User:Rollosmokes/Archive 1

A welcome from Emersoni

Hello, Rollosmokes/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Enjoy your stay with Wikipedia!

-- Emersoni 21:20, January 20, 2006 (UTC)

On WOR-TV in the Philadelphia market (at least over-the-air)

In articles on WWOR-TV and WGTW, previous versions incorrectly mentioned efforts by the state of New Jersey to secure a full-power, commercial VHF license to provide adequate television service to the state. In those old versions, it had been written that these moves were made after WKBS-TV in Burlington, N.J. went off-the-air in late summer 1983, and that New Jersey was looking into having WOR-TV, which had its channel nine license already moved from New York City to Secaucus, move further south and closer to central New Jersey, in order to get the signal into the northern fringes of the Philadelphia market.

This would have been redundant and impossible for at least two reasons. First, WOR-TV was on central and southern New Jersey area cable systems already; and secondly, any move of channel nine further south would have caused: a) interference with next-door neighbor WCAU-TV (channel 10); and b) created short-spacing issues with channel nine in Washington, D.C., then known as WDVM-TV. Without going into the whole story, and the risk being incorrect with the details, WOR-TV's move to Secaucus was tied into the investigation of the station's then-owner, RKO General, and the move bought RKO time to sell the station, which they did in 1987.

WOR-TV/Philadelphia move-in portion of articles cleared up

Turns out, You are right. The senate did indeed at one time try to get the senate to extend the over-the-air signal of WOR, however, it turns out, it had nothing to do with WKBS going dark. Check out http://www.philly.com, and check the advanced archives. A Philadelphia Inquirer article from May 5, 1983 talks about the proposed signal extension. It was actually due to the station moving to New Jersey. As for the article I refer you to, you'll see some of it, which will give you an idea, as you can only see the entire thing via subscription. Thanks for helping me clear this up. John 08:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While knowing some of the history involving WOR-TV's move to New Jersey, I had never heard of such a request made by the state, so I wrote that off as speculation. I was unable to read the article portions on the link you provided, but I'll take your word for it. Rollosmokes 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. John 08:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Speculation on My Network and the CW

As I'm sure others have mentioned on their talk pages, we shouldn't speculate on which stations may or may not become affiliates of either network UNTIL there are deals officially announced. I've been scanning through various station pages and notice this "jumping-the-gun" form of speculation. While we can all play musical chairs with the stations and markets that are still in play for either network, let's keep that game private, and off of Wikipedia. From what I've seen in my brief time here, we deal with hard facts.

I'm writing this in hopes of ending a editing war regarding the WCTX entry, as one poster repeatedly writes that WCTX "will either become an independent station or become a My Network station" in September. As I write this, WCTX is going indie. Rollosmokes 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of My Network, I reverted back to the edit I had on the WPHL-TV page to reflect that the new branding will be "My 17" (as per the "My Network TV" affiliate stations) starting in September, or earlier. Fox's UPN affiliates are currently using the "My (channel number)" name as of right now. NoseNuggets 11:33 PM US EDT May 22 2006.

There are currently NO indications that Tribune will re-brand WPHL (or, for that matter, WATL or KTWB) in a manner similar to the Fox-owned UPN/MNTV outlets. To mention that WPHL will become "My17" is, at this time, speculative. So I edited that line again. Unless you can provide proof in the form of a link to an article or something, then it shouldn't be there. Rollosmokes 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WWOR-TV

You've cut out several edits to the WWOR-TV page by myself and several others without explanation. THis is very bad form. Blueboy96 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"This is bad form"? I looked at your last edit and it was full of run-on sentences and other stylistic errors. Not to mention a lot of information that was added on by you, in an effort to "make it easier to read" was stuff that really didn't belong. Some of the RKO General stuff you added can be found within the RKO General entry, so it shouldn't be included in WWOR-TV.

BTW, as I learned quite some time ago, being a New York station doesn't immediately ensure "flagship" status for a television network, especially if the station and the network aren't co-owned. So, on that basis alone, WWOR was a flagship station of UPN when Chris-Craft owned half of the network (1995-2000). For the last six years the real flagship station of UPN has been WPSG in Philadelphia, and WWOR has been an affiliate. The same will be said of WPIX when it joins CW in the fall.

