Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 5 December 2006

Archives

1 2 3 4

• ]

Archival

I archived the talk page, which was 75 KB. I also copied code from my other project's talk page (talkheader and tocleft templates). TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I know: when we first had talk pages, they did not have all the templates. I spruced it up the last two times I archived it. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

PTEN

One question for all of you guys and gals: can the "Prime Time Entertainment Network", which was the blanket title for mid-1990s syndicated shows such as Kung Fu: The Legend Continues and They Came From Outer Space, be considered a "network" along the lines of UPN/WB/CW?

I say no. It was a syndication service in which the aforementioned programs (and a few others that may be best forgotten) were branded under. A new user, Spshu, believes that PTEN was a network, and has been adding this "fact" to the Chris-Craft Industries page and adding an affiliate listing (consisting of the Chris-Craft/United station group only) on the PTEN page, which I have deleted (with valid reason) several times. Let's settle this once and for all, if you care to. Rollosmokes 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Industry mews mentions of the day refer to PTEN as a weblet or ad-hoc network, which is the same way they referred to The WB and UPN when they launched, and no one is disputing their network status. Citations are listed in the PTEN article references, one of which can be read online here.

This is a mention from Broadcasting & Cable in March of this year about MyTV, but referring to PTEN as network - specifically, "The latter began in 1993 as a potential fifth network with two hours of programming per night, aimed at a consortium of 177 affiliates covering 93% of the U.S." Sounds like it's still considered a network, if a failed one, since the ChrisCraft pullout to form UPN with Paramount crippled it. TheRealFennShysa 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And They Came from Outer Space? There's no connection to PTEN with that - I'd never heard of the show, but a quick Google search shows it predates PTEN by a few years. TheRealFennShysa 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The name of the company was Prime Time Entertainment Network. If they called themselves a network, marketed themselves as a network, and B&C refers to them as a network... then they were a network, albeit one that no longer exists. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, I thought to agree with you, as the Chris Craft station in Phoenix (KUTP-TV) TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) never mentioned any Prime Time Entertainment Network, and it did seem like nothing more than a syndication service. Internet Movie Database lists them as a "distributor" . However, the more research I did, the more I came to the conclusion that they were, in fact, a network, albeit a short-lived one. They had their own spot on the Warner Bros. transponder and have been referred to as Warner Bros.' first attempt at a television network , so obviously, they were thought of at the time as a legitimate network. I'm going to have to side keeping the PTEN network notes and affiliates. dhett 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Also, for the record, IMDB also lists DuMont as "distributor". Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. Then, we can't trust IMDB, because DuMont WAS a big network for its time. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with this. PTEN was a distributor of programming. So, if it's now, all of the sudden, a network, then what do we call Operation Prime Time or, say, the Disney Afternoon or the Universal Pictures Debut Network? Rollosmokes 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PTEN is not "all of a sudden" a network. It was always a network, albeit one that didn't last. The difference between it and, say, something like Operation Prime Time, is that PTEN programming was regularly scheduled, and was generally run nationwide at the same time every night they programmed, except on secondary affiliates with another primary affiliation. OPT programming was limited to specials, made-for-TV movies, and other types of random programming that independent stations were generally free to air whenever they chose - there was never a set time that *all* the affiliates who ran Entertainment Tonight had to run the show. The Disney and Universal blocks were programmed similarly - stations were free to run them whenever they chose. TheRealFennShysa 03:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us get some facts straight I did not state that PTEN was a network. I just responsed to the request for affiliates on the PTEN talk page; others indicated that it was a network. Given Chris-Craft's (CC) partnership in the PTEN; CC's stations would be a logical start. Second, I indicated in the CC article that it was an attempt at a starting a network.

Reason for it being consider a network: 1) it branded its self a network - Prime Time Entertainment Network. 2) It complies with the definition: "A television network is a distribution network for television content whereby a central operation provides programming for many television stations." 3)It was an by all accounts an attempt to launch a new network as above sources and PTEN article sources indicated. Spshu 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional - 4) If you question PTEN's network status could force us to get more technical and reevaluated UPN, WB and the CW as TV Networks as I out line at My Talk page. And for that matters, PBS as they don't national set a programming schedule. Operation Prime Time, Action Pack and the like would fall into branded alternative programming. Stations most likely purchase them as a package deal and could show them at what ever time they wanted. Spshu 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ownership listings (Licensee + parent)

Since WP:TVS doesn't presently deal with this, a couple of questions about ownership info within Template:Infobox Broadcast:

• Should we bother to list a station's licensee, or just the ultimate parent company?
• If we should list the licensee, what format should we use?

I've always considered the identity of the specific licensee to be important - perhaps not of any direct use to the average reader, but potentially useful for legal or research purposes, and at least as useful as, say, transmitter power. The licensee need only be named in the Infobox, not the main text. But of course, as I am apt to forget myself at times, Misplaced Pages is not written for broadcast professionals but for the average person, and the average person couldn't care less about, say, WAGA License Inc. when all they need to know is that the parent company is News Corp.

