[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:KOVR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

KOVR now has a new logo. It is no longer using the logo seen as a result of the Viacom buyout (WGME, another Sinclair property on CBS, uses the same logo style as the old logo for KOVR) - TrackerTV 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

I have moved this article back to KOVR from KOVR-TV. Consensus on both WP:NC#Broadcasting and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Article_names is that the article name should reflect the actual call letters of the TV station. As can be seen here: [1] the call letters for this station are in fact KOVR. Any concerns regarding this topic would be best addressed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations. A 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 36?

[edit]

Does anyone know if KOVR-TV originally broadcast on channel 36? Some television station licensed to Stockton apparently broadcast on channel 36 in the 1950s. Jab73 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That would be KTVU Channel 36. (no relation to the current KTVU) it was on the air from 1953 to 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.141.24 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metromedia

[edit]

The article suggests that they owned this station from 1959 to 1964...Ranma9617 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 p.m. news

[edit]

It will be co-anchored by Tony Lopez and a newcomer(from Tucson's KOLD-TV)whose name I don't remember offhand...Ranma9617 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CBS 13.PNG

[edit]

Image:CBS 13.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KOVR.jpg

[edit]

Image:KOVR.jpg 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 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 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CBS 13.PNG

[edit]

Image:CBS 13.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 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newscast titles

[edit]

There had been some incorrect information here regarding the timeframes of when certain newscast titles were used at KOVR. The "Newswatch 13" title was not used until sometime between August and November of 1980, and the "KOVR 13 News" title began when Dan Gray became the lead male anchor, which was about April 1987. Manhizzy (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

This article is a tad bit messy. All the external links floating about aren't really proper for Wikipedia. In addition to that, the article goes into "list mode" a lot, which in itself is not bad but one should look at WP:LIST for info on how to make sure lists are used properly in Wikipedia. I'm going to put this page on my watchlist and "To-Do" list to help out. Killiondude (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

This article is a tad bit messy. All the external links floating about aren't really proper for Wikipedia. In addition to that, the article goes into "list mode" a lot, which in itself is not bad but one should look at WP:LIST for info on how to make sure lists are used properly in Wikipedia. I'm going to put this page on my watchlist and "To-Do" list to help out. Killiondude (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot to mention that I'm going to put a "Clean up" tag at the top of the article for these reasons. I also noticed that there are two references given in the entire article. I'm going to put a "more refs needed" template up as well for that reason. Killiondude (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. 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.
  4. Per WP: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. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KOVR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this 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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC 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 with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KOVR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this 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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC 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 with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided disambiguation

[edit]

I question the edit done by Fairlyoddparents1234 on 2012 September 8‎ at 08:02 with a reason of "Converting redirect note to disambignation note." (Just for reference, his last edit was on 2013 November 12.)

If I am looking for other uses of "KOVR", why would I want a disambiguation page about "CBS 13"?

Folks are getting lost trying to find the company that makes "Kovr Sunscreen": The Active Life Company <theactivelifecompany.com>.

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks WesT (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DACA interviews

[edit]

