Talk:The CW/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The CW Television Network → The CW – Per WP:COMMONNAME Tate Brandley Stockwell 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The network's official name, and this article has always gone by this name, which would force a long process and also conflict with The Crimson White, which has The CW as their shorthand name, and is the reason this network is titled like this in the first place. I don't understand your reasons for these redirects; you ask for a rename of NBC because it doesn't fit your vague naming standards, and now you want this one to be shortened? Note The WB Television Network is also that network's official name and is basically a merger of UPN and WB with The WB being the most influential of the network; we go by their history. Also one more note; please follow WP:BEFORE before even contemplating a page move, which have not done in any of your PM noms so far, and take into account an article's entire history and incoming links. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too confusing to readers. Give them a break! Look at the DAB page CW; there are dozens of meanings. Noetica^Tea? 07:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (evidenced by the target of the The CW redirect) and WP:COMMONNAME (because why would anyone use the full name when the shorter one is clearer in any context relating to television?). Powers ^T 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, why is Eisenhower at Dwight D. Eisenhower? Better fix that, too. The shorter one is clearer in any context related to U.S. presidents/generals. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Human beings are almost always referred to by their full names in reliable sources before shortening to just surnames for subsequent references. The same is true of some business entities, but not all, and television networks are among those for which it is not true. Or do you also support moving NBC to National Broadcasting Company? Maybe you should peruse WP:OFFICIAL. Powers ^T 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you missed my point. I was making fun of your assertion that "the shorter one is clearer in any context relating to television". I for one watch television in the US and have never heard of The CW. I'm sure I have no problem with The CW once you tell me it's the shortened name of a televsion network, but for an article title it's way too ambiguous. The point of the Eisenhower example is to also show that it's normal for a an article that is PRIMARY topic for a ambiguous name like Eisenhower to be at a less ambiguous article title. It gives up nothing in terms of quick accessbility. If a user types in "The CW" or "Eisenhower", they get to an article with a big bold title that either confirms they got what they wanted, or not. Getting to an article with the same ambiguous name as what they typed wouldn't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But that's the point of contention, isn't it? I contend that The CW isn't ambiguous; if it was, it would redirect to CW. (And I apologize for my typo; I wrote "clearer" when I simply meant "clear". I meant that when an article states something like "Gilmore Girls is a ... television program that aired on The CW," it is clear that "The CW" is a television network. Note also that we would never write that it "... aired on The CW Television Network", which is what distinguishes this situation from the Eisenhower one.) Powers ^T 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Noetica and Nate (Mrschimpf). I would also not that this same user has moved the corresponding page in numerous other language Wikipedias without discussion and no evidence of actual knowledge of those other Wikipedias policies or even language. Not collaborative behavior. oknazevad (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. — Statυs (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and the fact that The CW already redirects here anyway. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would appear to caution against such a move:

Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Editors should also ask the questions outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

and " and the fact that The CW already redirects here anyway" seems normal per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for recognizability concerns.--New questions? 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mrschimpf, Noetica, Oknazevad and New Questions. Steam5 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be unnecessary because it already redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockcenter (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WKNC-TV

