Jump to content

Talk:Gray Television

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

Copy-and-paste move

[edit]

This was copy-and-paste moved from Grey Television. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Modification of television station ownership table

[edit]

The table listing the stations must be modified to look like the one that is present on the List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group. J4lambert (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split the station listing to a separate page?

[edit]

Could we split the Gray's station listing table to a separate page? The listing is taking up the majority of the main page, as its footprint is just as vast as Sinclair & Nexstar, and they have their own separate station listing pages (Sinclair, Nexstar). Csworldwide1 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - split for length. Plus it makes it hard to add Circle network, which is close to being notable. I added it here as the redirect was to this article, but with out some thing like moving the stations to its own page moving it to Ryman/Opry article. --Spshu (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree- it makes sense to treat Gray the same as Sinclair and Nexstar.Cxristopher (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circle

[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is to split the "Circle" section to its own article at Circle (TV network). RfC participants believed that there was sufficient content to justify a separate article and sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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.
Why isn't Circle TV is on its own article page, instead of a redirect page? Csworldwide1 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Because, the network doesn't meet WP:Notability: "...gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." means that (just a couple of) major news outlets that don't routinely cover music and TV need to cover the subject. I just have either music or TV news sources. Spshu (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone may want to consider making a separate article for Circle, complete with all the available affiliates throughout the county, and those affiliates' broadcast network association. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read above about considering making a separate article for Circle. Spshu (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is plenty notable with plenty of sources. It is a music TV channel, it is going to be mostly Music and TV sources. Both Heartland (TV network) and The Country Network exist with far less. Mo2010 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That many just mean that those channels may not be notable either (WP:OTHER) - perhaps we need a "List of country music channels" article. Number of sources is not the only factor but what type. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going by the standard you are putting up Antenna TV, Cozi TV, Decades (TV network) and most of the Digital broadcast television networks are not notable becouse the sources for most all of them are industry publications. So perhaps we need a "List of digital broadcast television networks" if that is the standard we are keeping to. Mo2010 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two major news outlets that aren't specifically music/TV related that have covered Circle:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/2019/12/12/circle-tv-craig-morgan-orpy-live-bluebird-cafe-sessions-network/4407838002/
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/grand-ole-opry-coming-television-150046460.html
PlnOTA (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tennessean is a regional (mostly the state) paper and the yahoo article is from Southern Living magazine. Thus I would not consider them major outlets like NY or LA Times, CNN, etc. Spshu (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might not consider them major outlets, but they do meet WP:GNG and WP:RS. Also, "significant coverage" doesn't mean covered by multiple different "major outlets", it means that the topic is discussed at at least one source, ie: more than just a passing mention as part of another article.PlnOTA (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split Yeah its a new network but it already has more affiliates than some of the other secondary OTA networks. Right now Gray Television is acting as 2-for-1 deal and the entire section on Circle meets WP:V. Industry sources are fine as long as they are reliable. Circle also has sources from USA Today, Rolling Stone and reliable local news sources. WP:N also says "...and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." Instead of looking at the "In a nutshell" as a reason to decline one should look at WP:GNG and a standalone article for Circle meets significant coverage, reliable, sources and independent of the subject (in this case Circle, Gray Television and Opry Entertainment Group, Inc.). Circle also meets WP:NRV and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The only thing an article about Circle has against it is the short time it has been on air. However given the fact it has established affiliations with almost 50% of the United States (via an antenna), has a streaming counterpart (Circle All Access), and the section is not dependent on primary sources it does meet all other aspects of WP:N with flying colors and also meets WP:V which means it can survive on its own. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V only covers what is allow in a notable article. I am basic referencing GNG in indicating the nutshell, ie. significate covarage and at large. USA Today itself doesn't have an article, but that is a Tennessean article which is a part of (host on) the USA Today Network website. If it did then I would change my position. Rolling Stone is the only major at large source. Spshu (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support/Addendum: I overhauled the article with supportable content to meet the grounds for split mentioned, in order to strengthen the article content, less than two weeks prior to this post; although, the original upload of the revised information on Circle with the additional references occurred during the prior split attempt, requiring reupload to the Gray article once "Circle (TV network)"—which was converted from a redirect into an article by another user as I was developing the redraft, if not shortly before then, when Circle appeared to also be included as a sub-section in the Gray Television article—was reverted to a redirect. I would argue that most network articles do fit all cited guideline criteria, as long as a reasonable amount of adequate sourcing from press releases and reliable (fairly to strongly) secondary reporting (via television websites, newspapers/news websites, etc.) is included. TVTonightOKC (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You weakened it. Adding press releases and making history into background (ie. related activities not completely about the subject) all those source would not be count toward notability as not having to do directly with Circle. Press releases are very weak in reliability given - (WP:QS) have an apparent conflict of interest, WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:ABOUTSELF - thus would not strength notability. Spshu (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that press releases are valid forms of citations that buttress the information from secondary sources. Also, the "history" section was already written as "background" beforehand; Ryman Hospitality's prior efforts in country music-focused television provide insight into its decision to venture into this network. The section was weakened through the removal of the content, and format changes that reintroduced grammatical issues were not needed. TVTonightOKC (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Press release are not valid for notability else I could write a bunch of press releases and make myself notable. There are expressly (Template:Primary sources) template warning against using press releases and the like excessively. Secondary sources are the gold standard on WP, unless there is a pertinent fact left out of them, buttressing them with press releases diminish the article. The background information was move to the section's lead not removed and has nothing to do with its notability. Thus labeling history as background would disqualify the sources there in as notability sources since they are not about the network. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Note though that the network's vague name might make it more difficult to hunt down reliable sources than it otherwise would be. The provided sources, including major regional newspapers and trade publications, establish enough notability to warrant a standalone article; setting the bar any higher would make such a threshold impossibly high. Plus, given the high number of affiliates (in the dozens), continuing to redirect the network's name to another article might cause substantial confusion—since it is not Gray Television's network alone, but a joint venture. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inflating the number of media outlets covering doesn't make that true. There are 1 major regional newspaper (Tennessean) and 1 major (Rolling Stone) about the subject. Trade publications are not the world at large, thus don't count as they will give them routine coverage. I didn't set the standard, you will need to have argue to get them changed. Number of affiliates and the fact that it is a joint venture are not factors in determining notability. If that was the case then the Premier Program Service, a network joint venture of MCA and Paramount back in 1991 would thus qualify (even against WP:NOTTEMPORARY as has two paper of records, NY Times and LA Times, have articles on the possible network. I will request a closure (RfC) since JMyrleFuller has assumed a vote is consensus, I don't think enough responded. Spshu (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2020 (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.

