Talk:The CW/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Water Closet... WTF?

"We couldn't call it the WC for obvious reasons," Moonves joked. That's the whole joke? If it weren't for the link, I would've never gotten it. To me, "WC" and "water closet" sound like terms that would only be heard alongside "telly," "gramophone," and "scones." Did the press people in the room get the reference? Either Leslie Moonves is too old, I'm too young, or unidentified international conspirators are at hand. --Crnk Mnky 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since water closet is a euphemism for toilet, I think that's what Moonves wanted to avoid. It may be an outdated term, but you still see bathrooms abbreviated WC on floorplans and architectural drawings. So while Moonves might have been joking, his logic is probably sound. 23skidoo 03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"water closet" is also integral in one of the biggest controversies in Tonight Show history, so TV people would know more about it than most. See Jack Parr Lambertman 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That is also very true, although the term today is probably suitable for Sesame Street. 23skidoo 03:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the reference isn't as unusual as I thought? I actually saw someone use "WC" on a msg board too just now. Whatever... -- Crnk Mnky 12:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Crnk Mnky - I'd never heard of WC or Water Closet before I'd clicked the link either.... And I still haven't heard it anywhere else. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New Shows?!

Seems like most of the fuss is about which UPN and WB shows will be included, and which will be dropped…but have they announced any new shows that are to premiere? Dtowng 14:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, nor is there any official schedule to tell us. That isn't to say there won't be any in the first season of The CW, but without a schedule, we have no info! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

I've seen a fair bit of unsourced material on Wikipedia regarding the transition from The WB and UPN to CW and now My Network TV. Most of it has been on station pages speculating as to what network they will end up with. PLEASE make sure to cite a source when you are adding material about fututre affiliations and always use the proper wording. "Kxxx has reported that they plan on being a (network name here) affiliate when the (current affiliation) network ceases to exist in September, 2006." rather than "Kxxx will be ..." until they flip the proverbial switch. It is better to leave off speculative information then having to remove it if it doesn't come to fruition. —A 08:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused.

I was under the impression that CBS already owned a television network, so how does the FCC feel about their owning half of another one?! Lee M 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No different than CBS owning UPN Mhking 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackdown

The reference to Smackdown likely being part of the CW's 2006-07 schedule could stand a little expanding, as last spring UPN announced that it would pretty much be dropping Smackdown after its contract with WWE ended at the end of 2006. Does this mean that a new contract has been signed that will see Smackdown continute, or as we looking at the wrestling show still running out its contract and disappearing after Christmas (or more likely moving to a cable network) as originally announced? 23skidoo 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know (then again, I don't watch). Considering that The CW is not 100% influenced on UPN (there is some WB in it, too), perhaps The CW will make differing statements than UPN alone did. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The contract for SD! on UPN would've run out in late September or early October, not after Christmas, so it's fairly apparent that CW's got a new deal worked out. It would be quite silly to bother picking up the show just to drop it weeks later. RandomNobody1234 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WEWB-TV

I know the station will probably be called "CW45" or "Capital District's CW" or something along the lines of that, but what about the call sign? Will it stay WEWB-TV, or will it get switched with the network launch? --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Many calls will most likely change (e.g. WUPA Atlanta, standing for UPN Atlanta; and there are plenty of others), given network and indvidual station branding. No one has announced any branding changes, and most likely will not before the network launch in September. Mhking 00:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say something similar (except ignoring the UPN factor entirely)! Yeah, expect something with "CW" in it to replace WEWB-TV on that station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that WEWB has to change its call sign. But it will definitely change the branding. It is up to the Tribune Company and the station.

Jonyyeh 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

They did change. They became WCWN a few days ago. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Email from WEWB-TV

This is a email I got after I asked Albany, NY WB station WEWB for information about what programs are going to be on The CW and how it will affect WEWB.

thank you for your interest in our station. WEWB will become Capital Region's CW affiliate this upcoming Fall. The new network's programming will consist of the best of the WB and UPN's shows. Gilmore Girls, Everwood, One Tree Hill, Supernatural, Smallville, Reba, America's Next Top Model, Everybody Hates Chris, WWE Smackdown, Girlfriends are some of the shows anticipated to be part of CW's lineup. However, more programming information will be revealed next month by the new network. With the new program additions, WEWB will grow even more and will become Capital Region's Ultimate Broadcast Destination for Young Fun, Laughs and Entertainment. Hope this helps. Regards, Your Friends at Capital Region's WB

I guess the shows listed will make the transition to The CW. However, I guess it is best to wait for confirmation from the network. No word on whether they are changing the call letters of the station. Jonyyeh 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) In response to the call letters changing, WBDC in Washington already has plans. WBDC, according to http://www.dcrtv.com/ will become WDCW to reflect the change to the new network.

The Mets on the CW???

i am an avid mets fan and i was wondering since the season dosent end till october and the CW is in september will it still be called Mets on WB-11 or Mets on CW-11 Metlover21 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This should really go on Talk:WPIX. Morgan Wick 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is going to be CW-11 according to the current baseball telecasts. Bmitchelf 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On the bubble

What does On the Bubble mean? A show's status is kind of unknown at this point?

Jonyyeh 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically. The ratings aren't good enough to make them sure things. Lambertman 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

With no sources and with the conference call saying that Veronica Mars will be lead into by Gilmore Girls, how can VM be on the bubble?

The ratings have eroded significantly since that announcement, so VM on CW is far from the "sure thing" it sounded like back then. Networks go back on their promises all the time. Lambertman 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please rewrite (or explain/link) "on the bubble" within the article. thanks :) --Quiddity 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't know what "on the bubble" meant, although I could guess, when I read the article. Someone add it please! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 19:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a very common term in television (or at least North American television). It should not have to be defined in the article; rather, someone should either create an article (if one doesn't already exist) or create a Wiktionary entry for it. Same goes for "water closet" since it's a well-known term for many people, but there are a few who "slipped through the cracks" and are unaware of it. "On the bubble" is a phrase that's as well-known and as well-used as "jumping the shark" but I know there are people who have no idea what that means, either. 23skidoo 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I learned what "jumping the shark" meant from wikipedia a few months ago, and I had never heard the term "on the bubble" before reading this article, so if anyone else would like to start an article/entry on it, I'd be all for it. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"On the bubble" means similar things in a number of contexts, the most famous of which is not TV, but the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament.

