This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Update Variety has reported that KCPQ is one of the stations named to become a Fox O&O due to the Sinclair/Tribune having to divest stations.— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.169.130.165 (talk)16:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:
WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
As perWP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
PerWP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheersDeconstructhis (talk)17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link onKCPQ. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
Speculation is that when KTNT learned that it would eventually lose its CBS affiliation to KIRO-TV, which hit the airwaves in February 1958, it threw an on-air tantrum by dropping the Evening News and letting channel 13 pick it up.
The lawsuit surrounding the CBS affiliation contest between KTNT and KIRO was major news in the broadcasting industry for years and the subject is hardly done justice by this snarky entry.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDavid breneman (talk •contribs)18:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such asthis nomination's talk page,the article's talk page orWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.No further edits should be made to this page.
... that watchingTacoma, Washington'sKTVW "used to be worse than no TV at all"?Source: Fish, By (January 6, 1974). "Confessions of a boob-tuber (to whom TV is new)". The Seattle Times. p. TV 15.
ALT2:...that whenSeattle TV stationKCPQ started a local newscast in 1998, its lead anchor was stuck for three months in Canada awaiting a work permit?Source: Levesque, John (April 7, 1998). "There's relief all around as wait ends for new Q13 anchor". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. p. E6.
This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. The hook facts for ALT0 and ALT1 are cited inline and either hook could be used, but I am not approving ALT2 as the fact is not really stated on the page. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done.Cwmhiraeth (talk)06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi, since you mentioned you would like to take this to FAC, I'll post review comments here as I would at FAC. That way when it gets to FAC I should be able to support quickly.
I see theNew York Post in the citations; that's generally an unreliable source. Can we do without it?
This particular report was picked up in other reliable sources. I've added aDeadline Hollywood citation here as well.
"Both stations share studios on Westlake Avenue in Seattle's Westlake neighborhood, while KCPQ's main transmitter is located on Gold Mountain in Bremerton." I think "while" is the wrong connector here; there's no contrast being made. How about "KCPQ's studio, which it shares with KZJO, is on Westlake Avenue in Seattle's Westlake neighborhood, and its main transmitter is located on Gold Mountain in Bremerton."?
There are a couple of informal usages that aren't quite encyclopedic tone -- "hard luck independent station", "owner Carl E. Haymond wanted out".
"KMO-TV briefly carried NBC programs until Seattle's KOMO-TV began broadcasting on December 11. However, beyond the temporary NBC hookup, KMO-TV's output would primarily consist of local and syndicated programs." Unless I'm missing something, it would be simpler to say "KMO-TV briefly carried NBC programs until Seattle's KOMO-TV began broadcasting on December 11, after which KMO-TV's output primarily consisted of local and syndicated programs." I don't think we need "would consist", since this is in the past.
"the FCC designated the deal for hearing over then-impermissible overlap of the Seattle and Tacoma stations, prompting the deal to be scrapped". I understand from the other articles of yours I've reviewed that "designated for hearing" is the standard officialese. The connotation seems to be that if there's nothing wrong with the deal, there's no hearing, so the fact that a hearing will happen implies an impediment to the deal. Is that correct? I'm reading it that way because if a hearing always happens for every deal, the fact that there's going to be a hearing couldn't "prompt the deal to be scrapped". It would be the overlap issue that prompted the deal to be scrapped. I think a tweak is needed whether I have that right or not, but I won't suggest an edit till you tell me if I am reading this correctly. And it looks like we're missing a "the" before "then-impermissible".
Not sure we need to mention Craig McCaw in the article. Perhaps J. Elroy McCaw is worth a redlink, though, if he's colourful and eccentric?
"KTVW in October 1954; it also announced": suggest "KTVW in October 1954, and announced".