WKNC-TV is the only CW affiliate to have it's CW network on a digital subchannel- 46.8. It was originally affiliated with Nickelodeon before June 1st, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.115.5 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to The CW. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The CW Television Network → The CW (TV network) – This makes more sense. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• oppose Parentheticals should be avoided if a more natural disambiguation can be found. Here, using the full name of the network serves to clearly disambiguate without parentheticals. Using a parenthetical instead has only marginal benefit to piped linking and no benefit to search box use. No compelling reason to change a stable article. oknazevad (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Why? why does it make more sense? You haven't provided a reason -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to The CW as WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Red Slash 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A definite article is insufficient disambiguation from other entries at CW. oknazevad (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree. I looked and saw no other possible title anywhere near the notability of this network that would reasonably be called "The CW". Did you find one? (Note also that The CW already redirects here and has, without incident, since 2009 and even before; thoughts?) Red Slash 21:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The CW per Red Slash. The network is the established primary topic for the term anyway, and from a look over CW, the only items I see that would be referred to with the definite article are conventional wisdom (in colloquial usage, e.g., "the CW is that interest rates will start rising") and The Crimson White. "The CW" seems an unlikely search term, though, for the former, and the latter is too obscure by comparison. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 30 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) kennethaw88 • talk 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The CW → The CW Television Network – this move maked more sense, until its move to The CW in 2013, but now, this move make more sense as before. 186.119.62.234 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This corporate is known as "The CW Television Network" as needs to be moved back to its prior name in Wikipedia... 186.29.149.179 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Article is properly named as explained in the article proper about how this entity is most commonly known. Also note: both above IPs have the same geo location of the IP that in September 2014 was edit warring this move at that time and caused the destination to be move protected then. Also the previous two move discussions on this page have already hashed over the issues resulting in the article being at this location. No need to reopen this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that the short form of the name could be ambiguous, it is by far the most common name for the network, and likely the primary topic. Also the nominator has done nothing to argue in favor of a move. There literally is no argument presented for a move. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose – for all the reasons above. And totally unnecessary to boot. --IJBall (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as all above, especially WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The CW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927022003/http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6394674 to http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6394674
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080609113416/http://radiomatthew.com:80/posts/xetv-kswb-battle-for-fox-affiliation-in-san-diego/ to http://radiomatthew.com/posts/xetv-kswb-battle-for-fox-affiliation-in-san-diego/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The CW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927013236/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/18/3990396/channel-18-to-be-new-home-of-cw.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/18/3990396/channel-18-to-be-new-home-of-cw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The article shouldnt say its targeted to young women

The DC comics shows (flash, arrow, and legends of tomorrow) are totally targeted to males as is "so whose line is it anyway" and supernatural. That's five or four shows every week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.90.252 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The "women 18-34" is cited to three different sources, one of them being the network CEO. Recently the network made efforts to change its target demographic, which is mentioned and cited in the article. If you feel the demographic significantly changed, then use reliable sources to cite that information. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The CW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/news-articles/cw-staying-cw-says-moonves/79264
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-cwpremieredates,0,1559260.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tvguide.com/news/the-cw-outsources-12191/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205150040/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2000/mar00/news20321.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2000/mar00/news20321.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribune.com/investors/transcripts/thecw_06.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pappastv.com/pressdetail.php?id=108&prYr=2008
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7a4bac12-8df5-48e6-8f68-d8e355f50b95
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jakesdtvblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/breaking-waze-tv-translators-shut-down.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The CW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006115952/http://www.litton.tv/resources/CW-Network-Partners-with-Litton-Entertainment-on-New-Block-3.pdf to http://www.litton.tv/resources/CW-Network-Partners-with-Litton-Entertainment-on-New-Block-3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Shows that have been Renewed.

America's Next Top Model
Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll
Beauty and the Geek

All have not been officially renewed. Executive Producers are accepting applications for a new season however that still doesn't mean that the show has officially been renewed. Americas Next Top Model Cycle 1 was filmed completely even before the executives knew if UPN would pick up the show.

TheFutonCritic.com updates daily which shows have been renewed, I suggest we use this as a source.

Is the fact that "Beauty and the Geek" has been renewed really notable? 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Variety has just published that Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series), Masters of Illusion (TV series), and Penn & Teller: Fool Us have been renewed. Why are they not already listed as CW programming? Variety.com/2018/tv/news/cw-renews-whose-line-is-it-anyway-masters-of-illusion-penn-teller-fool-us-1202974044/ 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:3D49:8468:99B2:E3A8 (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The CW Has A BabyFirst Block?

Did you know that The CW has a BabyFirst block? It signs on at nighttime and signs off in daytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No. 2603:6080:A740:C00:DB5:BB04:8FB9:5BBF (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Protection?

I reverted SEVERAL edits that were not comfirmed or backed up by a source. 2603:6080:A700:1C39:803D:37AE:594F:1A82 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

CW, what mean?

