Talk:CTV 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: - I'll enter it on the respective pages later tonight [Tuesday PDT]) Thanks! --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

A

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)