Talk:WCTX

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

Mention My Network TV, or not?

Untitled

Moved from User talk:Morgan Wick:

I can understand your point about listing the alternatives, but as I write this, WCTX is tentatively scheduled to become an independent station in September. The key phrase here is tentatively scheduled. Of course, that can change between now and then, but right now there is no affiliation deal between WCTX and My Network. So, any mention of My Network in the WCTX entry (or that of any other station still in play for My Network and/or CW) can and should be viewed as speculation. From what I've seen here, we're trying to keep that at a minimum when it comes to this topic. Rollosmokes 09:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this page was perfectly available and more likely to be seen by others, as I think this is a topic worthy of discussion with other interested parties. In fact, this is probably still too specific a place to have the conversation. (What happens if the issue here becomes moot?) Anyway, this is inconsistent with what is happening on other pages. On almost any other page in any market where one network has been decided and the other one isn't, there is mention of the network that hasn't been decided. The fact that a good portion of this is from me is irrelevent because almost all of that built on the work of other people. On WMLW-CA, for example, the article suggested that the subject of the article might purchase whatever Sinclair station didn't get the CW and move to that channel - without any sources. The article still said that when WCGV was announced for My Network TV, and to my knowledge, it still says that now (I haven't checked). I have actually, at times, been among those crusading to tone down the speculation, but not all speculation is off-limits, just unsourced and unfounded speculation. We would not have articles on future events if all speculation was banned.

I have a lot more to say about this, but to the specific point listed here, you refer to "station[s] in play for My Network and/or CW." That status is a fact, not speculation. My edit noted that this station may become a My Network TV affiliate, not that it will: that is speculative. My concern is not really about "listing alternatives" so much as presenting information accurately, and it really is unlikely that WCTX actually becomes an independent station in September. The old version makes it sound as if that's the plan. My first instinct upon reading this message was to remove the statement entirely in favor of one noting the end of UPN and an "unknown future," but now I'm going to use a slightly more NPOV rendition of the same thing I've been doing, using the words currently in the article. Feel free to reply back if you have any questions or concerns. Morgan Wick 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the perfect compromise sentence, without mentioning either CW or My Network:
"Though tentatively scheduled to revert to independent status (in fall 2006), K/Wxxx[-TV]'s future network affiliation is unknown."
I'll plug that in and see if it works. Rollosmokes 06:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the CW has already been determined in a market what we're really talking about is the distinction between becoming independent and MNTV. I'd remove the "revert to independent status" part and say, "K/Wxxx[-TV]'s future network affiliation or lack thereof is unknown." Too informal? Morgan Wick 06:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added this new version to this article, but not to other articles Rollosmokes has changed. Morgan Wick 06:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in light of LIN's recent group deal with the CW, including KNVA, whose affiliation went against all conventional wisdom and could only be explained by distrust of MNTV, I now think MNTV affiliation with WCTX (and WNDY and WXSP) is much less of a sure thing than it seemed when we had this discussion. Ironically, however, to put that in any articles would bring up speculation concerns, so it's staying here. Morgan Wick 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, never mind. Morgan Wick 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still connected with WTNH?

I watched the 12noon news on WTNH. Reporter Jodi Latina appeared on camera with black tape covering the MyTV9 portion of the dual logo on her jacket. What can this mean? Seven1672 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Seven1672[reply]

Channel 30 translator

Channel 59 was already on the air in New Haven as a translator of Channel 30 (then WHNB) when my family moved there in 1974. The 1980 sign-on date given in this and several other Connecticut TV articles is inaccurate. This can be verified by someone with access to the print archives of the New Haven Register - look at TV listings from the 1970's. JTRH (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake WWOR 9

It should be noted that the SOLE purpose of this station being called channel 9 was to get rid of WWOR 9 in the New Haven area and any part of CT outside of Fairfield County. It is part of a wider plan by MA, RI and any affiliates to 'capture' CT into Boston sphere of influence, since CT is not in metro Boston nor is a market for MA, RI or New England in general. WCTX, WTNH and LIN TV have succeeded in removing WWOR 9 from New Haven cable systems (not AT&T) in an effort to "New ENglandize" CT and bring it away from New York City, of whose metro region it is a part of. They are even pushing to stop NYC channels from being local in Fairfield County, with the petty argument that NYC news does not cover CT enough. To think that affiliates are going up against the flagship stations in their market, expecting them to lose one million people and possibly move down to the #2 largest TV market is insane. --50.189.112.187 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source any of this, or is this speculation on your part? 166.205.67.8 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in WCTX

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of WCTX's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "tvnc-nexstarspinoffs":

From WTNH: "Nexstar Selling 19 TVs In 15 Markets For $1.32B". TVNewsCheck. NewsCheckMedia. March 20, 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
From WZDX: "Nexstar Selling 19 TVs In 15 Markets For $1.32B". TVNewsCheck. NewsCheckMedia. March 20, 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]