Data interview 2600:6C42:7700:D328:DD7D:58CF:E35D:AFB5 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KOVR/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 02:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming review, ping if I don't finish within a week etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "This facility provided wide coverage..." this sentence reads a bit overlong, I think it could be split, most likely at "whereas its move..."
  • "on intense pressure on owners" I assume government pressure but it might be worth saying so
Mount Diablo years
  • "but they would all have to wait after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposed a freeze on new television station awards that would last nearly four years" " this phrasing feels a bit journalistic, and it has a double instance of conditional future-past with "would X" (I don't know the formal term for it, sorry, but it's basically when you replace a normal past tense usage like "received" with "would receive")
  • "Awards" is also confusing in this context, since they're not handing out awards, they're awarding licenses. Not sure how to rephrase - maybe a total rewrite and move the "nearly four years". Something like this maybe: "but all applications were paused when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposed a freeze on new television station licenses. When the freeze ended in 195x, channel 13 had been removed..."
  • I might also split this somewhat large paragraph, but won't die on the hill of it
  • "In addition to Radio Diablo" not sure this phrase is needed, we already know RD is still applying
  • This may be unfamiliarity with the subject matter, but why did KXOB and Peffer get shares in RD? It's not clear what dispute was being settled.
    • Merger of competing applicants so someone got the permit and they didn't go into a long comparative hearing. Not uncommon.
  • Ref 9 doesn't quite back up that state fair coverage was a "highlight", just that it was broadcast
  • UHF needs to be explained and linked on first appearance
  • "It attempted to move..." This sentence could probably be simplified or split. Suggest something like
    • "KOVR's 1955 attempt to move its main operation from Stockton to San Francisco was denied by the FCC as it would have stripped Stockton of its lone VHF television station and there were already several television channels allotted to the Bay Area. The company did announce it would add a studio in San Francisco on a secondary basis."
  • Like UHF, VHF should be linked and explained on first mention
  • "This studio was located in the Mark Hopkins Hotel, where the San Francisco offices were also relocated." I don't think I understand this sentence. The secondary studio was relocated to where the secondary studio was located?
    • They had offices in other space in San Francisco before moving to the Mark.
  • "However, as time went on" - 'However' can be removed, and you could also rearrange the sentence to nuke "in order to" and the future past "would be"
  • Not sure ref 23 backs up that KCCC-TV was "clearly endangered". I see in ref 25 that they complained, but not sure if that's enough to cover the phrasing.
  • I assume there's no source that says why KCCC-TV withdrew opposition
    • Nope. Not even in Broadcasting
Gannett
  • "was not consummated and dismissed" I think this should be "and was dismissed" to more clearly separate it from "not consummated"
  • "(This company renamed itself Metromedia in 1961)" - I won't die on this hill, but this could be a footnote, or at least better integrated - having it in brackets mid-paragraph is odd
  • "KOVR would be highlighted" future past again. "was"
  • For the same sentence, ref 39 does not say anything about Metro's ownership in relation to the tower project.
McClatchy
  • I'm not sure most of paragraph 1 is necessary. It talks a great deal about McClatchy's desire for a TV station, but much of it relates to the failed purchase of another station, which really belongs in either that station's article or in McClatchy's.
    • The antitrust issues in owning The Bee plus a TV station killed their shot at channel 10 in a very high-profile fashion. McClatchy's years of appeal showed how bitter they were over not getting channel 10. The antitrust through-line is the reason McClatchy got out of TV much earlier than many comparable newspaper-and-broadcast companies, and it basically led them to sell KOVR even when they didn't really "have" to. This material is very, very necessary to understand the next section.
      • I disagree, but I'm not going to make an issue of it at GA.
  • Similarly, I'm not sure the detail about the bee mascots is warranted. The only thing that pertains to KOVR is that they did a new sign-on animation, which doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic to me.
    • Probably fair (though this did become the DYK hook fact for KSEE, which at least used the bee from day 1)
  • Suggest linking antitrust and/or monopolization at some point
Cross-ownership
  • "However, in the second half of the 1970s" however is not needed here
  • Suggest linking grandfathering
  • "turned the policy on its head" is this phrasing really accurate, considering they'd already made moves toward preventing cross-ownership?
  • This may again be my unfamiliarity with the topic, but how does McClatchy and Multimedia Inc trading TV stations alleviate cross-ownership? They would still both own TV stations, no?
    • The issue is newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. McClatchy owned a newspaper and a TV station in Sacramento. Multimedia owned a newspaper and a TV station in Greenville. Had this deal gone through, neither party would have owned a newspaper and a TV station in the same market. While this deal never came to fruition, some very much like it did. Most notably, the owners of the Detroit News traded a Detroit TV station for the Washington TV station owned by The Washington Post.
      • Okay, so the issue is that it's owning both in the same place. Can you perhaps clarify that in the text or maybe in a footnote? It's not necessarily intuitive to people who don't know this area.
  • "At that time, negotiations to extend the term" - "At that time" is redundant and can be removed
  • I'm not sure the clause beginning with "the two companies announced that..." is necessary. We don't learn what changes weren't agreeable, so it feels like not much of substance is being said. "The deal was called off by mutual agreement" would tell us just as much in fewer words.
Changing ownership, AnchorMedia, River City
  • The first sentence could be split up, it's quite lengthy
  • Second-most expensive ever sounds like that still holds as of 2024 - does it? If so, we need a more modern source to say so. Otherwise we should revise to make clear that was at the time of the sale
    • Yeah no, not by a long shot.
  • Not sure the detail about the Bass Group's outside purchases are necessary
    • Wanted to note (as local media did) the company's increasing holdings in the Sacramento area.
      • Okay, fair
  • Any outcome on the AnchorMedia vs Narragansett lawsuit, or even any details? What key employees did N take away, and how?
    • This is the only news report that even covers the existence of a lawsuit.
  • I made some minor tweaks to the AnchorMedia and River City sections
  • You could probably merge the first 2 paras in River City
  • I'm not entirely sure the detail about the Condit interview is necessary. It's not particularly historic, they didn't even really get a scoop, Chung outdid them the same night.

No gripes for CBS ownership, News operation, and Technical information sections. Spot checks were performed, mostly acceptable with a few instances of phrasing that I would consider not quite aligned with the sources - noted above. Images are properly free-licensed and appropriately captioned. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: I've made pretty much every change suggested except for a few that relate to the specifics of the McClatchy antitrust/cross-ownership issues. This is a huge topical issue in station history and in McClatchy company history, and this article plus KSEE have a lot to do with it. McClatchy probably remains in TV for another 15 to 20 years if not for this problem. It loomed over their two TV stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia 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.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 03:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 20:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KOVR; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: New GA, well-written and sourced. Hook is interesting, sourced, and present; no issues at all with this one. SounderBruce 05:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exact language of the source does not match the hook. The source says, Les was lcary of possible puns on "The station with the KHOFF." He likely meant "cough" but are we ok to use it rather than just saying puns and allowing readers to discover? Bruxton (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie and SounderBruce: I never pinged you both Bruxton (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I don't think how most any English-speaker could read that another way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are not considering changing the hook I will promote it and see if it gets pushback. Bruxton (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KOVR&oldid=1209028238"