On the article itself, the entire "likely renewals" and "other candidates" sections arguably ignore the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I don't oppose listing the shows that may be up for renewal but haven't been confirmed, but to sort them on the basis of their chances of renewal is going a little too far. Morgan Wick 23:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is some editors continue to believe that the listing of shows announced back in january was a "confirmation" that those shows would indeed be on the new network - NBC guaranteed "Weakest Link" would be back for a second season, then it wasn't. I've put too much effort into keeping the "officially renewed" section factually correct; since it doesn't matter, I'm swearing off editing this article until May 18th. Until then, new readers, know that things may change. Lambertman 14:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The CW Television Network → CW Television Network – The article currently has the article "The" at the front, which we don't typically use when you take out the article and it is still obvious what you are talking about -- and not all uses of "The CW" will use the word "The" (like not every reference to another network, "The WB", uses the article -- and its article is entitled WB Television Network). Therefore, I think we should move the article to match. (Yes, I know we attempted a previous this move before, and it was kept as it is, but "The CW" wasn't as permanent a name in January as it is now. I'm putting it up for consensus again as there will definitely be some objections.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose The CW is part of the name. Jonyyeh 21:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The official name is The CW Television Network, and we shouldnt change it unless we hear different. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'll have to go against the consensus here. As long as our rules say "The" should not be used in the article title, and since WB Television Network has been at its "The"-less name for ages, I'll have to move this. Feel free to suggest a move to The CW Television Network afterwards, but only in tandem with a move of WB Television Network to The WB Television Network; we can't have different interpretations of the rules for two directly parallel names. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

VG Cats Tipe 2 (talk · contribs) moved it back to the version with "The". I have moved it back per our naming conventions. I apologize if I misread it. I agree with Nightstallon that any move to the "The"-d version should use requested moves and be associated with a similar move for WB Television Network. (VG Cats Tipe 2's move was done simply by using the move function and not by taking it to consensus.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You've understood the NC, as far as understand them. ;) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where will the CW Television Network broadcast?

Where will the CW Television Network originate the broadcast? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.93.180 (talk • contribs) 14:32, May 5, 2006 (UTC).

Huh? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you are talking about either, but if you're asking where the network will be headquatered from, the answer is Burbank, California. -Whomp 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If it helps answer the original question, most television networks send out a satellite feed from both New York City (for the East Coast side) and somewhere in the Los Angeles/Burbank area of California (for the West), then all the affiliated stations access that satellite feed and transfer it to their respective viewing areas. Chasektn 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. After over two weeks, the consensus is 6-1-1 (discounting the anon), so that is pretty much enough to move this page. -Whomp 16:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move, bring back "The"

CW Television Network → The CW Television Network – "The CW Television Network" is so far the official name of the upcoming network. It is commonly referred to as "The CW". "The" is as much a part of this name as it is a part of The Beatles, The Hague, and The New York Times. Recently, The CW Television Network was moved to CW Television Network, in opposition to consensus, in order to be consistent with WB Television Network, for which there has not yet been a consensus on the name. So I'm proposing both pages be moved for consistency. In support of this, I cite the Naming Conventions: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name." - See [1] and [2] for examples where "The" is capitalized (and even italicized) as part of the network name. DHowell 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, per DHowell. Never should have been moved, IMO. CFIF (talk to me) 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The Simpsons, The Long Tail, The Who, The Matrix, The Guardian. With all due respect, give me a break. Just because one article has it, dosen't mean this one should, too. -Whomp 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Make that strong support, as this is the way it is on their new website. -Whomp 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as with Talk:WB_Television_Network#Requested_move, etc.: "The" is extraneous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, as it now appears that the naming convention that was used to remove the "The" can apparently be used to bring it back. I think it's confusing me, so I'm now cool either way. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The question, as I understand it, is which version is the official name for the network? For both of these I don't know if it's possible to know for sure. However, one of the examples above comes from the WB itself, and one comes from a press release involving the network, so they may be evidence towards the capitalized version being official. Morgan Wick 02:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the network flash ident on TV doesn't have "The" on it always. 132.205.45.148 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, can you clarify on what you are talking about? -Whomp 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we shouldn't even count this one because it #1 Makes no sense, and #2 is from an IP and they should not be allowed to vote. --CFIF (talk to me) 11:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, as they say, it's more of a discussion then a vote, but I do agree with you. -Whomp 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Besides, as this network is not yet in operation, there are no "network flash idents" (and all proposed logos I have seen so far have the word "The" in them). DHowell 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Update: WJWB now has a proposed ID, and it has the word "The". DHowell 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support When linking to other pages it makes more sense to include the entire title--Dleav 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support 'CW' just plain sounds wrong with no preceding article. It seems very unlikely that 'The' would be left off. --Featherlane 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Title and copyright on http://www.cwtv.com/ say "The CW Television Network". If the network it self uses the "the" we sould use it to! --Cyzor 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support --(trogga) 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Nightstallion originally moved the page despite the only votes being against it because our article on the WB is WB Television Network. Potential WP:POINT violations aside, please read the comments on that article's talk page on a previous requested move, participate in a new RM there, and address all existing concerns. Methinks, though, we should have a single discussion area for both moves. Morgan Wick 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please note, I did propose that article's move within minutes of this one, and announced both proposed moves at the same time on WP:RM. Everyone should participate in that discussion as well as this one so we can attempt to have the same consensus at both places. DHowell 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's... pretty much what I just said. Morgan Wick 04:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note: there was no true consensus on Talk: WB Television Network, meaning some people either submitted contradictory votes or failed to vote at that discussion. Morgan Wick 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Official web site?

