Talk:CTV 2

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Dispute regarding the individual station articles

There is a minor edit dispute over content on several of the individual A-Channel stations (specifically, CFPL-TV, CKNX-TV, CHRO-TV, and CHWI-TV at present). 72.60.128.187 added the following text to the article for CKNX-TV:

"On July 12, 2006, CTV owner Bell Globemedia announced plans to purchase A-Channel owner CHUM Ltd. for $C1.7 Billion, with plans to divest itself of the A-Channel and Access Alberta stations." (similar text was added to the other articles)

Ardenn is reverting the edits, summarizing as follows:

"Why do we care? How is this relevant to this article?"

An additional comment from the ensuing discussion was:

"The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles."

I think it's relevant, but I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. So, the question is, should this information go in the individual articles, or just in the main A-Channel article? Your thoughts? --Ckatz 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information is relevent, IMO. While I do not believe it has happened with the A-Channel stations, the Citytv network pruned 300 jobs the day the sale was announced, devastating several local stations. A change in ownership, even if it still requires regulatory approval, is very important to a station, and therefore to this article. Resolute 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reverting the edits on this proposed sale because it has not yet gained regulatory approval is a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The sale has happened, the approval is not. This is relevent. Speculation about what the CRTC may do is not. Resolute 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, the information is relevant. However, without a reliable source, the information must not be included. Ardenn is right for all the wrong reasons Captainktainer * Talk 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No question about reliable sources - for starters, the CBC story used as a source for the same information in the A-Channel article. (Here's the code: ^[1] - I'll enter it on the respective pages later tonight [Tuesday PDT]) Thanks! --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must still disagree wholeheartedly over its inclusion per WP:NOT-crystal ball. Ardenn 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT doesn't apply here, in my opinion, because it's not saying that this deal with go through for sure, but rather that it's been proposed (and yet to be officially approved). Therefore, it is stating that "the deal has yet to be approved" rather than "the deal will go through," and thus wouldn't fall under the Crystal Ball ruling. -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a crystal ball situation. It would be crystal-ballism to make predictions about, say, the CRTC refusing the acquisition or imposing new conditions on it that aren't currently part of BGM's announced plans — but it's certainly not crystal balling to state that a proposed transaction has been proposed. The disputed text quite clearly sticks to the established facts and doesn't speculate, so I don't see what the problem is. Bearcat 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A likely change of ownership is certainly worth mentioning, particularly as its been heavily covered in the media. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bell Globemedia makes $1.7B bid for CHUM". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-07-12. Retrieved 2006-07-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Proposed split

Recently I split off the "former" Craig Media A-Channel into a new article located at A-Channel (1997-2005). While I previously unified the former NewNet and A-Channel articles when each rebranded last August, I no longer believe it's appropriate to discuss both in the same article. My rationale is that despite the identical brand name and current ownership, the current A-Channel is not a continuation of the original A-Channel, as it had a history (as NewNet) separate from that of the Craig A-Channel prior to 2005, is carried on a completely different set of stations and, for the most part, has different programming. Additionally, even though WP:NOT a crystal ball, given that the current A-Channel stations may change branding yet again (as a result of CTV's plans to sell the stations), maintaining a unified page may cause further confusion.

User:69.198.108.51, aka User:Musimax (formerly aka User:Cdn_boi), reverted my changes to the original article, asking for a discussion. I have temporarily reset the new (former A-Channel) article to a redirect to the original.