"The station picked up Seattle Americans minor-league hockey: the president of the team for two seasons was also KTVW's general manager, and when he resigned for a television job in Los Angeles, McCaw became the team's sole owner": picked up the rights to broadcast? I would make that clearer; this reads like insider shorthand. I don't quite follow the team ownership -- the president of the team was also a part owner? With McCaw? And then sold out to McCaw when he left?
"This proposal stalled out by 1958": are we saying this just because a new negotiation had evidently started with KCOP-TV? Or do those history cards (which I can't interpret) say something specific about the deal no longer being on the table?
PDF page 17. "DISMISSED LTR. 4-24-58 REQUEST OF ATTORNEY"
"and another independent station he owned, Denver's KTVR": make this "McCaw owned", if that's the intended meaning.
Is there no article for KCTO-TV to link to?
The link is on the first mention of KTVR
I missed that. But looking at the sources, I wonder if we could just say KTVR instead; James's comments refer to KWGN, the name it acquired after McCaw's death, and the station itself was called KTVR for four years of the seven McCaw owned it. That would render the alphabet soup a little less confusing.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)20:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would attribute the remarks about McCaw's "saving ways" inline to Edwin James, and give his position; the reader should be aware this isn't just a local journalist's opinion.
"The station still featured local programming, such as the afternoon children's show Penny and Her Pals, hosted by LeMoyne Hreha": what time frame is this talking about? I ask because the previous date given is 1960, but then the next sentence talks about 1957.
This is highly unusual, though I missed this chunk.
"KTVW had stepped in in 1967": I don't think we need "had"; we're in direct historical narrative at this point.
"In the spring of 1969, plans were floated to convert KTVW to color, move the transmitter to Port Orchard, and relocate the studios to Seattle, which were hailed by the television editor": I don't think the syntax works here. "Which" has to refer to a noun or noun phrase, which would require you to drop "were" from "plans were floated", but that would be too hard to parse. Perhaps "In the spring of 1969, plans were floated to convert KTVW to color, move the transmitter to Port Orchard, and relocate the studios to Seattle. The television editor of theSeattle Post-Intelligencer hailed the plans as..."
I take it the plans died when McCaw died? If so let's make that explicit.
"His estate fell into dire financial straits": I'm not sure "fell" is a good verb to use -- it implies that the estate changed from one financial status to a worse one, but an estate is fairly static financially. I would use a more static verb.
Going to put this here. It's the relevant excerpt from the article
The eccentric who owned several radio and TV stations, investments in 54 companies, money in 25 bank accounts, a Lear jet and a yacht was gone - and so was the force that kept his business empire afloat.
His death triggered dozens of claims and lawsuits from creditors. When claims reached $12 million, the bank handling the estate pulled out, saying the estate was insolvent. Marion argued that the business was just short on cash, but the family mansion, yacht and other assets were sold to pay creditors. For the McCaws, it was devastating.
"stopped airing after channel 13 asked for more money in contract negotiations": I thought the channels paid the production companies for programming, not the other way round?
These people are buying airtime from the station! It's a time buy. (Most programs, of course, stations pay for)
I hadn't realized that happened, and the economics must be weird -- if I make a program and have to buy airtime, how do I make money from it? But I guess no change to the article is needed. If it's genuinely a fairly rare arrangement, you might consider a footnote explaining that this is the case.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)20:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Three years later, McCaw's estate sold KTVW": this is a pretty significant date in the station's history and I think we should nail it down more precisely; written this way the reader has to go back to the previous section to figure out this is probably some time in late 1972.
"The talk/entertainment show was an attempt": suggest "This talk/entertainment show..."
"the CBN sale fell apart over the liabilities issue": this is phrased as if we've explained what the liabilities are. Do we just mean the claims of creditors? If so, perhaps "the CBN sale fell apart over the liabilties KVTW still had to its creditors".
"The bankruptcy court approved an offer from a second company: the Suburban Broadcasting Company, which owned WSNL in Patchogue, New York. However, this deal collapsed, as Suburban also refused to assume the station's liabilities." Suggest "The bankruptcy court approved a second offer, from the Suburban Broadcasting Company, which owned WSNL in Patchogue, New York, but the deal collapsed, as Suburban also refused to assume the station's liabilities."