I don't see a link to an official web site for the new CW network. Is it safe to assume that there is none? If there is an official site, please put it up as soon as possible. --Desmond Hobson 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Google yields nothing. I don't think there is one yet, and there likely won't until sometime in the summer. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would hope there's one after the upfront presentation... Morgan Wick 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They may launch it after they announce their fall schedule. (Is that considered the upfront presentation, please advise.)--Dleav 22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answer, yes. At least as far as most viewers are concerned. Morgan Wick 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The website is http://www.cwtv.com --Dleav 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

7th Heaven Renewal

I moved 7th Heaven from "renewed" to "likely". The TV Week article [3] has not yet been confirmed by the network. MPWard 02:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thursday can't come soon enough

So that we can finally put an end to the "is renewed!/is not!" debates. Lambertman 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's very true. I just put up an OR tag on that section. Should I change it to a factual accuracy tag, or something? -Whomp 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd like to note here for posterity (since it should be reverted any second now) that User:Billcosby has just made an edit saying Pepper Dennis is a "Likely Renewal", and provided a footnote right after it which says, almost verbatim, "Pepper Dennis... is unlikely to return." That is how ridiculous this has gotten. Lambertman 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone once again moved "7th Heaven" up into the "confirmed renewal" section. Sigh. STOP IT! Tomorrow is the official announcement, and I don't care if some guy who works for TV Guide heard from the producer, or someone at TV Week is quoting sources, it is NOT CONFIRMED UNTIL THURSDAY. I didn't revert or edit it, though, as it's almost a moot point. MPWard 18:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Everwood still alive?

The following was originally posted in the "Flagship" section of this page, and is of particular interest to User:Maxamegalon2000, who reverted this user's edits:

I dont know where to post this but i tried to put up everwood as possible for renewable and it was taken off well i got it on this web site {http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_4604.asp} where it says With ratings up slightly over recent weeks, “Everwood” could return either at midseason or on Sundays, where neither network has a returning show. “‘Everwood’ has shown, at minimum, it would be a solid mid-season replacement especially with its on-target young women skew,” says a recent midseason report from Mediavest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.103.90 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 May 2006

You should have created a new heading for this. Michael Ausiello of TV Guide, however, says that Everwood is "dead." His post is linked to as the source for One Tree Hill's return. I haven't read your source, but it sounds like mere speculation, whereas Ausiello claims to have reliable sources. --Maxamegalon2000 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

New Logo

Can someone confirm where that image of the 'new' CW logo came from? The image cite is from Variety but I can't find it on news searches, please provide a link and list that in the source info for the logo. Nate 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also finding nothing to back it up. This may have to be reverted soon. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The new logo is accurate - it'll be everywhere at the upfront tomorrow. I've had a copy of it in my office for the last two weeks. TheRealFennShysa 14:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The new one is butt-ugly, IMO. Looks like a holdover from 1972. I much prefer the blue logo. Prediction: the green logo won't survive the summer. 23skidoo 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It would be wise for the staff to revert that NOW. Pacific Coast Highway ^{blah • my tracks} 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not the first person to note the 70s influence, but as to it changing again, don't count on it - everything for the fall is designed to work around this new logo. There's tons of stuff the public doesn't see already designed for the stations, and stations are already redesigning everything to match it. It's the logo. Deal. :) TheRealFennShysa 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Futon Critic has it up here now, in the afformentioned green. Somehow I could see them at least be able to change the color (sort of a compromise between WB Blue and UPN Red I'm guessing), but I think that a still image won't show it off that well at all, it seems designed for visual effects. Nate 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the question came up, the logo was less verifiable than it is now... I guess it can stay now. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

With that, should it be moved into the infobox yet, or should we wait until, say, tomorrow? -Whomp 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how affiliates are going to be able to work with it... didn't I read something saying the new logo would be more station-ID friendly than the original blue logo? Morgan Wick 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I got an email about that today -- here's a direct link to the image... Personally, I'm more comfortable with the dark blue logo -- looks more casual... The green logo looks too old-fashioned for such a network -- I apologize but that's just how I am!!! And if there was an online petition to keep the blue logo -- I would sign it multiple times, just to get the message across -- you know!!! --WIKISCRIPPS2K6 WED MAY 17 2006 9:27 PM EDT

I removed the three colons you added, Wikiscripps. I was trying to separate two different discussions, allowing the verifiability/add-to-infobox discussion to continue, above this one. It says a lot about this logo that someone could claim that the old logo was better, because that logo was seemingly always a placeholder - I couldn't really imagine an actual network using that logo, although a modified version of it was possible. First "CW" itself, then some of the really bizarre proposed replacement names, now this? Everyone in charge of creative branding at the CW needs to be fired pronto. On another note, that Futon Critic story seemingly puts an end to the "is renewed!/is not!" debates... or it could just add more fuel to the fire! Morgan Wick 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I comment on the new logo? I think it looks very retro, like from the 1980's or earlier. I'm not saying this is bad, it is actually cool. Who knows? Maybe the CW's promos will look very similar... CoolKatt number 99999 04:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to digress on this one, Skidoo. The blue one is too, too bland, and if you look at the tenative new logos for Lockwood Broadcasting stations WUPV and WHDF, you'll know why. They look rather sparse. Gatorman 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And now they changed it slightly again, the W now extends out at the end. Still the same design though. Nate 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a mistake, or someone pulled the wrong frame - everything at the upfront showed the new CW logo as shown in the new green logo - there are animated bars that come and go from all the spurs in the logo, though... it animates well and ties into a lot of graphic elements off those spurs, as shown in the animations and video now showing on the new CW website. TheRealFennShysa 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, I watched the video on cwtv.com (can I ask why they didn't go with thecw.tv? I know thecw.com was snapped up by a domain parker, but I've found respect for the .tv domain), and I really liked the animations they used with the logo, along with the newly-created typeface they use outside the plain font. It kind of reminds me of a combination of NBC's snake, the first Warner Bros.-Seven Arts logo, and CBS' old Special Presentation reel with the graphic styling, it's very cool. I just hope they can be more flexible with the colors than green (which might be a Michigan J. Frog tribute), mix in some color CW. I'll also be interested to see if the CW station logo styles go with the font or just have a Helvetica number thrown on the end like a majority of WB/UPN logos now. Nate 06:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding my comments on the logo, it seems to work for the campaign they staked out for it (from viewing the video on its website). And anyway, when I first saw the first logos for Cartoon Network or the WB, I didn't think they would work, but they turned out to be rather successful logos. Of course, UPN's original logo looked horrible to me as well, and it turned out that it worked in no environment. SterlingNorth 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that this may turn out to be a good design, if used right; most of the WB station logos I've seen look very, very good, but you're right about the UPN shapes logo (both the Y/B/R and silver versions) just being hideous, especially when a lower-market affiliate didn't have much money to design around the logo. The circle logo after CBS took over was well-designed but too plain. Nate 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least one station has already introduced a CW based affiliate logo -- WJWB.SterlingNorth 08:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WKCF has as well. It's on its web site. Morgan Wick 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WUPA as well.--Dleav 02:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

