station (like say Ellen, Dr. Phil, etc.) and newscasts (some stations with FOX, CW, or MyNetworkTV affiliates have 10pm newscasts), plus local sports games are aired. Along with shows unique to that network. Get it now? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I know what a subchannel is. We have an article on digital subchannels that's gives a good explanation of what they are: "digital subchannels are a means to transmit more than one independent program at the same time from the same digital radio or digital television station on the same radio frequency channel." Therefore, a subchannel is still part of the same station. Weather it's independent of the main channel or not, does not matter when it come to having its own article. What does matter is if it meets the general notability guideline by having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If it does not meet the general notability guideline, then the info about it can be in the main station article, since it is part of the same station. Powergate92Talk 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That's where you are wrong, it does. We could put WXXX-DT2's information in WXXX-TV's article, but the information about WXXX-DT2 has nothing to do with WXXX-TV besides it is on it's frequency. WXXX-DT2 is a seperate callsign and a seperate station, hence the seperate article per MOS and naming conventions. Also, with the TV station itself (in this case WXXX-TV) having notability and WXXX-DT2 is an offshoot (a subchannel) of that main station (WXXX-TV), the subchannel enjoys that notability as well. Sorry, but you are wrong on all counts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
DT2 is not a seperate callsign. An example of this is the callsign WHSV-DT2 does not show in the FCC's TV station database, but the station's actual callsign WHSV-TV does. Therefore, WHSV-DT2 is not TV station, just WHSV-TV is, WHSV-DT2 is a subchannel of the TV station WHSV-TV. You can also look at WHSV-TV on RabbitEars and see that the subchannels are all part of the same station. Even if a subchannel were a seperate station, it could not have a article if it does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Powergate92Talk 05:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, duh, of course it isn't, because it is a subchannel of WHSV. But via PSIP, it is called WHSV-DT2, like are all subchannels (ie: WXXX-DT2, WXXX-DT3 and so on). That is the way subchannels work, else we wouldn't have subchannels. PSIP makes it possible. So, since it is on the main signal, WHSV, and the main signal is notable, the subchannel enjoys the same notability. Sorry, you lose again. Please, go somewhere else where you know what you are talking about cause you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about when it comes to TV stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) There would be no reason to have articles about a station's other program streams unless there was already sufficient WP:V content about them in the main article to justify splitting out. Just because you can cons up a unique article title for a subject it does not follow that there should be an article on that subject, even if it is associated with another subject that is in fact notable. If the secondary program streams were licensed as independent stations, they would have their own call signs and separate licensees; in that case there would be the same presumption of notability as applies for other licensed broadcasters (the regulatory authorities' public records being unquestionably WP:V). But the FCC has only ever talked about doing this -- it has never actually done so. (Not sure where other regulators stand on this.) 121a0012 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

@121a0012: Actually, if you look back in the history of the articles in question, there was, hence the new articles creation. There is always some information about the subchannels of the main signal in the main signal's article. In most cases, if a station has subchannels, there is a section for them in the article of the main station (example: WJLA-TV#Digital_television). There is also references in the infobox of the article, plus in the template for that particular television "market". We don't just create an article without adding information to the main station's article.
To be clear, there aren't any articles for subchannels of ThisTV, AntennaTV, MeTV, The Cool TV, or other "simulcaster" networks unless they are also affiliated with a larger network like FOX or CBS. An example of this would be WBBJ-DT3, which has a primary affiliation with CBS and a secondary affiliation with MeTV, while also carrying syndicated programming.
To also be clear, the articles that are created for subchannels are for subchannels affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW (to an extent), and MyNetworkTV. The reason we don't create subpages for all subchannels with CW affiliation is because they may carry CW Plus, which is the satellite version of The CW. Since it is a simulcaster network, it isn't notable. There is a reference to it in the main station article, but no subchannel article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Responding to an earlier point, each article has to pass WP:GNG on its own, since notability is not inherited. —Torchiest edits 00:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You can't cherry-pick notability. The subchannel is part of the main channel, if the main channel is notable (and it is per LOTS of consensus and WP:BROADCAST), then the subchannel enjoys the same notability. You can't pick and choose, else it could be said the main station isn't notable and that's a slippery slope. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That would imply that every show on every station in the world was notable. I don't think anyone actually believes that. 121a0012 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but we aren't talking about every station in the world (and even I don't believe that). We are talking about subchannels with unique programming for that subchannel (ie: CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, MyNetworkTV and some CW affiliations, plus subchannels with NBC Nonstop as they have unique programming as well). If one looks, we actually aren't talking about that many articles (because there aren't that many notable subchannels). These are particuarly in lower-level television markets.
But that is outside of the bigger picture and the 800 pound elephant in the room picture everyone is ignoring and hoping no one notices....that TV subchannels are a seperate entity of the main station, but operate on the main station's signal. The main station already enjoys inherent notability (it's established by consensus from AfDs and WP:BROADCAST) so the subchannel would also be notable since it operates on that main station's signal (ie: WXXX-DT2 is part of the signal of main station WXXX). We aren't talking about each and every subchannel network (ie: Antenna TV, MeTV, The Local Accuweather Channel, etc.) as having a page, or even all CW affiliations (as CW Plus is the satellite version of the network and a pure simulcast across different markets), this is only subchannels that have programming and affiliations that are unique to that station and that station alone, that broadcast market exclusive programming (ie: newscasts, syndicated programming, sports games, locally-produced shows, etc.).
To put it in a different way....it would be the same as the rules for radio stations (under WP:BROADCAST) that cover translator stations. Subchannels that carry Antenna TV, MeTV and the like would be the same as translator radio stations or stations that simulcast networks like K-LOVE with no local involvement. K-LOVE affiliate stations (or other networks like that) aren't notable if they don't have any local involvement, local programming. So, in TV, think of subchannels with MeTV as radio stations with K-LOVE programming. Think of subchannels with local involvement, local programming, market exclusive programming, like stations such as KIIS-FM in LA. Local programming, local involvement, it's notable. THAT is what I am getting at...which everyone seems to be ignoring like the 800 pound elephant. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)