I don't know wbout you, but I have several writing style guides at my disposal, and my revisions are both professional as well as Wikipedia-friendly. (On a related note, I will acknowledge that I was incorrect by writing childrens' when it should have been children's when discussing kids programming.) But I believe what I've written so far on Wikipedia has been very clear and accurate. I suggest you pick up a thesaurus and a copy of the Penguin Handbook for future reference. Rollosmokes 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BenH

I see that you left a message on his talk page to stop it with his sloppy edits. Don't bother. If you see his talk page, I tried to bargain with him myself, but nothing changed. I even left a message on the tv station wikiproject talk page about him. Let's face it, he doesn't listen to others. ErikNY 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy

Rollosmokes I'd like to ask you for some verification of vandalism by Blueboy96 when reporting him to Wikipedia administrators. He's been bottching the English on WXYZ for a week now after me and a few others spent some time actually researching. Wxyzdan 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)wxyzdanWxyzdan 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responce... That’s exactly the same problem. You go through some effort to expand the thing and now somebody comes out of the “blue” with poor grammar to take ownership. Not to mention with wrong and misleading details each time. Where was this participation when the article was nothing?

Anyway, on Bonds, I never paid much attention to what was going on at WABC but Bonds was gone from the second half of ’75 to sometime after April ’76. It wasn’t even a whole year. You can e-mail his contact person at Billbonds.net, they can probably give you info on his time in New York. - Wxyzdan

WGN-TV

Can you explain to me, not being an "insider", what it is that a-none is ranting about regarding the WGN logo vs. the WB logo or some such? He's obviously trying to make some kind of point, but what exactly is the point? It is not at all obvious to me and probably not to a lot of others as well. Wahkeenah 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. I still don't understand what point that other writer was trying to make, and its obscurity alone is sufficient reason to keep deleting it from the article whenever it turns up. :) Wahkeenah 11:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

United Paramount Network or UPN???

Yes, I know its only an acronym, but all acronyms have meant something at one time or another. In television, it seems that networks change their on-air identity from its full name to an acronym, and expect viewers to stop using the old full name just as the channel has. Examples: Game Show Network to GSN, Outdoor Life Network to OLN, Columbia Broadcasting System to CBS, and so-on and so-forth. For historical accuracy, there should be nothing wrong with mentioning the full name in an article, especially if the meaning is generally the same.

UPN stands for UNITED PARAMOUNT NETWORK. They stopped using the full name in 2000, after Chris-Craft sold its half back to Viacom. Does that mean we, as viewers, observers, and writers, should stop using the full name because CBS and UPN wants us to? I think not. You decide for yourself. Rollosmokes 04:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This sort of historical information belongs in the UPN article. Presently, it is factually incorrect to state that a station is an affiliate of the United Paramount Network, because that is not the entity's current name. It was officially changed to "UPN," which no longer stands for anything. Likewise, CBS has not stood for "Columbia Broadcasting System" since 1974.

As an aside, these are initialisms, not acronyms. —David Levy 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My Last Words on This Topic

Thus began a series of back-and-forth arguments which basically were about who's viewpoint was right and who's was wrong. David Levy is entitled to his opinion, with which I completely disagree. He will have you think that once a television network (or any other business entity, for that matter) replaces its full, original name with an acronym or initialism, then the original name should no longer be mentioned. Even for informative, historical purposes. My belief is that, no matter what, it should be okay to use the original full name along with the more commonly-used acronym, because the letters had to have meant something.

In the 2000 Spike Lee joint Bamboozled, Paul Mooney uttered a line what I thought was funny at the time, while his character was doing a stand-up routine: "UPN...U pick a nigger, any nigger you want." This was his interpretation of what the letters UPN stood for. Though he was making more of a reference to UPN's stable of urban comedies at the time, his message was clear to me.

MTV, VH1, ESPN, TBS, OLN, CBS, NBC, and on and on and on. All of these abbreviations came from some group of words. We don't throw away the words once the entity stops using them regularly. Doing so is extreme forward-thinking hypocrisy to me.