KFBT has one in the WUPA mold, but that seems to be more useful for determining how it'll brand than anything else. Morgan Wick 07:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like WUPA's the best. I like how there is no number. I hope WPIX has one like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus215 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 2 June 2006

Can't agree with you there, especially regarding WPIX. The only reason it has no channel number is because the channel is outrageously high. WPIX is on VHF, so chances are it'll be known as CW 11. Morgan Wick 05:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Name when revering to The CW

I think there should be a consisted name when revering/linking to The CW article. Now one of the following variations is used; "The CW Television Network", "The CW Network", "CW Television Network", "CW Network" or "The CW". I think the displaying name should be "The CW" like "The WB". Cyzor 13:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut the chaff!

Do we REALLY need all these links to various articles (and some things that aren't articles)? Wikipedia is not a place for every single thing ever written about the CW. Morgan Wick 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm gutting the whole section. -Tracker 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's going a bit far, I think. Some of these may be in place because they were used as sources in the article. Some may previously have been sources but are covered with other sources or are now "common knowledge" (we don't need links to things that are coverage of the original announcement and nothing more, for example, or to articles that announced the fall lineup and did not include quotes cited in the article). Some are just linkspam. The first category should probably stay. Morgan Wick 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have kept a few (mostly the ones on the motive for the net's creation), but in a bibliography/endnote format, like the other more encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia (meaning the titles should have been formatted in ALA or whatever bibliographic format Wikipedia has chosen). But there was dozens upon dozens, and many are now superfluous to the content of the article. SterlingNorth 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Half & Half to replace All of Us???

Though All of Us was presented to be on the 2006-2007 CW primetime lineup rumors of a possible cancellation are circulating around. All of Us could possibly be cancelled to make room for stronger rated series Half & Half.

This was found on the All of Us wiki page.. should this go toward the notes on fall lineup or what? Well it is just a rumor though. AznXbiker 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The same debate was put up over 7th Heaven, Veronica Mars, and One Tree Hill being renewed over Everwood...It all comes down to opinion.--Dleav 03:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Sunday

I can't believe I missed the announcement about the Big Sunday repeat block, thanks for putting in the info Morgan. I read so many CW articles after the upfronts and they didn't mention anything about what would be on, except that one article! Looks like I'm having crow for dinner :-p. Nate 10:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tribune's flagship station WGN-TV

I've undone what appears to be a revert with an erroneous reason. WGN (AM) and WGN-TV (whose callsign stands for "World's Greatest Newspaper") have always been the flagship station for Tribune Company; this has been widely known for generations, and I've never heard of anyone else in broadcasting disputing this. Normally this would be a minor edit; but, to avoid problems with poorly-considered reverts and edit summaries I've taken the time to make my information is correct: a simple Google search for tribune flagship turns up the following in the first page:

• Broadcasting & Cable magazine: "Tribune's Chief is Second to None" contains the phrase "Tribune's flagship WGN-TV".
• Broadcasting & Cable magazine: "Playing for Keeps" on 2004-08-09:

"Tribune Co. needs waivers to preserve combos in Los Angeles and New York that were established when it bought Times-Mirror in 2000. A previous Tribune combo in Hartford, Conn., must also obtain waivers. Tribune's flagship combination in Chicago — the Chicago Tribune, WGN(TV) and WGN(AM) — is grandfathered."

• Broadcast Engineering: "New newsrooms require more than new equipment" from 2000-09-01 refers to "Tribune's flagship station, WGN-TV, Chicago"
• There is one article that is ambigious. Chris Drury at the TVB's "Research '98" Conference, 1998-09-14: "we are a Tribune flagship station and that we are the number one WB affiliate in the country" (emphasis mine). He works at WPIX though.
• Tribune's own history page notes that WGN (AM) was started in 1924, and "Tribune entered the infant television industry in 1948, when it established WGN-TV in Chicago, followed by WPIX-TV in New York." KTLA was not purchased until 1985.

In addition, it might be added that WGN-TV has been marked as "Tribune's flagship TV station" by an anonymous editor on List of assets owned by Tribune Company for a month now. Sorry for having to take more time on explanations than edits tonight. Happy editing! --Closeapple 08:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also see discussion under the #Flagship section. Morgan Wick 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no position on what The CW considers the network flagships. --Closeapple 09:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I had made that notation back in January. And despite the feeling by some to the contrary, Tribune considers WGN-AM/TV to be their flagships primarily because they are in their hometown. Pretty simple. Conversely, I have not heard anything regarding CW's flagship station. I'm going to assume that it will be WPIX, as both Time-Warner and CBS are based in New York (and Tribune is distancing itself from managing the network), but I wouldn't count anything out. --Mhking 02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fox-esque logos

If you notice the articles on WCWJ, and WKCF, you will notice that the future logos for those stations are somewhat similar to that of a Fox affiliate. Do you think the CW is making their affiliates adopt this style logo to get back at Fox? CoolKatt number 99999 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Fox is changing its logo style to be unlike this, and this is pretty much the same as almost any logo for a channel with branding of this format save Fox (and ABC's Circle 7 stations), about the only similarity is the length of the CW logo itself. Morgan Wick 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of question is that? It's wild speculation, which you seem to be good at CoolKatt. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so - the Fox O&O's are in the process of changing their logos across the nation to be more like Fox News Channel than anything else (as can be seen at WNYW and KTTV). I personally figure the CW wants to create a uniform look/feel of their own. --Mhking 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WFXT is also changing their logo to reflect this Psp900 11:34. 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CW News?

With the rumored MNTV newscast, would The CW want to compete? It seems like they could run CNN's American Morning (which would allow for HDTV capability, going up against Today and GMA), or maybe CBS News could find something.