If we agree on that, as to format... Habitually I've listed both the licensee and ultimate parent in the following format: (example would apply to WCBS-TV)

Owner: CBS Broadcasting Inc. (CBS)

The licensee can be easily verified via the FCC's TV Query. I would put CBS Broadcasting first because it is the company that directly owns the station. This is followed by a short-hand reference to the ultimate parent company, e.g. Disney or NewsCorp (or perhaps NewsCorp/FTSG ?).

The most common alternative format I've seen is this, which gives priority to the parent company:

Owner: CBS Corporation (CBS Broadcasting Inc.)

Again, this might be slightly less confusing to the average reader. Another potential alternative is separate "Owner / Parent company" lines, although in my view this would just cause more confusion.

Any thoughts? — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In station articles I've edited, I've been using the above format of Parent Owner/(Licensee). I think that format has worked for the most part, and would like to see it continue. Rollosmokes 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with giving priority to the parent company. Using Phoenix stations again as an example, it's more meaningful to the average user that KSAZ-TV is owned by Fox Television Stations Group, rather than KSAZ License, Inc., or that KPNX is owned by Gannett, rather than Multimedia Holdings Corporation. In each case, the latter is the actual licensee. dhett 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking it over I'm inclined to go the same way. I've just codified this change as an optional template parameter in the Infobox. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good articles?

Do we have any good articles around here? WP:PCP has about 15 plus two FAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

DuMont Television Network is a Good Article prepared by various WP:TVs members. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Misplaced Pages talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

WHYY-TV help requested!

There appear to be many issues with our Misplaced Pages article on WHYY-TV. The history related in the article does not closely resemble that of external links such as this or this. For example, our article states the station was founded in 1957. The external links say 1949-early 1950. Our article says the station was originally WYBE channel 35; the external links say it was originally WDEL channel 7/12. Our article makes no mention of commercial affiliations, while the external links do. Our article makes no mention of former call-signs WDEL, WPFH, or WVUE. This is rather confusing, and either our article needs a re-write, or there were two seperate stations in Delaware with the same call sign. Any ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, WHYY was originally on 35, then went to 12 when its original occupant went dark. WYBE commenced transmissions on 10 June 1990, according to the first link. You could also write a letter to WHYY: maybe they can help. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken links

In one month, TV-Ark will relaunch, and I'm thinking that links will change. We will have to get this done when it comes back online on Christmas Day. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot

I asked for a SuggestBot list yesterday, and I just got it today. I've trimmed it down to our project:

I was surprised at the results in the stub section: all of the stubbed station articles are from the same market; Jacksonville, Florida. I was stunned when I saw this. WTEV is the only one missing.Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. By what criteria does this bot select articles? I thought that each section you posted meant that that particular tag is on the article, but some articles have no tag, while others are tagged but didn't appear in this list. (The aforementioned WHYY-TV is a prime example.) dhett 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Off the query from July. Time to update SuggestBot, ForteTuba! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

I plan to send DuMont Television Network to Featured Article Candidacy soon. Before I do, I'd like to run it past the friendly folks here for improvements. Without getting too TV-station crufty, I wonder if more can't be added to this article to make it better. Suggestions? Edits? Ideas?Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing faith in this place...

I am beginning to feel that my time with Misplaced Pages may be coming to an end soon, because I don't find it fun anymore.

First, there was A Man in Black's anti-fair use image gallery purging campaign. Then, there is this newfound "notion" (courtesy of Spshu) that Prime Time Entertainment Network was a full-fledged "network". Now, David Levy and I are battling over proper use of grammar. On top of that, Marckd continues to use various IP addresses to make his point with WWOR-TV and WTXX. This is enough for me, and there's but only so much a person can take.

I began editing Misplaced Pages because I believed I could use my writing talents and knowledge of television and radio history to work in a welcome environment, though I stayed away from being a full-fleged part of the WP:TVS project. Now, it seems as though the "inmates" have taken control of the asylum. Where's the real consensus? Where's the real teamwork? Instead, I only see battles on editing style, article format, content, and those with an agenda they want to push trying to get their way.

Personally, I disagree with AMiB on the fair use gallery issue, as I believed the images were beneficial to articles if we don't get excessive with them. I disagree with Spshu that PTEN was a network because they (despite the name) they never labelled themselves as anything more than just a blanket title for syndicated programming, like Operation Prime Time. Now, months after I introduced the proper practice of substituting single-digit numerals with their written forms ("one" instead of "1"), David Levy tells me that the proper way is the wrong way here, as per Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.

