Template talk:American broadcast television (English)

What to list here?

So since the proposal to delete the template was turned down we have some decisions to make. It was suggested that we move the defunct networks off of the template. It was also suggested that we remove the regional networks. So what is regional? The educational networks? The sports networks? Also how I understand it, this template is for Over The Air broadcasters. I'm trying to confirm if ALN is broadcast OTA. Someone just added BET. Can anyone confirm if this is OTA or just on cable? CKStark (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we establish a policy...

That if something is not a television network (television being primarily a visual medium), that regardless of whether it's occasionally broadcast using an ATSC subchannel, it shouldn't be listed here? Someone insists on repeatedly adding a list of religious radio stations on the grounds that some ATSC multiplexes carry the channels. Myself and others keep removing them, but obviously we're going to get into 3RR territory soon and it's going to be hard to prevent the template from looking ridiculous if we can't point at a consensus. 66.149.58.8 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. Some stations have been commenced simulcasting co-owned, in-market terrestrial radio stations on audio-only subchannels. A current example: After the Houston PBS and NPR station mergers, KUHT has relayed KUHF HD Radio channels and subcarrier program on its subchannels. On the commercial TV side, Liberman Broadcasting relayed their Dallas radio stations on the KMPX subchannels for a few years. I would not list the terrestrial radio (and Franken-FM) stations on this template; keep them in their local radio templates. But the community might have to revisit the issue if audio-only Diginets start appearing across the U.S. SirChan (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't respond to eight year-old topics. That IP is long gone and probably hasn't checked this page since August 2009. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Other" Section

The "Other" section is becoming large and unwieldy. It might be time to overhaul the list. I tried to add more categories, but another user complained about the template becoming too large. Sorting by ownership group is one way to reduce the size of the "Other" list. SirChan (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As I've argued before, we don't like to group by company because it's WP:PROMO against certain companies (and nobody outside the industry knows about Tribune and Weigel, and virtually no one knows Luken; they just see the networks the company brands as), and the template has no space restrictions on names. Nobody calls it just 'CW' alone. You've had three editors revert you on this, so at this point you need to build a consensus before you make further changes; until then the template should remain unchanged. Nate • (chatter) 05:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • These categories are too subjective and vague and prone to misclassification and arbitrary decisions. What does Major mean? Most people would definitely say Big 4, but The CW is there. What does Minor mean? Ion and MyNetworkTV have major national coverage on full-power stations, but what is AMG and Youtoo America doing there? Should they not be listed under Specialty instead? But that is a Fossilized category that should be renamed Diginets. Many Diginets do not fit in a neat "box", but cross-over into a few categories. Instead, I proposed and implemented something more objective and smaller with sorting by ownership/distributor. Mrschimpf presumptuously conflated their personal preferences (prefixed by the royal "We") with the comment: "We know networks by genre, not parent company." Nate's WP:PROMO argument would also invalidate many templates related to commercial broadcasting with the networks, affiliates, DMAs, etc. Despite concerns of "commercialization" (Ironically, the topic is about Commercial Television!) and (Dumb) consumer-orientism, sorting by distributor is also useful to the Public Interest in light of the current concerns stemming from Media Consolidation and "Fake News"/propaganda and presents this information in a transparent manner. If your opposition stems from an agenda that might be compromised with this transparency, it might be wise to disclose now! Does anybody else have another solution besides the status-quo/atrophy? SirChan (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• The template is fine as it is. It's not broken, so let's not screw with it. Making impassioned please with italics and boldface doesn't change that. Might be time to leave this alone and find other areas to edit in. oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand where you're coming from--it's natural for Humans to be averse to change. I noticed an improvement in clarity and size if listed by ownership/distributor. I wanted to share my observation that the diginets share a common thread through ownership rather than by genre. I only posted the overhauled version so everyone can see what this concept looks like. After the reversions, I even made modest improvements on the status quo with better labeling. (I suspect my modest edits are being reverted, which would have usually been accepted, due to ad hominem retaliation in this debate.) But the opposition's reasons center on keeping the status-quo (very flimsy reason due to the nature of Wikipedia) and fixation on not overcoming the psychological/marketing trick of branding (but ironically complain about WP:Promo). SirChan (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Some housekeeping

My Network TV isn't even considered a network anymore - it's a programming service. Ion is not a major network - it just carries reruns like the 97 other diginets out there Vjmlhds (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning The CW Plus & MyNetworkTV...

Now, it is well-known that The CW Plus & MyNetworkTV are both no longer considered TV networks, but rather TV broadcast syndication services. Fox Corp officially recognizes MyNetworkTV as such, and even the article itself for The CW Plus describes it as a "secondary national programming service feed of The CW ..... intended primarily for American television markets ranked #100 and above by Nielsen Media Research estimates". Essentially, The CW Plus is for The CW what The WB 100+ Station Group was for The WB. And, as far as I'm aware of, The WB 100+ Station Group was never considered a TV network itself either.

So, keeping that in mind...

Do either of them (The CW Plus & MyNetworkTV) really belong in this template, placed alongside their "parent" TV network?

I propose either of two options: 1) remove both from the template, since there isn't currently any kind of specialty category they fit into, or 2) create a "TV broadcast syndication" (or some wording along those lines) category to place both into. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The specific edit to The CW+ article changing it from a secondary feed to this 'syndication service' nonsense was made here by @Error302UserFound: with no consensus or any input from anyone else, nor any new sourcing to indicate itself. It's a 168-hour network feed, the same as Ion, MeTV, Start TV or any of the Scripps Networks, and undoubtedly nothing else has changed about it under Nexstar control outside its ownership. For a layperson it's a TV channel carrying a network of outside origination. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

All I know is, it sounds like The CW Plus is what replaced The WB 100+ Station Group when The CW replaced The WB & UPN, and The WB 100+ Station Group wasn't considered a TV network.

In fact, to quote from the article for The WB 100+ Station Group:

was a national programming service of The WB ... intended primarily for American television markets ranked #100 and above by Nielsen Media Research estimates. Operating from September 21, 1998 to September 17, 2006, The WB 100+ comprised an affiliate group that was initially made exclusively of individually branded cable television channels serving areas that lacked availability for a locally based WB broadcast affiliate and supplied a nationalized subfeed consisting of WB network and syndicated program; in the network's waning years, the WB 100+ group began maintaining primary affiliations on full-power and low-power stations in certain markets serviced by the feed. The WB 100+ Station Group was also essentially structured as a de facto national feed of The WB, and maintained a master schedule of syndicated and brokered programs for broadcast on all affiliates of the feed outside of time periods designated for The WB's prime time, daytime and Saturday morning programming.

Wasn't considered a TV network, because it wasn't operated like one. So, it doesn't belong alongside The WB in lists of defunct TV networks.

And, quoting from the article for The CW Plus:

The service is primarily carried on digital subchannels and multichannel subscription television providers, although it maintains primary affiliations on full-power and low-power stations in certain markets. Along with airing the network's prime time, Saturday morning and live sports programming, The CW Plus offers a master schedule of first-run, off-network and brokered programs available for syndication distribution to fill the network's dark time.

Again, technically, not considered a TV network, because it's not operated like one. So, it doesn't belong alongside The CW in lists of major TV networks.

Same argument for MyNetworkTV; it stopped being a TV network when Fox switched it to being a television syndication service in 2009. So, it doesn't belong alongside Fox in lists of major TV networks. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)