Speaking of which, what will The CW use for its "breaking news" override (other networks go to a national feed if something big happens, but with The CW being owned by TW and CBS, they could go to either CNN or CBS News) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.21.42 (talk • contribs)

CW would probably utilize CNN's resources in an emergency, as WB aired CNN's coverage of the 9/11 attacks that night over the network (the following days they aired lots of family programming to create a respite from the network coverage). I doubt at this point however CW is looking to start any national news presence, and in the past WB and UPN have always aired their programming during presidential speeches unless the local affiliate has pre-empted the program on their end to carry the speech. Nate 06:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, on 9/11 everyone pretty well ran CNN's coverage (even non-news networks like Discovery Channel), so I don't know if it was a specific WB-CNN deal or if they just grabbed the feed. The fact CW is owned by CBS leads me to assume that they would use CBS resources in the event of a major story. 23skidoo 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that in markets in which the CW Network affiliates are owned by the Tribune Company, breaking national and regional news content is then provided by WGN-TV national team of correspondents. In other cases, individual affiliates will purchase stories and coverage provided by CNN on an as needed basis. --Gerald Farinas 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade to HDTV

Has (or will) The CW upgrade any of its shows (Top Model, Beauty and the Geek, 7th Heaven, Smackdown) that are currently SD-Only to HDTV? I seriously doubt 7th Heaven getting the upgrade, as it is in its last season, but what about the reality shows? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.254.23.193 (talk • contribs) .

No clue, so far an I know. Morgan Wick 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would doubt Top Model would go HD for at least a couple more cycles, mainly because it's a show about beauty, and makeup design for HDTV is still in it's infancy, or else it's Tyra Banks' decision not to go with it right away (it is her show and her decision).

You won't see 7H in HD because the reason it was renewed was due to a low licensing fee, they aren't going to boost it up anymore than it is, that and for a drama filled with so many close-up shots and scenes on regular sets, there isn't a demand for the format with that kind of program.

As for Smackdown, if I recall the WWE leases the time from UPN/CW, so it isn't the network's call whether they can go HD, it all depends on when WWE starts any HDTV efforts. And in general, regular reality shows usually are never seen in HD. Nate 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the CW website and watch video on each of the shows, it will tell at the end of the preview whether it will be in hi-def or not. Several shows will be. I do remember that Smackdown and ANTM are not in HD. But I think Smallville and Supernatural are making the upgrade, however don't hold me to that because it has been a while since I looked. --Dleav 13:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

An update on Smackdown in HD...WWE filming HD Tests (thought they won't be airing, it's just for internal use for now). Nate 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The CW LiveJournal community linkspam

Seeing as this link has already been reverted five times, I just wanted to bring up the fact that meatpuppetry is involved in the constant addition of this link. I already left {{spam1}} on 3 of their talk pages. —Whomp [T] [C] 22:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I called them out on that page. I didn't bite anyone, did I? I added the last paragraph after I realized I could be chasing potential future Wikipedians away. Morgan Wick 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Season Premiere Dates

Would anyone mind if I added the season premiere dates (per this press release) to the fall-sked grid now that they're out? Nate 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The fate of MyNet stations...

Here's a good, mostly MyNet-centric article that finally touches on what will happen to stations going to My Network TV in September: [4] Morgan Wick 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I also got back an email inquiry today from WCGV in Milwaukee about when they're airing Friday Night Smackdown after they switch (I don't watch, but thought it was a valid question); they confirm it'll move to Sunday afternoons for the two weeks before it moves over to the CW (and in turn, WVTV). I'll be putting it in the individual station articles later. Nate 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Availabilty to Canada?

Does any one know if The CW network will be available in Canada? I live in Southern Ontario just outside of Toronto, as we currently get The WB (The Buffalo station, New York Station and KTLA). We also get UPN (Buffalo and Boston Stations). It comes with our Digital Cable package 'U.S. Superstations'. I really hope we get it because I love there shows!! Also is WGN Chicago affected by the merge? 24.36.231.48 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As listed at List of CW affiliates, it'll be available via the current WB stations in NY and LA, as well as the current UPN station in Buffalo - but, again, only on digital cable. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I think we have a major problem...

Three days ago, this was posted on KOVR/KMAX's website. And they didn't even mention Wikipedia. What should we do? —Whomp t/c 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Email them and tell the that they plagurized--Seamus215 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Still No mention Jorobeq 04:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know they're liars. There's not much more we can do. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does KOVR/KMAX claim to have written this article appearing on their site. As a result, they can't be found liable for plagiarism. Sorry.

Actually, this part of their site indicates the contents of their site are copyright protected. They even state, "CBS has a long-standing company policy that does not allow CBS to accept or consider creative ideas, suggestions or materials other than those CBS has specifically requested." Copying something from Wikipedia into their site clearly violates this precept. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:CP yesterday. It appears the latest letter to the company worked, and they have removed the page. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The CW Advertising

There should be a section here, talking about the ads that The CW has. And include pics from there billboard ads and TV commercial. If you want I can write the section about it, but I need someone else to get the pictures. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saran81kid91 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the offer but no, there shouldn't, unless it's some sort of really really unique ad campaign, which isn't the case from my vantage point. In short, it isn't notable by WP standards, especially when all the other networks have similar campaigns on the go for their new fall lineups, and when it'll be replaced by something else next year. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the CW talking about using content wraps? Would that be something worth mentioning in the article?--Dleav 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Crap! Did I misinterpret something?

It would appear that I misinterpreted WWE's announcement about SmackDown! airing on the soon-to-be CW stations in the September weeks preceding the official merger. I had stated that WGN's SuperStation feed would be among those airing SD in that time. I apologize for the error. John 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It was fixed, I got caught up in it too, no worries. Nate 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FTSG's Last UPN Day

Just went through Yahoo's TV listings for the Fox UPN stations, and most of them except for WPWR and KUTP are going with movies in primetime on September 1, the last day is August 31. Both the exceptions are still going with Smackdown on September 1, but that could be an error, I'm not sure. Nate 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"CW"

What does this stand for? Probably belongs in the article if there is an answer.68.42.98.97 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia CW Article : "CBS chairman Les Moonves explained that the name of the new network is an amalgamation of the first initials of CBS and Warner Bros. Moonves joked "we couldn't call it the WC for obvious reasons." Although some executives reportedly disliked the new name,[3] that March, Moonves stated[4] that there was "zero chance" the name would change... Jorobeq 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WBQT a CW Station?

