Talk:KTUU-TV

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Stations

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

"K-2"

Has anyone at all, anywhere, ever called it K-2? I've never heard the station referred to any other way than "KTUU" or "Channel 2". Google gives absolutely nothing to support the nickname's existence either, save for the article itself, and the station's website—and they don't even have "K-2" on the site, aside from references to K-2 Aviation, so I can't tell where the hit's coming from. --Zero Gravitas 07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea either. I changed it to KTUU("Channel 2"). —akghetto ^talk 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goes back to KTUU's origins when its call sign KTUU was said K-TUU (K-TOO) which was short lived but none the less, a part of Channel 2's history. They reitterate this almost every year at the christmas party when one of the owners from bellvue or the general manager tells us the story of KTUU's beginings. It is no longer referred to as "K2" and shouldn't be titled so.

Gray Television to merge with Raycom

https://www.raycommedia.com/gray-and-raycom-to-combine-in-a-3-6-billion-transaction/

An announcement has been made by Raycom and Gray that they are merging together on June 25th, 2018 and KTUU is one of the stations affected by this deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Former on-air staff

Dunno if anyone is paying attention over here, but does anyone possibly remember the name of the pseudo-creepy, Abe Vigoda-looking dude who preceded John Tracy as anchor back in the early 1980s?RadioKAOS (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on on-air staff

I only listen to the simulcast on KFQD when I can pick up the signal here in Fairbanks, which depends entirely on atmospheric conditions. Since I don't watch the newscasts and their website doesn't mention them, would Chef Al, Mr. Whitekeys and Marcus in the Morning be appropriate to mention under either current or former on-air staff, or is that section intended strictly for "news" personnel or similar? Just wondering.RadioKAOS (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still more (recent edits)

While still not getting answers to any of those questions, there were recent edits with the usual boilerplate edit summaries: "not notable," "trifling content," etc. Now I must ask another question yet again: are we confusing notability with celebrity? John Tracy, in over two decades at the station, legitimately put KTUU on the map as "The News Leader." After leaving the station, he became the architect of Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign. Sarah Palin was at the station perhaps long enough for two cups of coffee, if we're lucky. Put into that context, how could you possibly claim that Palin's tenure qualifies as "encyclopedic content" but Tracy's doesn't? There's also the realization that Abby Hancock the former beauty queen, and Abby Hancock the current news staff member at KTUU, were apparently supposed to exist on here as islands unto themselves. I took care of that, though.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of former staff should list only notable people. Not everyone is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't dispel the notability=celebrity argument. I'm not sure the Wikipedia community has a proper grasp of notability, especially given the popularity of the path-of-least-resistance (read: largely Google-based) approach to finding sources (if you actually get a good source, you got lucky). Witness the large number of community articles which are flooded with lists of modern-day C-list celebrities pawned off as "notable residents," often to the exclusion of actual notable residents.

Notice no mention in the article of Midnight Sun Broadcasting Company, The Lathrop Company (the station's original operator and parent company, respectively), or of Al Bramstedt (Sr. or Jr.). These persons and entities ran the station for its first 30 or so years. No mention of Zaser and Longston, either, who covered the next 30 or so years of the station's history. Plenty of mention of Schurz, however. They've owned the station for what, about a year? There's already too many media articles which abuse the notability of the titular subject to create another vehicle to glorify or promote a parent corporation. Also, whether it was intentional on your part or not, I'm always suspicious when a Wikipedia article winds up looking more and more like the subject's official website.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. I have no idea what you're talking about. You're speaking to me as if I've studied this topic or even care about it. B. That you're not sure that the Wikipedia-community grasps notability is a bunch of things, but for rhetorical purposes I'll stick with funny. C. "Notable" is notable by our standards, and for practical purposes it means "have an article." If your complaint (which I find difficult to parse) is that certain people should be mentioned in the article but aren't, feel free to add them with reliable sources, or write up their article. Happy days. You can talk all you will, but if you know shit that I don't, and you can back it up with reference to reliable sources, you should write it up, not me. I don't know this topic. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lessee here. I posted this to the talk page of an article, not to your talk page. I would hope that to mean that I'm discussing issues with the article, not with you. However, I'm not the one who removed referenced content from the article in the first place, which led to this discussion. Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree by trying to leave personalities out of this.

"Notable" is notable by our standards, and for practical purposes it means "have an article."

Over time, this has created a parallel universe sense of self-importance which may not necessarily have any bearing on real-world notability. I can think of several former newscasters in my hometown who qualify as independently notable. None of them have articles, even though one of them is a current member of our state legislature and is therefore automatically assumed to be notable. Several others formerly served in the legislature or as mayor (of a city for which a list of mayors article exists) or in other ways became media celebrities. Following your argument, these persons aren't notable because they don't have articles on Wikipedia. The reality is that in most cases, their careers were over years before there was such a thing as the World Wide Web. Therefore, the average schlub isn't going to know any better if they're entirely dependent upon Google to tell them such things, because your typical Google search is going to be focused on leading you towards current product, not proper historical perspective. As the article at present is a half-assed collection of random historical tidbits used as a coatrack to promote the current owners of the station, obviously it hasn't benefited from this approach.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a list of slogans and other unverified stuff from the article. Not "referenced content". How that would make this look like an official website is a mystery to me. I'll repeat myself one last time: I am talking about notability on Wikipedia. By our standards. The argument that these people lived before the WWW simply holds no water: sources don't have to be online. You can find your old newspapers and magazines in the library. Or, from the other perspective, we should write articles based on what you remember and can verify? That's not what encyclopedias should do. But it's clear that you are more interested in complaining on the talk page than contributing to the article--that's fine. But the claim that this article promotes the parent company is silly, very silly. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on KTUU-TV. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101220182447/http://nppa.org/about_us/honors_and_recognitions/station_of_year/ to http://www.nppa.org/about_us/honors_and_recognitions/station_of_year/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 09:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KTUU-TV. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

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) 22:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KTUU-TV. 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) 17:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]