I have removed the long, exaggerated exchanges between David Levy and myself in regards to this topic. This, after all, is my talk page, not David Levy's self-serving soapbox that he uses to push his agenda and (in my opinion) abuse his administrative authority. He'll probably dislike that I've removed his comments, but so what? I'll be forward-thinking and I'll move on.

One more thing: UPN will always stand for UNITED PARAMOUNT NETWORK. Rollosmokes 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

June Meetup in New York

Hi, Rollo, I noticed you are characterized as a New Yorker or someone living in New York City so perhaps you might be in the NYC area in June. If you are interested we are having a meetup for Wikipedians in June in NYC. Take a peek at this and please tell any other Wikipedians that you think might be interested in participating about this event. Thanks. Alex756 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WCBS' main anchor

Hey Rollo, as one TV buff to another, you have any idea who was considered WCBS' main anchor(wo)man after Jim Jensen was pushed off the anchor desk in '94? I was getting ready to add a succession box to that article, but realized that WCBS' news division has been such a mess in the last decade that it's hard to tell. Blueboy96 05:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Field Communications

in the article Field Communications, I think there is a modification to do:

as Marshall Field IV commited suicide in 1965 at 49yo, I think that the sentence "In 1982, brothers Marshall Field IV and Frederick W. Field," should be replaced by "In 1982, brothers Marshall Field V and Frederick W. Field,"... don't you think?

Vegetarian75

67.8.26.41

I reverted your edits to the local Miami, Florida TV stations, using rollback, as User:67.8.26.41 edits were clearly not vandalism like you said in your edit summarries. Those TV stations do transmit to Key West. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fox Branding

It is obvious that the FOX network branding is spelled in all caps and not lower case letter. Even when you go to their websites such as FOX5 NY website you see it spelled in all caps on the About Us page. Also on air when they use teasers and program schedules they spell it in all caps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.111.196.212 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

1. Both of you need to stop referring to each other's edits as "vandalism." This is an honest content dispute.

2. Rollosmokes is correct. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).

—David Levy 18:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I was a tad hasty in labeling it as "vandalism". However, it's refreshing to see that Mr. Levy agrees with me on at least ONE topic.

Just because Fox uses all-uppercase letters in its logo, the name "Fox" itself comes from, as we all know, the 20th Century Fox Film Corp., which to my knowledge never used uppercase letters exclusively in any and all references. We shouldn't take these things so literally. Rollosmokes 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of "Network Flagships"

It seems as though we use the term "flagship" station all too loosely in television station articles. Usually, we automatically assume that a station located in New York City (the number-one television market) automatically achieves such status.

However, I learned on a non-Wikipedia message board some time ago that this is not always the case. Network flagship status can be reserved for the owned-and-operated station that is co-located with the network's main headquarters and/or master control operations. Using this theory, that would make WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, and WNBC-TV the only TRUE network flagships based in New York. On the other hand, Fox's television operations are based in Los Angeles, so KTTV can be referred to as that network's flagship. However, the News Corp. is HQ'd in New York City, so what does that say about WNYW? (Fox, for whatever reason, has ignored New York as a production center.) Currently, WPIX, WWOR-TV, and WPXN-TV are the largest-market stations of their respective networks (and calling "i" a network is a bit of a stretch here), but the MCOs of the WB, UPN, and i aren't based in NYC. WPIX and WWOR aren't even owned by their networks.

My Network TV sounds more like a programming service at this point, rather than a network. To me, this makes any reference to WWOR being the "flagship" of MNTV sound questionable. If the network is beamed out of L.A., then KCOP could also claim this title. But, really, we all use this term so loosely around here. Rollosmokes 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember, if a station is a network O&O in either NY, LA, or Chicago, then it is a flagship: for example NBC, WNBC is the East Coast Flagship, KNBC the West Coast, and WMAQ the Central Time Zone Flagship. And as for WPIX, it can be considered a WB O&O as that station's parent, the Tribune Company, owns a stake in the network, although this will end in September. As for CW flagship, WPSG (East Coast) and KBHK (West Coast) would be flagships if only O&O's are counted. By market size, the WB's 3 flagships (WPIX, KTLA, WGN) would be flagships. The unofficial current UPN CTZ flagship by ownership is KTXA, but they will become independent, so CBS will not own any CW affiliates in the Central (or even Mountain) Time Zones. I think I've made my point clear. CoolKatt number 99999 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, you choose to answer me, but you choose to ignore the conflict we are currently having.