I've been watching WBQT for a few weeks now, and i've been seeing them advertise CW for a couple weeks. They've been doing on-air promos and have been useing the CW logo in both syndicated and WB programming 24/7. But there have been no reports of them affiliating with the new network. Psp900 5:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Grr. I want to bring this whole issue up at the "CW Lounge" forum, but I don't know if it would be seen by anyone authoritative. Morgan Wick 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't check for certain, but I believe this practice of using a CW logo on all programs is probably being done by The WB 100+ itself, and thus is also seen on every other WB 100+ outlet. I doubt WBQT alone would do this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news, i checked the CW website, and the Springfield-Holyoke market (which WBQT serves) will indeed get a CW station dubbed "Pioneer Valley's CW. Since WBQT goes by a similar name, i guess it will be the CW station.

Hmm. This is good AND bad news. On the one hand, it lists a bunch of "___ CW" stations that suggest old WB 100+ stations are now, officially, confirmed to join CW. But on the other, it confirms nothing else... "Montgomery CW"'s listing suggests to me that it is a CW+ (probably cable only) station, and not the broadcast station whose cable positions it will usurp. Also, Burlington-Plattsburgh is still listed as "Check local listings", with no mention of WFFF, despite a user's claims that they've had an affiliation since May (though that may just be because it would be secondary). Digital stations are still annoyingly listed as "Check local listings". Basically, Hawaii (for example) could have an affiliate we haven't heard of yet, which means that very little has been solved. Maybe I should make a list of all the markets listed as "Check local listings" that don't have anything confirmed for us, and ask specifically about those at CW Lounge. Morgan Wick 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you able to get any information from the CW lounge? Verotrep 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting news, i checked the CW website, and it looks as if WBQT is making their own website for the new network entitled "yourcwpioneervalley.com". Does this mean that The CW will let all members of The CW Plus have their own website? Or is someone messing with our minds? Psp900 8:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WB 100+ stations used www.thewbpass.com as their website, with a required registration for customized station content. A lot of The CW Plus stations' websites are redirecting to the main CW website. The domain www.thecwpass.com is registered and redirects to the main CW web site.--grejlen - talk 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Okay, I'm 18. 19 in the fall. I pretty much grew up on the WB when, as far as I can remember. Shows like the Wayans Bros., Happily Ever After, Buffy, etc. And now, just recently I've heard things about ratings. I never knew what they were until a few weeks ago. And now, I see that the CW rakes in the least amount of ratings for Broadcast television.

My question is: How can the network get higher ratings. I know there is not much one person (such as me) can do, but how can we get the ratings up to like 7 - 12 million viewers. I hate hearing things like the CW sucks or next year it will fold. If it does (Which I hope it doesn't) what will become? Will it go back to the WB or become independent. And what will happen to the shows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.22.1 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dish channel

In what channel number will CW be on Dish Network? MarioV 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends what local area you are in. It would be the channel number that you would recive on normal tvSeamus215 23:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They might also be asking about the out-of-market feeds; in that case, Denver's KWGN, and New York's WPIX-TV will continue to air on Dish network as superstations under CW affilations. San Diego's KSWB and Miami's WBZL will also continue their roles as out-of-market affiliates in DMAs without the CW on Dish/DirecTV. Nate 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that network shows may not air on national feeds due to Synd-Ex regulations. That is, if you don't have a "special card". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS}} 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

What channel would The CW be found on, on dishnetwork in NJ? because i really want to watch Gossip Girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.232.119 (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Available Canada?

Are they available Canada, what channel they replace or new channel or something else? --KanuT 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That depends on where you live and what channels you subscribe to. If you can get WNLO Buffalo, WB11 New York, KTLA Los Angeles, UPN11 Seattle, or UPN50 Detroit in your cable or satellite package, you should be able to get the CW. If you're a cable subscriber in the Montreal area, it looks like the CW will air in late night on Fox 44. Otherwise, you're probably out of luck. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what Canadian station(s) will air their shows? Myciconia 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Existing shows will most likely continue to air on whichever Canadian station has aired them in the past, so whatever stations showed Veronica Mars, Smallville, et al., will probably remain on their usual stations. Network changes in the US are typically unrelated to overseas markets. --Psiphiorg 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I have the channel on ExpressVu.

---

What channel would The CW be found on, on dishnetwork in NJ? because i really want to watch Gossip Girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.232.119 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Logo, again

I've reverted the latest attempt to bring back a non-clean, white-on-green version of the network logo. The user(s)' rationale has been that the colours are reversed. As I recall the consensus viewpoint in the past, that is precisely the point, because:

• Judging from some of its uses by individual affiliates and on CWTV.com (e.g. ANTM ads), the green-on-white version appears to be no less acceptable than white-on-green;
• The official logo is just the lettering of "The CW" and does not include any other shape, i.e. a rectangle, or any special background;
• The default backgrounds of Wikipedia pages are white or light colours, and in this regard, using only the lettering (in green) on a transparent background is the most suitable version.

Of course, consensus is subject to change, so I'd like to hear some other viewpoints. We had a clean white-on-green version before and it shouldn't be too much trouble to bring it back if that's what people want. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this clean white-on-green logo? I have been trying to find it for the last few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.234.136 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 September 2006

I made a local copy of it, but it looks like it was removed from Wikipedia (when the current version was converted from PNG to SVG format). Again, as this is a consensus decision - changes such as yours have been reverted a number of times, and not just by me - please wait before making any further changes to the logo. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can I see this logo?

From the CW Logo Usage manual: The CW Logo consists of two elements: 1. The combination of the CW letterforms. 2. The letters "THE". A green background block is not necessary, as it is not part of the actual logo form - thus, the green-on-white logo currently used on this page is the most accurate and correct version, and should remain the standard presentation. TheRealFennShysa 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but every CW promo and the CW website have white-on-green. It is the most common form of the logo.

Please be aware if you keep reverting to white on green the page will probably be locked from unregisted users so you would not be able to edit it at all. So I would just stop reverting it and talk about the subject here. Green on white stays for now please - Mike Beckham 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it in a way that's easier to understand; white on grey, like your logo isn't very visible at all. Green on grey, much more visible. That's why it's green, because the white version doesn't make sense for the page and is harder to see. That's why we keep reverting it, because we can't see your version of the logo. Please keep the green version. Thank you. Nate 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see it perfectly and it's in the logo's most common form. It's also quite clean.I don't see what's wrong wth it. And you still haven't shown me that other "clean white-on-green" logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.40.239.111 (talk) .

