Template talk:American broadcast television Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:American_broadcast_television

WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by American television task force.
WikiProject Television (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.
Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I moved ION to major broadcast networks. ION although mostly if not all, UHF consists of full powered television stations located in almost all major TV markets. The "regional" or "specialty" networks are mostly class A and low power stations with a few full power stations thrown in. Furthermore since ION has revamped it's schedule it has routinely beaten MyNetworkTV in evening prime time ratings (especially "Mama's Family"). So if you include MyNetworkTV in major networks you have to include ION as well or remove MyNetworkTV to a minor specialty network.

Regarding latest edit[edit]

I thought this was too long to put in the edit summary line, so I'm putting it here instead. First, UPN and The WB are not merging; they're shutting down. The Tribune_Company is not going to have any stake in The CW beyond a 10-year affiliate agreement for its O&O stations. Second, I don't think we should shunt the two networks off onto the side while they still exist, which they will for a number of months. Third, I put them back in alphabetical order. Personally, I'm not sure we should even have anything in the template for The CW beyond the "planned launch" notation. That's the thing about Wikipedia: We can just leave UPN and The WB in the template until the day they actually shut down, and then yank them. --Aaron 02:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though the space is actually there, with the current font styling it looks like it says Planned launch in September 2006 following shutdown of UPNand The WB --Bix 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't make that latest edit (though I like it), but I have to admit that last line looks awful on the Mac; it's just too small. I'm not sure what would be the optimal way to fix it though.--Aaron 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Tube[edit]

I added The Tube to the broadcast television template since it's becoming more availiable in the country. Both Tribune and Sinclair will the network (which is 100% music videos) to some of their digital channels this summer. Nemalki 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning of "Major"?[edit]

Defunct networks[edit]

Since this template does not indicate that it only lists currently broadcasting networks, I am assuming UPN and The WB will continue to be listed after September (and if not, they should, IMO, otherwise the template wording should be changed to indicate it only lists current networks). If this is the case, we should also be listing the DuMont Television Network as it was a major network during the first decade of TV. 23skidoo 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smile of a Child[edit]

This appears to be digital-only, but I'm wondering where it should go, since it's nothing like Weather Plus or The Tube? I think I'll created a "Digital-only religious networks:" section. Any comments? --CFIF (talk to me) 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are they on broadcast TV somewhere? Lambertman 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Given the ratings, how long before we can consider moving this down to "specialty networks"? :) Lambertman 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My consideration is not so much the ratings but the long-term programming strategy. If this is only to be primarily 12 hours a week (two of which will be recycled content) — plus all of the content will be only one genre — I'd be for the move. But I'll also happily wait for others to weigh in on the issue. — ArkansasTraveler 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plus, they have much more clearance than i, A1, ecetera.... --CFIF 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CFIF has a point. Even if MNTV's ratings are incredibly low (and they are), they do have clearance in 95% of the country. Compare that to i's less than 70% or A1's clearance, which is much lower. In other words, MNTV could conceivably achieve fairly decent ratings, while smaller networks could not, not without suddenly gaining dozens of new affiliates. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An argument for demotion could be made in that their ratings are figured weekly and not included in lists such as this one [1]. Lambertman 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the key difference between MyNetwork and networks like CW is the type of programming, which is clearly specialty and does not resemble that of the major networks. Combined with the fact that their affiliate count is only somewhat higher than that of the i network (which is listed as "specialty") and its viewership is comparitively small compared to CW, I moved it. JMyrleFuller 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why I don't think Digital specialty nets should be separate[edit]

  • Digital doesn't mean "higher prestige", as more people know I than qubo.
  • Digital doesn't mean "lower prestige", as more people know NBC Weather plus than ImaginAsian.
  • Some areas get CW, My, and even the occasional Big Four net on a digital subchannel.
  • This template is very large and combining two categories with little apparent difference makes sense.

That's why I lumped them together and maintain they should return to that way. Lambertman 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. The difference is availability-- whether or not the network is available via analog broadcast or digital broadcast. Analog broadcast, at this point in time, is far easier for the average consumer to get, and cable providers have been reluctant to add most digital specialty subchannels thus far. Come 2009, this will of course change. JMyrleFuller 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Columbus Sports Network (CSN) shouldn't be on this Template[edit]

CSN is a Regional Sports Network, not a nationwide sports network —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inquiry for PAX TV[edit]

Thought it is mentioned in the Ion Network article, I think that PAX TV does deserve a mention in the "defunct networks" section of this template: It lasted several years and featured original programming.--Kevin586 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing and misplaced networks[edit]

First, The Tube Music Network and AZN Television have ceased operation, so I think they should be categorized under defunct networks.

Second, I think it might help the organization of the template if networks were grouped by language first, then by type. The page could be clearer if all the English-language networks were listed in categories such as major, specialty, religious, then all the Spanish stations were divided likewise, then put the defunct networks in a separate group.

Third, the specialty networks category should list PBS KIDS Sprout. TomStike (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major and other major?[edit]

That is incredibly confusing wording to have the two groups named major and other major. Either throw them all together and get rid of having two groups, or come up with something better than other major to name the 2nd group, would be my advice. (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Other general intrest networks seems awkward, but covers the idea. I'll be bold and make the change.oknazevad (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]