Notwithstanding the template, please note that in this case I believe a top-of-page disambiguation, not a separate dab page, is warranted at this time, since there are only two entities in question. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to splitting this, if there's a way to do that properly; a proper and legitimate split would not include using "(1997-2005)" in an article title. Better disambiguators might be "(historic)", "(original)" or "(Craig Media)". Years of existence should never be written directly into a title as a point of disambiguation, because they create too much complexity and make the article exceedingly difficult for a person to find if they don't already know the correct years. Bearcat 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a formal proposal, then: undisambiguated A-Channel becomes a brief dab page; old pre-2005 A-Channel goes to either A-Channel (former) or A-Channel (Craig Media); current A-Channel goes to either A-Channel (current) or A-Channel (CHUM Limited). But I do think stickguy is right that the split should happen; in hindsight I agree that we probably should have handled the changeover differently than this in the first place. Bearcat 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of having A-Channel (Craig Media) and A-Channel (CHUM Limited). I found it strange to find the former discussed on the same page as the former NewNet, when I clicked a link for NewNet. Dunro 06:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we should have two separate articles, possibly even branch NewNet off as its own article, but we should wait until Bell GlobeMedia/CTV eats A-Channel and CHUM, Ltd. Once CTV gives a definite decision on what they'll do with the extra stations, then we should act. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers to buy out A-Channel?

I was reading the paper today, and somehow they mention Rogers Communications buying A-Channel. Can someone confirm this? DanCBJMS via 134.117.168.246 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers was Originany going to Buy out A-channel But Ctv is The Offfical Owner But Rogers is Now buying out City tv Stations

RFC

Does every individual station in the A-Channel system need to contain WP:CRYSTAL speculation about the possible rebranding of the A-Channel system as "MuchTV" or "CHUM TV" in addition to inclusion in the primary A-Channel article? I don't believe so, but an anonymous editor persists in re-adding it. What say the rest of ye? Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It does violate WP:CRYSTAL. GreenJoe 20:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this only needs to be mentioned in the main article. Mind matrix 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that lasted long! Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

Colour me surprised that they wouldn't roll CKX-TV in too... Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CKX-TV already airs some A-Channel shows, and occasionally displays the logo during primetime. I'm surprised it includes ACCESS and especially ASN though. This seems to be a television network with an identity crisis... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A New Page

When A Becomes Offically Launched this Fall Is someone Going to Create a new Page For The A

to refelect the new Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.59.58 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing article will be moved to the new title and updated appropriately. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you know when the New title will be up and running

and the new page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.59.58 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a specific date. Sometime over the course of the summer, when there's enough properly sourced information about what "A" is actually going to look like. These things aren't actually planned out that far in advance; it'll happen whenever somebody decides to take on the project. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for letting me know

so you know liek the A-channel Craig media Page

will the Main A-Channel Page Hvae ith own page and The A will have it own or will they be merged into one. do over this summer CTVGlobemedia will give you more information

ps Check Out the A-Channle Prgramming Grid on wiki i was wondering if all those shows will be coming this fall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.59.58 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you know when the new page will be up and running for A and do you know when the station will be launched —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.181.154 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Channel Launch Date

A-Channel AND ASN WILL BE OFFICALLY CALLED "A" at 12:00mid night on AUGUST 11th,2008 on Monday (99.224.42.232 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A-News have it own General News page Simular to A-Channel Morning

Hello Bearcat or anyone can create a General Page simular to A-Channel Morning. also can A-NEWS have it own page

just like A-Channel Morning too

let me know

(Dongwong (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

In due time, lad, in due time. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have The A-Channel For Chum/CTVglobemedia to have it own page instead of being intergrated into A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.42.232 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebranding

Despite the claims, it seems A-Channel didn't re-brand today. We should not make any changes until it is officially seen on-air. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question have been stating a rollout time of 6 p.m., presumably on the suppertime newscasts, and at least in my time zone that's less than two hours away. So while you're right that we should wait and see, it's not worth getting into an edit war over in the meantime. Is there any way that everybody could just agree at this point to leave the article at one title or the other for now, and any changes that need to take place can happen this evening when we know for sure? Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this station been bought by the FOX Broadcasting Corporation? The new logo reminds me of FOX, with the searchlights on the sides.