CW, what mean? Comedy World? 135.0.44.102 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is CBS, and Warner. In 2006, UPN and The WB shut down and their parent companies (Time Warner, and CBS Corp) joined forces to created C: CBS, W:Warner. The CW. Anthony hello123 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. The name is the initial of the parent companies. Which is already explained in the last sentence of the first paragraph. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's right. I don't know HOW you don't know this, but C stands for CBS, which used to own UPN, and the W stands for Warner Bros, which owned The WB. 2603:6080:A740:C00:DB5:BB04:8FB9:5BBF (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Until today, I didn't even know the CW existed. 87.119.178.240 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't you have TV in 2006? The CW is not as popular as ABC, CBS or NBC, so it's understandable. 2603:6080:A700:1C39:803D:37AE:594F:1A82 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, technically, the "C" in CW stands for "CBS Corporation", while the "W" stands for "Warner Bros. Entertainment", as they are the network's parent companies. Apparently, someone by the name of @Chrome Boy: does understand that. They think the "C" stands for the network "CBS", which is untrue; it stands for "CBS Corporation", because CBS Corp & Warner Bros. were the ones who launched The CW as a replacement for both UPN & The WB. 2600:1700:C960:2270:8843:93B0:8C46:3FA8 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it's true! i literally provided a news source, everything! Other websites says so! Even CNN says so too! Chrome Boy (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)User:Chrome Boy

It wasn't CBS the TV network that jointly launched The CW with Warner Bros.; it was CBS Corporation, CBS's parent company, that jointly launched The CW with Warner Bros. And, if anything, the "CBS" that those news articles are referencing *is* CBS Corporation, *not* CBS. There's a *big* difference between the two. 2600:1700:C960:2270:8843:93B0:8C46:3FA8 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So, what's the matter, @Chrome Boy:, got no response to my statement? Plus, you talking about news sources that cite "CBS" (I take that to mean the TV network) as the parent company; what about the sources I cited saying that it's "CBS Corporation" (the parent company for the CBS TV network) & "Warner Bros. Entertainment" that launched The CW? It would seem that, if you reverted my changes to the article based on the information you have, it's only right for me to revert your changes to the article based on the information I have.

But, rather than setting off a whole revert war (and, honestly, I'm pretty sure that I would win in the end, based off publicly-available information), maybe put it to the Wikipedia community. I set up an RfC below; let's wait & see what the community consensus is, as far as how to refer to the "C" company that co-founded The CW.

Of course, honestly, after witnessing your behavior as it regards how the "C" company is referred to, I'm half-tempted to put forth the end-result stipulation for the RfC that, if the majority consensus sides with me in citing "CBS Corporation" as the "C" company that co-founded The CW alongside Warner Bros. Entertainment, the "W" company, then you are to be blocked from here on out from editing the article for The CW. But, I suppose I'll wait & see how things play out with the RfC. 2600:1700:C960:2270:9C11:6000:41A8:FC6D (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached that the "C" company in The CW refers to CBS Corporation. 2600:1700:C960:2270:94B3:BCF4:772B:549F (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the "C" company in The CW be referenced as "CBS" or "CBS Corporation"? 2600:1700:C960:2270:8843:93B0:8C46:3FA8 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• CBS. According to a New York Times article from January 24, 2021 (the date the creation of the network was announced), The new network - whose name, CW, is meant to be a combination of CBS and Warner - will commence operations on a new lineup of stations made up of the UPN group owned by CBS and those owned by the WB's station partner, Tribune Broadcasting.[1] Another article from the same date from NBC states: The new network gets its name from the first letters of its parent’s names — C for CBS and W for Warner Bros.[2] An article from CNN says: The "C" stands for CBS, the "W" is for Warner.[3] Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In response to the articles you cited:
  • 1) NBC News article actually states "CBS Corp" TWICE, before shortening the reference to "CBS", as the entity jointly launching & operating The CW with Warner Bros. And, the article even talks about UPN's parent company, which was CBS Corporation, NOT CBS, at the time. So, it seems like I caught you red-handed having not even read the actual article.
  • 2) CNN Money article initially states "CBS Corp" in first sentence of article, again, before shortening the reference to "CBS", as the entity jointly launching & operating The CW with Warner Bros. And, the CNN Money link when they reference "CBS" is actually to "ViacomCBS", which was partly "CBS Corporation" before the merger. So, again, I caught you red-handed having not even read the actual article.
  • So, I'll now ask this: would you now care to rescind/withdraw your vote for "CBS" as the "C" company in The CW?
  • And, before user Chrome Boy reverted my edit, I had sourced "CBS Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment Form New 5th Broadcast Network", "CBS Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment today announced their intent to form a new 5th network, The CW, to be launched in the fall of 2006.", "The CW, a joint venture between Warner Bros. Entertainment and CBS Corporation, broadcasts a six-night, 12-hour primetime lineup, Sunday through Friday.", "The CW, a joint venture between Warner Bros. Entertainment and CBS Corporation, broadcasts a six-night, 12-hour primetime lineup, Sunday through Friday.", CBS, Warner Bros. forming new TV network NBC News, & "As The CW Network is a joint venture between Warner Bros. Entertainment and CBS Corporation, we clarified data sharing practices among Warner, CBS, and their affiliates.", " The CW Network is a joint venture between Warner Bros. Entertainment and CBS Corporation (collectively "we" or "us")"
  • So, it is still my stance that the CBS reference in the Wikipedia article should be not to the CBS TV network (as they had no part in the joint launch or operation), but its parent company, CBS Corporation. 2600:1700:C960:2270:4D47:4C2A:77E1:C2C1 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I said what I said and I stand by it completely. Other editors can evaluate your arguments and provide their input accordingly. I will say that your hostile attitude is not helping your cause. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • OK, I apologize if my tone came off hostile, but my intent simply was to point out the fact that you did not actually read the articles you cited (from my perspective, it would appear you simply read the headline, then acted accordingly), or else you wouldn't have voted for "CBS" instead of "CBS Corporation".
      • And, honestly, you sticking by your stance, even after me pointing out contrary details in the articles themselves, will probably not, at least from my perspective, convince anyone to agree with you or sway them to your side. 2600:1700:C960:2270:4D47:4C2A:77E1:C2C1 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• CBS Corporation I lean towards 'CBS Corporation' as it is in the lede currently, which is the title of the NBC affiliate source and what it was called from 2005-2019 according to ViacomCBS. Fred (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I was about to even mention that the Wikipedia articles for both the CBS TV network AND CBS Corporation actually do mention that The CW was co-founded/-launched by Warner Bros. Entertainment and CBS Corporation, NOT the CBS TV network. 2600:1700:C960:2270:6178:8847:F69C:6B55 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• CBS Corporation, as it is a joint venture between corporations, not networks. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for knowing actual information about the network, unlike an editor who apparently doesn't know very much who misread articles talking about CBS Corp when they reference CBS & thought they were talking about the network. 2600:1700:C960:2270:D9DD:2409:8668:22C (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2022 (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.

