Talk:List of CBS television affiliates (table)

	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.

RfC: Should there be a link to CBS Television Stations?

I have previously added a link to CBS Television Stations after 3) "This list does not include other CBS Corporation-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with the CW Television Network." User:DreamMcQueen said no to that and removed it shortly after I added it. Reason: redundancy. Can you please tell me if it should be on. Also, please note that the FOX and NBC lists still maintain such lists. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 01:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it makes no sense for a CBS owned station to also be considered "independent." I'd vote to include them here. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WCBS-TV

There is no reason to say "WCBS-TV is the only station built from the ground up and signed on by CBS" and explain that this is denoted in the chart with asterisks. That's redundant. One or the other is sufficient. JTRH (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was done only to keep it in line with the ABC and NBC tables. It is important to note that, considering all the other CBS O&Os past and present have been purchases. I personally don't have a problem with keeping it. DreamMcQueen (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be noted. I'm saying that it isn't necessary to have the full statement and the asterisks. JTRH (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The asterisk highlights it in a way the text does not. It makes it stand out, not redundant. DreamMcQueen (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it said "**Stations built from the ground up by CBS are highlighted by asterisks," and then there were asterisks, that wouldn't be redundant. If it said, "**WCBS-TV is the only station built...," that's not redundant. But to say, "**WCBS-TV...as denoted by asterisks," it says the same thing several times. You're explaining WCBS's status twice, and explaining twice that it's denoted by asterisks. JTRH (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I am proposing that the articles CBS 2, CBS 3, CBS 4, CBS 5, CBS 6, CBS 7, CBS 8 (disambiguation), CBS 9, CBS 10, CBS 11, CBS 12, and CBS 13 be merged into List of CBS television affiliates (table). This is to reduce the amount of disambiguation pages where there are many affiliates sharing the same channel number. In addition, the context can be explained better and will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Do you have any objections? J4lambert (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no reason to reduce the amount of disambiguation pages as they are supposed to be navigational aids not actual content. I can very well see someone searching for CBS 5, coming to the disambiguation page and easily find they’re local affiliate from the shorter table with only relevant entries. Stations missing from the large table should of course be added, which could be done using disambiguation pages and the disambiguation pages could have a link to this page, but a merger would probably just hinder navigation. Trialpears (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]