Non-Canadian companies aren't allowed to own more than a 20 per cent minority share of a Canadian broadcasting company, so no. And while there is a superficial similarity to an old logo that FOX isn't using anymore, it bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to FOX's current logo — and the A logo is not so similar to any past or present Fox logo that it would justify this article containing speculation about a potential copyright infringement lawsuit. If and when there's a media report indicating that FOX is actually filing one, then this article will include that information at that time, but right now you're crystal-balling without a real source. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FOX emailed me and said they are going to look into the possibility of copyright infringement after I told them about the logo. 20th Century FOX still uses the searchlights on the sides of its logo, even though the FOX Television Network doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care what anybody said to you in an e-mail, because Wikipedia has no way to verify that any such e-mail exists. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wait till they get sued by FOX for copyright infringement. It sounds like you work for them anyways. Hopefully they'll wipe out your sorry ass station (including the parent company CrapTV) that just hijacks American networks to begin with. It's sad enough that they can't produce ALL of their own programming, and now they have to resort to copying other stations logos? Can they stoop any lower? Just pathetic all-around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no, I don't work for A. Secondly, you're not going to find a television network anywhere on this planet, outside of the United States, that produces all of its own programming and doesn't buy anything from another country — and you'd be pretty damn hard-pressed to find a network on which none of its foreign content is American, to boot. Even old venerable Auntie Beeb carries some American programming. And finally, you wanna know who A really ripped off with this logo? The original incarnation of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stations all over the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and China air all their own programming. Do you think state run media television in China will allow channels to hijack American programming, no way. Here, we're in the opposite boat, as we as TV consumers are left prisoners in our own homes when trying to watch NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX, which are often hijacked by the likes of CTV and Global, and we're given no choice as to what we really want to watch. That new logo doesn't look anything like the old one you posted. The new one has the searchlights on the side. What's next for A-Channel when they change their name again in 4 years, a logo in the shape of a peacock to rip off NBC's logo?

It looks far more like the current logo than Fox's does. Triangles up the side of the A and everything. Just because you've decided that they're searchlights doesn't make them searchlights; they're just bloody triangles. And nobody's "hijacking" American programming, either — they pay substantial acquisition fees for the broadcast rights. Wikipedia edits have to maintain a neutral point-of-view, and the verb "hijacking" isn't consistent with that. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they look like searchlights. Come on now. Anyone can see that. Why aren't the so-called triangles equally spaced... the empty space gets wider towards the top of the A. And hijacking is the term used in many digital TV forums when discussing what CTV, A-Channel and Global do. I'm not the one who brought this term to the forefront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Content on here has to be neutral, verifiable and properly sourced. And no, not "anyone" can see that triangles automatically look like searchlights, either, particularly triangles that are in the same colour and the same visual plane as the A.Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not the only one who has stated the new logo looks like it has searchlights. These Canadian stations are useless anyways, hopefully their hijacking license will be revoked soon.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk)

Canadian stations don't "hijack" other American stations. Please give the article simsub a look before calling the practise "hijacking".--Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about the simsub rule, and it is not working. A 50 percent Canadian content requirement during the hours 6 pm until midnight, with news and magazine serials being allowed to be a part of this quota, are you kidding me? Who does something 50 percent in life anyways to begin with? And the rule was put in place so that stations like CTV and Global could create a lot more of their own shows from the additional revenues - well, go check the top 30 shows, they are all still American! Stations like CTV and Global continue to pocket the huge profits from simsubs, or they invest in other media companies, like CTV buying TSN, or they use it to buy other content creations, like CTV outbidding the CBC for the Hockey Night in Canada theme. Is this what simsubbing was created for - I THINK NOT!!! Enough is enough, I'm tired of being a prisoner in my own home when trying to watch American networks, and since this debacle of a rule isn't working, IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One word: OTA, anyways is isn't a forum so this would be my last message here. --Emarsee ^{Talk • Contribs)} 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven words: I don't have access to OTA, as I'm out of range.

