Jump to content

Talk:KASN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name

[edit]

I have moved this article back to KASN from KASN-TV. Consensus on both WP:NC#Broadcasting and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Article_names is that the article name should reflect the actual call letters of the TV station. As can be seen here: [1] the call letters for this station are in fact KASN. Any concerns regarding this topic would be best addressed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations. —A 08:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning!

[edit]

At least two vandals (one with an IP address only, the other a registered user) have attempted to insert FALSE claims that KASN has been or is being sold to CBS Corporation. There is *NO* substantiation for these claims on either the Clear Channel or CBS Corporation websites, in FCC records for KASN, or on the websites of KASN or its sister station KLRT-TV whose news department would be likely report on such a sale. Any further attempts at vandalism will be reported to administrators. --RBBrittain 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Times Over

[edit]

Cartoonito is on channel 38 right now!

[edit]
  • I watched KASN just after 8:00 am it becoming arkansas' first preschool station, this is just so soft and just viewing, it's great!
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KASN. 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) 08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KASN. 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) 00:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2024

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Returning to RM an undiscussed move made by User:Mseingth2133444. Rationale as proposed is to reduce ambiguity between call sign and ICAO airport code (in the cases above, Talladega Municipal Airport, Portland International Airport). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force#FCC callsigns vs. ICAO codes for project-level discussion. Note: Though I am bringing this to RM to properly finish a bold-revert-discuss cycle, I am opposed; see below. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose When selecting a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a page title, we first must consider that a topic may have a secondary name and not be the primary topic for that specific name, and we also must consider that common-name topics (though not call sign–titled broadcast pages) should exhaust all means of natural disambiguation before resorting to awkwardness like this. WP:NCBC, the naming conventions for the instant TV stations, prescribes these existing titles as the correct titles. We have hundreds of cases where airport codes are handled in hatnotes, as these articles do, and I doubt for a variety of reasons (these being ICAO codes instead of the more commonly used three-letter IATA designations and, in most cases, the obscurity of the airport: e.g. KASN has 777 views in 30 days, Talladega Municipal Airport has 213) that either airport, or frankly any airport code, has primary topic priority over a broadcast station for which this is the only correct title. If I'm looking for Talladega's airport, either I'll type the name of the airport or I'll type the ICAO code and still be one click away from my target page while respecting that it's not the primary topic. If I'm looking in the press or other reliable sources, a mention of KPDX is far more likely to be about the TV station than the airport. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is to ping editors involved in the previous discussion: @Mlaffs, MrSchimpf, Mseingth2133444, and Mvcg66b3r:. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: keeping KPDX at its current state is like redirecting KSEA to an obscure radio station. Why not move KPDX under KPTV (FOX12) as it's branded as FOX12 Plus? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has to be under the FCC callsign. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me respond a little differently, first taking your comments.
Call sign–titled pages are unique in NCBC in that, in almost every case, the primary holder of the call sign is considered the primary topic. KSEA is not a good example because not only was the designation given to an airport, the call sign used by other stations in Seattle prior to winding up in Salinas. The disambiguation is there to resolve that as much as it is to provide the airport link, and with a hatnote or a dabpage, the airport is the same distance away for a reader: one click.
It would be utterly infeasible to mash KPTV and KPDX, with their separate histories (they were competitors for 18 years), into one article.
Since 1987, The Oregonian has put "KPDX" in an article about 1,021 times. Almost all of these are references to the TV station. There are only seven results in all that time that included KPDX and the word "airport", in all of which "KPDX" refers to the TV station. That's because references to the airport do use PDX, as early as the start of the period covered. For example, at PDX, unlike O'Hare... goes a 1987 travel feature. Searching NewsBank for "Talladega KASN" exclusively turns up TV schedules and sports-related items from the Little Rock TV market. This argument does not carry any weight. These ICAO airport codes are not common names for the airports represented. But the matching call signs are common and official names for the TV stations represented. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Airports are easily handled as hatnotes in the station articles, and neither airport is known as a WP:COMMONNAME under their airport codes with the K-prefix (Talladega especially; its major use is mainly for NASCAR teams and hospitality and not civilian flights, so it's not really in much of a local vernacular outside 'the airport' or 'airport by the track'). Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Restating my comments at the above-noted project-level discussion to keep it all in one place. For the general public (our audience here), the ICAO code is at best a tertiary identifier for the airport, after its name and the IATA code, whereas the call sign is the primary identifier for the broadcast facility (whether TV or radio). Anyone looking for KPDX or KASN is far more likely to be looking for the TV station than the airport. If the requested moves above were intended to place a disambiguation page at the base name, I could potentially see the logic and we have plenty of disambiguation pages like that, although a hatnote on the TV station covers it just fine where there are only two articles being disambiguated. But it would absolutely not be logical to make these moves in order to redirect the base names to the airport, as was done in the bold phase of this bold-revert-discuss. Mlaffs (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —Kusma (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KASN/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 11:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Reserving. Will try to review over the weekend, but there are no guarantees. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kusma: Responded to all your issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with changes. Thank you for explaining the Fox history, it makes a lot more sense with the knowledge of Fox being a small upstart not running a 24/7 program. —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: Figured I'd explain further: The major U.S. networks do not program 100% of the broadcast day (the Spanish networks aside)—network affiliates fill the rest of the time with independently distributed shows and local newscasts. But Fox programs less than ABC, CBS, or NBC. This was especially true for the years prior to 1993, when Fox did not offer prime time programs every night of the week. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]
  • Lead: I have very little knowledge of American TV (I lived in the US for two years, but did not own a TV). But I am confused by the "independent" / "Fox affiliate" stuff in the lead. The station was founded as independent, immediately affiliated with Fox but struggled to compete with the other independent station?
    • You just hit the nail on the head. This was the second-rated indie in the market behind KLRT.
  • KJTM-TV: Early years: is the construction permit for transmission facilities and/or studios?
    • Transmitter facilities, though at that time you also usually need to build your studios. It's "Go ahead, build your station."
  • so can you be independent and a Fox affiliate? I really struggle to understand what these words mean
    • This is a toughie, and I think a lot of modern readers would equally struggle here. Fox was a very new network in the late 1980s, and it only programmed a few nights a week. Fox stations were still considered independents into the early 90s. Even the network's owned-and-operated stations were members of the trade group for independent stations as late as 1992. In the period when KJTM was a Fox affiliate, the answer is yes. I've added a footnote to this effect.
  • KASN: Loss of Fox affiliation: shift by TVX to operating in markets larger than Little Rock did they own other stations? worth mentioning as background?
    • They did, but it's a long detour. TVX Broadcast Group is a GA (in fact, it's almost a Good Topic, but a prior discussion kind of closed off that path)
  • the Pine Bluff studio had been closed I don't think we've been told that there was a Pine Bluff studio
    • I'm hampered here by lack of Pine Bluff newspaper, but it's briefly mentioned in the Little Rock papers.
  • The two had been in discussions The two companies? The two managers?
    • Fixed.
  • channel 38's debts I don't quite follow: can the "channel" have debts independent of the station?
    • I was using it as metonymy, which is really common. Clarified.
  • UPN affiliation: KLRT–KASN's former Markham Street studios first time we hear about these. What is KLRT–KASN? It hasn't been mentioned before.
    • Fixed both of these by rewording "KLRT–KASN" to "KLRT and KASN" and adding a mention that Clear Channel consolidated operations into the Markham Street site which had belonged to KLRT since day one.
  • CW affiliation: Consider using {{Inflation/fn|US}} to support the inflation data with a citation.
    • Done.
  • otherwise two separate companies shouldn't this be "two otherwise separate companies"?
    • Yes
  • Shouldn't "channels" in the infobox link to Television channel frequencies instead of the near-dab Channel (broadcasting)?
    • Good suggestion — going to run this by a few people before making it, but that's a far better target.

General comments and GA criteria

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Images: logo is fine and relevant. Odd that there seems to be no image of the building the studio is in anywhere on Commons
    • Not too uncommon — I have bigger articles that need images too (e.g. WFTV).
  • Stable (debate about priority of airport codes seems to have been decided).
  • Scope (focus/broadness) seems about right. Perhaps the subchannels could be expanded slightly from the pure table. As seen above, a few points could be clarified. Do we know about competitors in more recent times?
    • The subchannels are all national services with little salience to get sections in this article. The closest "competitor" is KARZ, which is under the same roof.
  • MoS: looks OK. Lead section looks slightly short, but I don't have a great suggestion what to add.

Source spotchecks to follow. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Checking Special:PermanentLink/1214060475.[reply]

  • 16 ok
  • 18b ok
  • 26b ok
  • 42 ok
  • 59 ok

Source checks clear! Sources are reliable, nicely formatted, not plagiarised, everything fine here. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 20:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC). Note: at the time of this nomination, DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode. All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior nominations during this time will require two QPQs for every article nominated. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KASN; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

My first DYK review. Earwig flags no problems source checks out and fact seems interesting. New enough premoted to GA on March 16 and nominated on the 17th. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:KASN&oldid=1217096301"