"to the channel 13 transmitter near Ruston": I think this is the first mention of the original position of the transmitter; it should probably be mentioned earlier in the article.
"As channel 13, KTPS contributed some programming to the VHF station": I don't understand this. I have to say I find the distinction that seems to get drawn between the channel number, presumably a static definition of some broadcast bandwidth assigned in a geographic area by the FCC, and the call letters of a station, confusing. Here I can't figure it out -- isn't KTPS channel 62? As a company that buys and distributes content I could see it could contribute programming, but why do we say "to the VHF station"? Presumably this means broadcasting from the channel 13 transmitter in Ruston, so KTPS's content appeared on KCPQ's broadcast?
It might sound silly, but UHF stations for the first 20 years of television in the US were at a steep disadvantage and then at something of one for a couple more decades. ReadAll-Channel Receiver Act to understand why. I have written about many, many, many stations that died because they were second-class citizen UHFs in the 1950s and the 1960s. I have reworded this.
"represented a continuation of KPEC-TV's former service": what is this referring to?
The best way to see this is this. Clover Park owned a TV station but the transmitter plant was failing and aged. By buying a bunch of equipment that came with its own FCC license, surrendering the one they had, they aired much the same programming—educational—with a much better signal. By going from commercial to educational to commercial, KCPQ isextremely unusual as a TV station.
Is Jim Harriott high profile enough for a red link?
Possibly... The thing about local TV news anchors is that notability can be a morass for them. It's not uncommon for me to GA-improve a station and prod or AfD an article about someone who is linked.
"which KPEC-TV and KCPQ covered for the state's public television stations": this makes it sound as if Clover Park continued to operate both after the sale, but I thought they were giving up KPEC-TV and replacing it with the new physical plant from the purchase. Did they continue to broadcast on channel 56? Per the KCPQ article it sounds as if they did not.
56 was shut down within days of 13 going on air.
Wouldn't the 1978 funding changes simply have changed the path by which money flowed to the school districts -- via the state instead of direct to school districts? The $3.5M that Clover Park stopped received was presumably not just pocketed by the state?
It looks like Clover Park got some specific federal grants. Pre-1978, they were able to use some of these funds to subsidize the TV station. The funding overhaul put the skids on that.
"which would buy KCPQ from the Clover Park School District for $6.25 million": suggest either "which bought KCPQ", or, since the sale is not confirmed till the next paragraph, "which offered to buy KCPQ".
We say Bob Kelly came out of retirement, but it sounds like he no longer owned KCRA and we don't say what he did -- did he return to an ownership or management position?
He owned KCRA still! But Bob had retired from the broadcasting business and focused on other ventures.[1]
"as well as an antitrust lawsuit between Buena Vista and Fox": what's the basis for the suit? Perhaps a footnote explaining the relevant FCC regulation, if that's what this refers to?
"the decision to move out of the South Sound and into a space more than twice the size of the prior studio was made to be closer to the bulk of market activity": I don't like the passive voice "was made". Was this Kelly's decision? And I now realize that I've been reading "Kelly" as referring to Bob Kelly when it was probably referring to Kelly Broadcasting. Maybe avoid using "Kelly" by itself to prevent this confusion.
"in the city of license of Tacoma": what's the relevance of "of license"? Should this read "in Tacoma, its city of license"?"
City of license is a term of art. It...needs to be added to the glossary.
@Mike Christie: I either took care of anything I didn't mention or responded to several specific questions. And yes, you found another omission in the glossary. Managed to shake loose a few more useful references in the process. Thank you so much.Sammi Brie (she/her • t •c)19:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. The hook facts for ALT0 and ALT1 are cited inline and either hook could be used, but I am not approving ALT2 as the fact is not really stated on the page. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done.Cwmhiraeth (talk)06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