This is an encyclopedia entry, not a discussion forum. I'm not a fan of the relative lack of Canadian content on the commercial networks either, trust me, but this is not the place to get into a debate about the merits or non-merits of simultaneous substitution. Write a letter to the CRTC if you'd like, or start a discussion thread over on the Channel Canada forums if you're looking to have a debate about it, but Wikipedia is here to serve as a source of neutral, verifiable and reliably sourced factual content, not as a forum for airing personal grievances with CRTC policies. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cable-only?

A Atlantic is can be received on satellite as well. - techietim (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite is a type of cable. It's not traditional cable in the sense of being delivered through wires, but it really, truly is the same thing — it's just a different technological method of delivering the same service. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

"A (TV system)" seems very odd as a name, why not "A (TV network)" or "A (channel)", as system really does not make sense? -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, a TV System, not just one station - techietim (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to AxG, this particular sense of "system" is a uniquely Canadian term which is going to be unfamiliar to many non-Canadian editors. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System might not make sense to you, AxG, but it is the proper legal term in Canadian broadcasting for this type of thing. It's seven separate channels in different parts of the country, not just one, so "channel" isn't the appropriate term, but it's not a full-fledged network, either. Please see the article television system. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating "A" New Logo

What Wrong with the new logo from CTVmedia Site that has "A" Logos

(Dongwong (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nothing on that website even remotely implies that your version with the grey and white artifacts behind it is a more "official" version of the network's logo than the plain A-with-triangles. In fact, the logo version that's actually downloadable from the CTVglobemedia website you linked exactly matches the existing file, and has no grey and white markings behind it at all. We're under no obligation to give that image preferential status over the existing one just because the website looks like that, any more than we would be obligated to create a 3D animated version of the CTV logo just because CTV has network ID bumpers which feature TV stars treating the red C like a ball. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I've posted this dispute to WP:CWNB. The question is which of these two images — JPG format with patterns in the background which are meant to appear 3D or SVG format comprising only the A-with-triangles — is the more "official" representation of A's logo, that should be used here in our infobox?

Note that the user who uploaded the jpg image also attempted to circumvent this discussion by uploading an alternate version which erased the patterns, leaving the logo surrounded by whitespace, but keeping the image proportions the same — which had the effect of causing the infobox to display a very large halo of whitespace around a much smaller rendition of the logo. This despite the fact that the patterns he erased were the basis of his entire argument that we should be using that image instead of the SVG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the the SVG version of the logo should be used. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the svg version is the logo and the other is simply a design element using it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll just update the SVG and change the greys to black, since that seems like the colour they're using now - techietim (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG. logo is clearly the correct one to use. The image in the info box is to be used for a the exact logo of the channel, not a screen shot. musimax. (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Logo NewVR.gif

The image Image:Logo NewVR.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Laucnched at 6pm

A Launched at 6pm during their news hour and should be mentioned as technically before 6pm 'A' was A-Channel (72.1.206.186 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A Launch

I think that when the offical relaunch from A-Channel To A on August 11th,2008 it should be noted in the article to that the name offically took place yes on the same day but at 6:pm , during the relaunch of there newscast.

as technically A-Channel did not become A at strike at midnight but at 6:00pm

(99.224.112.64 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

With only very rare exceptions, the exact time of day that something happens is pure trivia that Wikipedia does not need in our articles. An example of where exact time is actually important would be the time that an airplane hits a building in a terrorist attack — the A rebranding isn't even within the same galaxy of importance as something like that. The date itself is all we need here. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion a New Title