So, with this, does it mean us professional writers have been wrong all along? If you believe Misplaced Pages and Mr. Levy, then I guess we have been. I called Mr. Levy a "kid" who knew nothing about how to write, and someone willing to throw out all reasoning in order to enforce his own will -- and I stick to those statements. He called my comments uncivil; to me they aren't as I refrained from vulgar language and stronger personal attacks. He again proved himself to be arrogant and pompous, and someone not worthy to be an administrator.

As far as Marckd goes, we have been battling for months over the content of WWOR-TV and WTXX. He insisted on adding redundant and trivial information, and on making unnecessary style changes. Now, he insists on adding a few words instead, but it still is redundant to me. I have tried to reason with him, but to no avail. And he is further able to make changes and escape credit for them by using various IP addresses (the most recent being "65.41.244.121") instead of his screenname.

I am trying to be a team player. At the same time, I wish to bring a level of credibility and a certain form of style to Misplaced Pages's television articles. But if my work isn't appreciated, there's no point in me staying. I will decide my future with Misplaced Pages within the next few days. Rollosmokes 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply by David Levy

Then, there is this newfound "notion" (courtesy of Spshu) that Prime Time Entertainment Network was a full-fledged "network".

It certainly wasn't a full-fledged network, but the same applies to MyNetworkTV.

I began editing Misplaced Pages because I believed I could use my writing talents and knowledge of television and radio history to work in a welcome environment, though I stayed away from being a full-fleged part of the WP:TVS project. Now, it seems as though the "inmates" have taken control of the asylum.

Because anyone who dares to challenge your wisdom must be crazy?

Where's the real consensus?

The consensus in favor of writing channel assignments in numerical format is obvious (given its use throughout Misplaced Pages), and the discussion that I read showed a clear preference for referring to PTEN as a network (and compelling evidence to back this assertion). You have decided to unilaterally overrule these decisions.

Instead, I only see battles on editing style, article format, content, and those with an agenda they want to push trying to get their way.

Yes, that's an accurate description of your behavior.

Now, months after I introduced the proper practice of substituting single-digit numerals with their written forms ("one" instead of "1"), David Levy tells me that the proper way is the wrong way here, as per Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.

1. You neglected to mention that this dispute applies strictly to television channel assignments (not to single-digit numbers in general). It is not "proper" to spell out TV channel numbers (for the reasons noted at User:Rollosmokes/Archive 3#Recent changes...).

2. I just became aware of this issue, but several other editors have attempted to restore the numerical format (at which point you immediately swooped in to revert). Your changes did not stand unchallenged for months.

So, with this, does it mean us professional writers have been wrong all along?

1. No, because professional writers do not commonly spell out generic references to television channel assignments.

2. You stated that "we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias." I then quoted several entries from the Encyclopædia Britannica (arguably the world's most prestigious printed encyclopedia) containing numerical references to single-digit television channel designations, and you've yet to address this fact.

3. You also claimed that it was "a load of crap" to argue that a single-digit number in a postal address should not be spelled out. You then cited the Penguin Handbook, evidently overlooking the portion of your quoted passage that clearly indicates that "most styles do not write out words in ... an address" and prescribes that we "use numerals instead" (at which point you silently dropped the issue and archived the discussion without replying). As I noted, we're dealing with channel addresses.

4. It's difficult to take your grammar lecture seriously when you profess expertise via the phrase "us professional writers."

I called Mr. Levy a "kid" who knew nothing about how to write, and someone willing to throw out all reasoning in order to enforce his own will -- and I stick to those statements. He called my comments uncivil; to me they aren't as I refrained from vulgar language and stronger personal attacks. He again proved himself to be arrogant and pompous, and someone not worthy to be an administrator.

1. I don't know why you believe that anyone who disagrees with you and refuses to defer to your "professional" judgment is "arrogant and pompous," but I again direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

2. As I've explained to you several times, I'm not acting in my capacity as an administrator. At no point in our dealings have I used any sysop tools. I haven't even reverted a page via the administrative rollback function.

I am trying to be a team player.

Which part of defying consensus and labeling controversial reversions "minor" (without providing an edit summary) fits the above description?

At the same time, I wish to bring a level of credibility and a certain form of style to Misplaced Pages's television articles.

You wish to own these articles, and you won't settle for anything less. —David Levy 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bluestone sale ()

Bluestone Television sold a bunch of outlets to one Bonten Media Group. We need changes in the articles listed (WCYB is already done), plus an article on Bonten Media. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of logo galleries

Just thought the community should know about this: administrator A Man In Black (talk · contribs) has been removing logo galleries containing (what he sites as) fair-use images from several station articles.

A list of cable network articles he's already handled: Disney Channel ROnald20 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit - Also handled: Spike TV, Fox Sports Net, ABC Family, ESPN on ABC, Toon Disney, CNN Headline News, CBC Newsworld, and Réseau de l'information. Ronald20 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) )

(Edit - I have archived the removed content here. Ronald20 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)