There's nothing wrong with it. But, again, if you look at CWTV.com, if there's a light background, green lettering is used. See, for instance, the "Network Launch Party" ad towards the bottom-right. They don't put in a green box just so they can use white lettering. That's a clear sign the current usage is acceptable. And it better suits the aesthetics of Wikipedia. Anyway, the "CW White" logo that someone posted earlier is pretty much identical to the white-on-green version you're asking for. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

At one day before the launch...

....seems this would be a good time to archive this talk page again. Anyone not on a work computer want to handle that? :) Lambertman 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm home now so I'll do it. My other question: what would be the consensus towards possibly creating an article to deal with the specifics of the merger, allowing this page to focus on the network's history post-launch? Lambertman 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable, the page is a bit cluttered. --Dleav 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Perhaps "The WB, UPN Merger" or alike would be good. - Mike Beckham 02:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How about 2006 United States TV network realignment. Most of the station- or ownership-group-specific stuff should be moved over there, but a short history of the network itself should remain on this page; same for MyNetworkTV. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article started at 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 03:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

An excellent start. I've moved some more stuff over there. Thoughts? Lambertman 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Guam

I am a huge fan of wwe. But I can,t wach smackdown. Does anyone knows what channel it is on guam.

look around for the CW website and which channel it is in Guam, if there isnt one, youll need to get a satellite dish 216.239.82.82 14:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There isnt satilitte on Guam. I should know. Buy digital cable from MCV, and it will be on there. Also, WWE is on channel 28, and on at 9:00 on most nights. Hope that helps!! ~~

CW video quality HORRIBLE

Since CW has taken over the WB, we have had horrible video. There have been numerous mornings when we have turned on at 5:30 CST to watch Daily Buzz and either the show is on but the video stops every few seconds or the video is stopped on an infomercial (such as this morning, 10/17/06). This video issue goes on periodically throughout the day and evening. What is going on??? I hope this is just a "transitional" thing and not a sign of the quality we can hope to expect from CW. We have enjoyed various shows on the WB for years and hope to be able to continue viewing CW if it maintains the quality of viewing the WB offered. 205.172.49.63 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Roach, Ruston-LA

This is an article about The CW, not a contact page for the network. Judging from your comments, the problem is with a local CW station (not the network itself), which you may be able to contact here (assuming I'm putting you in the right TV market). Thanks! — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What does CW stand for?

I've been looking all over for this, and if it stands for something other than "CW" it should probably be included in the article. OneofLittleHarmony 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't stand for anything. The name derives from the "C" in "CBS" and the "W" in "Warner Bros.", but the name is not an abbreviation of "CBS Warner Bros.". It's just a name. --Psiphiorg 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning, it does stand for something, CBS & WB. It's in the fourth paragraph of the section entitled origins. Bmitchelf 02:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Direct TV

I was there when the WB first started and long before also. I live in an area of western MA that does not offer cable tv. Satellite is the only option for television viewing. DirectTV being the only one of the 2 sources for satellite to offer local channels was the best way to go. Now this merger has left me out in the dark. There is no available CW station in my area. This merger has dropped so many viewers that its no wonder they can't get the numbers to compete on all nights. For being such a fan and loyal viewer of the WB for so long, I just feel betrayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:13, 1 November 2006 (talk • contribs) 72.70.233.220

• Intresting. Where do you live?72.94.46.100 01:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really---don't encourage such posts. This isn't a message board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriscott (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

SmackDown a reality show?

I don't know why SmackDown was labeled as a reality show. I know it wasn't really a sports program (like NBC Sunday Night Football), but why putting in this category if WWE wasn't related with reality TV and also this company was born before the reality TV-boom? That's why I remove the yellow in the bar. Xbox6

Personally, I'd call it a drama since it is (allegedly) scripted, but add the purple coloring for the sports if you think that would be correct. Bmitchelf 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Original Series on The CW Television Network

• Hey! All you trekkies out there, Star Trek: The Original Series Remastered is now on The CW Television Network! Saturdays at 12 am (pacific time). --Trekkie1 02:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not. It may be on your local affiliate, but it's not on the network by any means. It's a syndicated offering to any station, regardless of affiliation. TheRealFennShysa 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know, I only saying pacific time. I don't know if it is on any other time zone. --67.170.207.109 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: 67.170.207.109 is Trekkie1 --Trekkie1 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not on the CW Network. Your local CW affiliate may be carrying it, but the CW network itself isn't airing it. The show is syndicated. The time zone is thus immaterial. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, mine is on KTRK, an ABC affiliate. 70.240.119.223 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus Duja► 09:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) The CW Television Network → The CW — Move per WP:NC of usin the most common name that doesn't conflict with the names of other things. originally proposed by RedHotHeat (talk · contribs) but no survey was created. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  *'''Support'''  or  *'''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support, per the common name. Also think that it should be The WB to remain constant if this is moved, but that's another issue. bmitchelf•T 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as common name. –  Anþony  talk  21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as official name. I think common names can be refered to on the page itself. e.g. - Carnegie Mellon University is the official name, but the common name is Carnegie Mellon, the name has stayed CMU. --Dleav 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Using common name follows Wikipedia policy WP:NAME and I don't see why this would be an exception. Also the university name was actually at Carnegie Mellon and was only moved a few days ago so I don't think that is a good example. --67.71.79.4 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dleav. Fox Network or Fox are used more commonly than its correct name Fox Broadcasting Company, but we should stick to the official name for consistency. Milchama 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  Using the "official" name of something is actually inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole, where WP:COMMONNAME prevails. When the common name of a subject is taken, the guideline allows for a well-accepted alternative name, but there is no mention of "official" names. Since fox is about the animal, the network has to go somewhere and Fox Broadcasting Company is preferable to Fox (network). There is no comparable conflict here with The CW. –  Anþony  talk  23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above. --ΨΦorg 06:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per The WB. Current name is more descriptive and less confusing (someone is less likely to say, "CW, what's that?). Patstuart^talk|edits 20:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Comment: I vaguely remember a disambiguation at the top of the article - at least when it first started; it seems to have disappeared - that noted "The CW" could also refer to a college newspaper called The Crimson White. I realize we've since added a general dab for anything "CW" - I'm just saying it's not unique. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Fox Broadcasting Company is a good reason to not move the page because in it's history it has been known as FBC and FOX. Why move The CW Television Network to The CW when it could one day choose to go by a different common name? Dleav 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  The same could be said for any article on Wikipedia. Names change all of the time, but since Wikipedia is not paper, changing the name of the article to reflect real-world changes is painless and practically automatic. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, so we shouldn't be compromising the article now because of something that might happen in the future. –  Anþony  talk  07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hidden Palms

Midseason entry Hidden Palms has not been given a timeslot or premiere. Dont add speculative moves to the scedule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.104.135 (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

What does "CW" stand for?