I would like to consider a new name for A (TV System)

as A Television is considered a Small Network not a Television System

i Think the Page should be Name "A" Television Network

even tho you dont use the Quotations

i think the name change would be Clean and Crisp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongwong (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does a television service that only serves six-going-on-four markets across the entire country, doesn't have a CRTC network license, doesn't have a national newscast, doesn't have any non-owned affiliates and devotes about half of its schedule to CTV's hand-me-downs, fit the definition of a network rather than the definition of a television system? Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless it calls itself "A Television Network", it would be incorrect to capitalize "television network". See WP:NAME. I do not see the justification for this change, and as Bearcat has pointed out, it can only be made after getting a consensus here. Article moves lie this must not be made arbitrarily. Ground Zero | t 01:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) Bearcat has summed it up perfectly, A is not a network. The only system that comes close to being a network would be Citytv, which has a national newscast and is in most major markets. In conclusion, A is not and never has been a network. Not under CTV, not under CHUM. єmarsee • Speak up! 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Than why is all there press releases state it is a string of small network stations.

every newscaster at A consider's it a Television Network as that what CTV is building it as.

plus i think it still should be called either A television or A television (Secondary Network) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongwong (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CON єmarsee • Speak up! 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of all that is good, will you please just stop this. People revert you because your edits are not well thought out and are generally atrociously written. You never explain in an articulate way why this article should be located at a different title, and while other editors have been patiently, painstakingly and repeatedly pointing out why your proposed article names and other edits are not suitable, you proceed to ignore them and impose your will over them by making said changes, in defiance of the general consensus. We have been trying to assume good faith with you, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. This latest move to "A television has done you no favours around here.

Can we please at least disable the move function for this article? - Hinto (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked Bearcat to move protect this page. єmarsee • Speak up! 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied page-move protection for one week. Longer periods can be applied at a later date if the problem continues, but we can't apply permanent page protection right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a temporary protection was what I had in mind. - Hinto (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you before, Dongwong, Wikipedia requires independent sources. This article exists to be a neutral source of information about A, not an extension of the service's own marketing department, which means that CTVglobemedia's own press releases are not a suitable source for anything. It's not automatically a "network" just because that's the word CTVglobemedia uses to describe it — there's a very precise legal definition of what a network actually is, and at least in its current form, A doesn't meet it. If it expands to meet the proper legal definition of a network at a later date, then we can rename and revise the article at that time, but in the meantime we can't call it something it isn't just because CTV wants to call it something it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do editors on here that revert my stuff no so much

I was wondering how i could become a main Editor on here

I can see why not that many people use wiki as it not a reliable

The only person that is making it unreliable here is you. A is not a television network, never has been. єmarsee • Speak up! 19:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with you E

but sometimes Wiki can be Unreliable and some people dont trust us

Wikipedia doesn't claim to be perfect, but maximum reliability is maintained by following the rules on here, not by whinging about it when somebody calls you out on not following the rules. And just for the record, one becomes a "main" editor by actually building up a history of reliable, useful and valuable contributions. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so what Dongwong is saying . could rephrase the title if the A (TV system)

by calling it like what he said "A (television system)

even tho this person causes us trouble on here.

There's nothing wrong with proposing a rename for discussion. But that's not what you ("this person", pfffft) were doing — you arbitrarily moved it several times to illogical, objectively incorrect, unnecessarily complicated and/or misspelled names, and had to be ordered to come to the talk page to establish a consensus for your changes. And your name changes weren't based on expanding the abbreviation "TV" to "television", either; they were all about magically reclassifying it as a network. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stylization

The stations use the stylization 'A' when representing the network's name in text on their various webpages. Just because you can approximate their logo using ascii-art (/A\) does not make it a stylization. Can you show any use of that stylization by the stations themselves? -- Thinking of England (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be marginally fair, the slashed A is how CTVglobemedia refers to the system in its corporate press releases. Though obviously nobody else, or at least nobody else who's remotely sane, uses that. Agreed that it shouldn't be in the article. Though as you can probably see from past discussion here, the editor who insists on having it there — and who'll probably put it back in five, four, three, two — is someone who can induce migraines in sufficiently high doses. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. An IP user just pointed that out as well in the RfD for various redirects, pointing me to [CTV's website]. Hmmph. -- Thinking of England (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some odd reason, a report that aired today during a local newscast here used "/A\" in a L3. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'A' Logo