Newscasts

KDKA has two newscasts on Pittsburgh CW. Considering those newscasts don't belong on the KDKA-TV page, shouldn't they be on this page under programing. Just a thought. I am me73 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the article be upgraded into B?

The article seems to have at this point more than 100 sources,which I think should be enough for it to become a B,although there are a few things that need to be ironed out I think the article can join the B category. Danubeball (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Acquisition not closed

Like the title says. It's been announced, but has not yet closed. The changes stating the network is not owned by Nexstar are wholly premature. oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Paramount stake

Sports Business Journal has stated that Paramount sold its stake in The CW last year, but I've been unable to find any other source for this. And given it's a sports journal and not a TV dedicated outlet, I don't think we should take it at its word without salt. A single source from a sports journal anyway is not enough for a definite proof or reliable enough to mention something as a fact in my opinion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean about "sports journal." I'm not sure why not exclusively covering TV means that its sourcing is somehow incorrect. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

He means that it's not their primary field of coverage. More importantly, there is no corroboration from other sources such as Variety or Deadline that specialize in media business as part of their coverage, let alone mainstream business press like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. Hell, both Paramount Global and Nexstar are publicly traded companies, and any major asset transaction would have to be disclosed. With no corroboration from any other source, the obvious conclusion is that the Sports Business Journal report is in error, and remove it from the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like deciding that the SBJ article is wrong is simply original research. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Assessing sources for correctness is not original research. Calling for additional corroborating sources is a normal part of the WP:V process. oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did a quick search on Google for "nexstar cw cbs" & "nexstar cw paramount", and I couldn't find ANY news article making ANY mention of Nexstar having acquired CBS/Paramount's 12.5% stake in The CW. So, that calls into question where SBJ got their information from. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if they were confused by Paramount ending the affiliations of the stations they own that once carried the network. That's the only thing I can find. Based on your and my own inability to find any corroborating story whatsoever, I'm removing the SBJ statement outright. If it does actually get confirmed at some point, it can be re-added. oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)