Not only that, you're not making any sense here...in fact, you missed my whole point. As I said, a "flagship station" is co-located where programming and/or program feeds originate from. The Original Big Three broadcast out of New York; Fox and WB (and I think UPN, and possibly CW in the fall) from Los Angeles; and "i" comes from West Palm Beach. It has never been, nor should it ever be, based on time zones or market size. So, your notion that WMAQ-TV is the "Central Time Zone" flagship of NBC, and that WPSG and KBHK-TV will be the "East Coast flagship" and "West Coast flagship" stations of the CW, respectively (and everything else in your response), hold absolutely no weight with me. Rollosmokes 05:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I might start an article on TV flagships that addresses this question ... as I understand it, the assumption that a network's New York outlet is its flagship dates to the early days of television, when New York was a major production center and the New York stations originated a lot of programming. Ditto for why a network's LA station is usually considered the West Coast flagship.

I don't consider i to be a real network--it has no OTA stations in at least three major markets (including mine, Charlotte) and is only on a low-powered station in another (Cincy).

WPIX is owned by Tribune--part-owner of The WB (for a few more months anyway).Blueboy96 15:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy brings up a very good point about the early days of network tv, before the networks began offering various satellite feeds.

As I understand some of it, network feeds originated in New York and Los Angeles, with the New York portion serving the eastern half of the country and the Los Angeles portion covering the Pacific time zone. From what I recall (and I could be wrong about this), Mountain time zone stations would air the New York program feed on a two-hour delay, with Phoenix (from October to April) and Denver -- where there were no network O&Os back then -- being the main hubs. Arizona, which has never observed Daylight Savings time, would go with the Los Angeles feed for half of the year. Alaska and Hawaii would have their network programs recorded on the West Coast and then airmailed, where the programs (news being the exception) would air on a several-days-late tape delay.

I have pretty much dismissed all that CoolKatt number 99999 has had to say on pretty much anything. However, in this case he is (partially) right -- but his thinking is outdated. Rollosmokes 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I started an article on flagship stations--feel free to throw in anything I missed. Blueboy96 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WCAU

I was reverting this edit, left by CK. It should have told be that their was an edit conflit. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Help on WPSG

Hey Rollo, I know you're trying to help out ... was wondering how my edits to WPSG were sloppy. I thought I was bringing up some important facts--1) that WGLV probably wouldn't have survived since the Philly stations had all moved their transmitters to Roxborough and added the Lehigh Valley to their city-grade coverage and 2) another commercial station wouldn't sign on from the Lehigh Valley until WFMZ in 1976. Plus, WPSG isn't an affiliate, it's an O&O--thought there was a big difference.

Was hoping maybe you could give me some tips on how to make my edits less sloppy ... Blueboy96 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Group W

Thanks for the tips on the Group W article. I added in a more detailed explanation of the whole Westinghouse-CBS-NBC swap, but I was wondering why KUTV was even involved in the deal at all. KCNC-TV's involvement was obvious--NBC couldn't keep WCAU, KCNC, and the former Outlet Communications stations without going over the ownership limit ... but why KUTV? Haven't been able to find anything verifable on it. Blueboy96 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I really think the info on Westinghouse's eventual transformation into CBS Corporation should be in there ... it's similar to how Gulf and Western Industries morphed into Paramount Communications sometime earlier. Especially when you consider that Westinghouse was the nominal survivor of the merger, but ended up ditching all of its nonbroadcast interests. Blueboy96 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WVIT

Yes it can ... about the same time NBC bought channel 30, it bought WBUF-TV, channel 17 in Buffalo, New York. WNBC-TV (as NBC renamed channel 30) and WBUF were part of an NBC experiment to see if UHF could compete against VHF. Both of those stations struggled in the ratings, and when the FCC allocated additional VHF stations there, NBC realized it didn't have a chance. See the owned and operated station article for more info. Blueboy96 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)