Is this a brand new network, and do they only air cartoons throughout the evening and weekends?

--4.85.133.81 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The network itself does not air anything outside of the time periods of 7-9pm CT (8-10pm ET/PT) Monday-Friday and 4-9pm CT (5-10pm ET/PT) Sunday. At other times, it is up to the local station to figure out what programming to air. Also, the article mentions the origin of the name "CW". --ΨΦorg 07:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Do we want a white on green logo or a green on white logo?

200px

File:The CW 2.svg

Some Person (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus from earlier in this page indicated green on white. -- Gridlock Joe 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Get Into The CW.png

Image:Get Into The CW.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Direct Tv

ID like to know why Direct Tv Does not offer The CW11(WPIX) in nyc IN High Deffinition???? im clueless to why can anyone answer that for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.226.18 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fort Smith / Fayetteville / Rogers

The article states that

The largest market without a broadcast or cable CW channel is the Fort Smith / Fayetteville / Rogers market (#102)

This is no longer true, and as of September 2007 these areas are being covered. Here is a source, and I can personally vouch for this being true - I live in Fayetteville and receive CW Channel 4.

Should this section be altered?

Astrodog93 (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo a no-go?

What happened to the temporary provisional blue CW logo? I thought it was relevant to the article... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The CW Movie Night

Please do not change the name of the Sunday night block on the schedule, as it is no where referenced as "The CW Sunday Night Movie", while it is being called "The CW Movie Night" on their official site. The following is a link to the branding of this Sunday night block.

http://www.cwtv.com/thecw/sunday-movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacgrath (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While that page may say one thing, the graphic may be out of date. The movies are referred to on-air and in TV listings as "The CW Sunday Night Movie". I can provide screencaptures as proof. Also, see this, and this, for starters. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Before and After logos

Can someone upload the logos of Tribune's CW stations before and after they de-emphasized the network's brand in their stations' brands?--Ieph (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

EasyView

I understand that on The WB Network the EasyView Block was known, but why is the name retained in the CW article? 65.71.127.133 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Charmed Spin-Off?

The CW has given the greenlight to begin production on pilots for Vampire Diaries, Body Politic,Charmed spin-off, A Beautiful Life, Lily, and an Untitled Melrose Place Spinoff.[40][41][42]

Is there a charmed spin-off? There's no references for it. Pic Editor960 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Free to be redirect

Frankly, that was a silly redirect in the first place as it was meerly a slogan that was in use for only one year, so I re-redirected it to point to the Marlo Thomas album and removed the notice from this page. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Smallville

Hey! does anyone here knows about where else will smallville be broadcasted cause i dont have cw.please reply on my talk page--Varunn (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"TV to Talk About" logo

I added the "TV to Talk About" logo. NewYorkCity101 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It adds nothing to the article and we already have a properly licensed image of the logo alone. That is all that we need. Nate • (chatter) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm telling you it's the current logo. NewYorkCity101 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's three words. We use the network logo without any branding because it can be used for multiple years and is properly licensed. That logo is low quality and the infobox expresses the slogan just fine. Nate • (chatter) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Performance section

While I think a "Performance" section is ok (with proper citations), do we really need a daily break-down of the CW's ratings? Seems overly crufty, and parts of the section are poorly written ("the second week premieres did as follows"). Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this information would seem trivial in the future (see Wikipedia:Recentism). If anything, the section should be rewritten in prose without the cruft, or simply deleted altogether. —Whomp ^(myedits) 18:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Performance should serve the purpose of initial performance in comparison to the CW's predecessors.--Dleav 02:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lukeruss06 just took this section out and pasted to a seperate article, The performance of the cw. As this hasn't been discussed I am reverting this change.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I took it out again, as a ratings breakdown for 1 week really isn't encyclopedic content, and the recentism issue noted above. Overall season ratings might be notable enough, but that is info that best belongs on the individual series articles, with only a cursory mention of its effects on the network here. oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, I just wanted to delete the seperate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comcast abd CW problems

I know this is pretty new and all but shouldn't it be added in here and what channels might be taken out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.187.222 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem in CW page!!!!!!!

I NEED an administrator's help with cw's page! The average viewer chart is on top of other secti0ns! Cant change it!

• • • OKAY, I FIXED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would very much appreciate to see some grammatical correctness from people who use the talk feature because Wikipedia is created by everyone and therefore has to be clutter free and correct. Unnecessary exclamation points and un-capitalized abbreviations are a real let-down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic knx (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if talk page commentors would not comment on multi-year old posts with snooty comments, pay attention to formatting (there should be no spaces at the beginning of a line, as it misformats the text) and, most importantly, remember to sign their posts. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about a line

Although it continues to air some shows that target male viewers such as Smallville and Supernatural.

Besides this being a poorly structured sentence, is there any evidence that Supernatural is targeted towards male viewers? It seems quite the opposite. This sentence could be taken out, as it seems unnecessary and is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.252.218 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Programs in development" section

Does this section really belong? I ask for three reasons. Firstly, it seems non-encyclopedic in nature, and more appropriate for a news and rumors site. The fact that all but one item is sourced to such a site reinforces that notion. Secondly, none of the other network pages has such a section, which brings to question the notability of such developmental work in the first place. Thirdly, if all the listed series were to be brought to full production, the CW would either need to cancel almost the entire existing schedule or massively expand the hours it broadcasts. Since neither has been suggested as happening, obviously some of these ideas will never see air, as is true of many show ideas that are not picked up. With only occassional exception, we don't cover shows that die on the vine, so the notability of the CW's is questionable at best. Those three things combined make me say that the section should go. oknazevad (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)