The 'A' Logo is the exact same one as the one used for Craig Systems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.112.64 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the same, but not quite. This shows the creativity at CTVgm doesn't it? єmarsee • Speak up! 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the same, no, but it is pretty similar. I pointed this out ages ago when somebody was making unsourced claims that they were about to get sued by Fox for copyright infringement... Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you.. I mean it looks the same but the difference is in color and the A is more bigger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.113.223 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CTV Corp

Perhaps someone could add in why A was moved from CTV Ltd to CTV Corp. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] єmarsee • Speak up! 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is that CTVglobemedia did an internal reorganization of its corporate structure, changing which division of the company was the formal licenseholder for various subsidiaries. It's really just a pro forma procedure that doesn't have any documentable impact on A's day-to-day operations; for our purposes, it's essentially just trivia. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'A' Barrie Confrims former 'A' stations to go HD on september the First

here is the proof if you dont believe me. plus in bell media press release the CTV Two network will launch offically when the stations go HD... so I havw two sources

for the video source go to time index 3:06 http://anewsvideo.ca/videos/426/monday-may-30,-2011-anews@6-webcast they confirm hd signal sTRTS SEPTEMBER THE FIRST.

SECOND SOURCE. http://adsalescdn.bellmedia.ca/Press%20Releases/Conventional/0530-CTVTwo.pdf

LET ME QUATE WHAT BELL MEDIA said and you can confirm it on the pr

The debut of the new identity is strategically scheduled to coincide with the launch of the network in High Definition,

this will back up my first source.

Thanks p.s meaning 'A's will never ben in HD just when they launch in HD on CTV TWo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.191.57 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the June 19th newscast on CFTO, where they mention CKVR's digital transmitter will launch on a Tuesday. You cannot simply assume that the network will launch on September 1. Bell does not give a definite date in their PR, and if they did, we could use that. As it stands right now, Fall 2011 is the only logical launch date from the sources we have here. As far as we know right now, the digital transmitters for CKVR are being installed, and they can come online at any moment, meaning an HD broadcast. This does NOT necessarily mean CTV2 will launch, as the station will have to undergo periods of testing. єmarsee • Speak up! 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have been hearing that ctv two could potentially launch between august 29- 31st  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.191.57 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTV Two Promo

Hi There. I thought I would share a source for the August 29 launch fate of CTV two.

I just found it on youtube from one of the media guys professional youtube channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/prckay?feature=mhee

I thought you might be interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.2.175 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTV Two Logo

Hi there.

I would love to upload the latest logo and logo indent that the CTV Two will offically use. can you help me out

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoTelevision (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one going to answer my question?

Thanks

CTV TWO Name

Can we call the site in the article yes CTV Two... but in the article Write Canadian Television Network Two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.2.175 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

butwhy.jpg. Seriously though, CTV doesn't stand for Canadian Television Network. There's not reason for it to be called that since there is only ONE CTV Two here, and just so happens to be the most common usage for it. █ EMARSEE 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks are we adjusting the Info as well as the CTV TWO will no longer be semi it would be become more national network.. according to PR.. with recahing 90% of Canadians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.2.175 (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTV Two isn't any more of a network than Citytv is. █ EMARSEE 05:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CTV Two. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 10:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CTV Two. 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:

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) 19:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on CTV Two. 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:

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) 14:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CTV Two. 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:

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) 23:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A logo

I was looking at bell media trade marks from govt of Canada. I came across a logo for /A\ that they seem to have retained but they have abandon the original /A\ that was used

Makes you wonder if they are gonna bring it back as the /A\ Network

https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/opic-cipo/mc-tm/rd-dr/?fn=1397514&ec=0&lang=eng&from=ctd 96.21.110.141 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[takeover-1] "Bell Globemedia makes $1.7B bid for CHUM". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-07-12. Retrieved 2006-07-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]