Quincy Media might Merged into Gray Television

[edit]

Merger proposal == I propose to merge Quincy Media into [[GrayTelevision]. Quincy Media Stations are owned by Gray Television Peyton dodeon (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Talk:Quincy_Media#Merger proposal. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was to not merge. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donor info

[edit]

I added donor info to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved for now. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Television → Gray Media – New trade name per official website and this press release [1] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose without ANY prejudice to later discussion:
Looking at the votes that Sammi Brie and Nathan Obral made, they do make some good points like how the legal name is still Gray Television.
Also, I was looking at Gray Television's website, and some of the things STILL mention Gray Television. So yea, this is too quick of a move.
Also, originally, my vote was support over the website, but now it's a oppose. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 23:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike down Nathan Obral's name, he didn't vote. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 23:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no prejudice to later discussion Further down, the standard company disclaimer reads;

Gray Media, or Gray, is a multimedia company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, formally known as Gray Television, Inc.

It's merely a front-facing brand and the legal company name remains Gray Television, with no change to the stock ticker symbol either. There's no grounds to rename at this time. Nate • (chatter) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose without prejudice to later renomination It's too soon. It looks like the replacement of "Gray Television" with "Gray Media" in most applications by the company came on July 1. WP:NAMECHANGES suggests we need to wait for reliable sources to use the name in the regular course of action. I anticipate that will happen soon, even before the end of the year. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Sammi; I do agree they'll be switching to Gray Media for all uses down the line, but we should wait for the legal name to change with the proper authorities. Nate • (chatter) 21:22, 19 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gray_Television&oldid=1236797986"