Talk:WIN Television

Selectv

Selectv has been purchased by Win television therefor it stays in his artical.Future Australian President 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scottclark, SelecTV does not belong on the WIN Television article, as this article is for channel information only. SelecTV information belongs at WIN Corporation, which is the article for the Corporation/Company, as it is owned by WIN Corporation. Please in future just start a section on the talk page, like you already have, then gain concensus, then proceed with major changes. Thanks. Stickeylabel 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WIN Ten Logo

Does anyone at all have a WIN Ten logo? The company seems to be denying/hiding all existence of the station on its website. -- Chuq 03:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

They might just use a Ten logo, similar to what SC Ten used to do. DynaBlast 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand, the WIN Ten logo essentially consists of the WIN logo (no nine dots, when it used to have it) next to the Network Ten logo - in a similar way that Southern Cross did their SC10 logo. An example of usage of the WIN Ten from 2005 can be found here, however the logo would have likely changed now the WIN logo itself has changed. It seems to only be used in local promotion (where the WIN and WIN Ten logos are sometimes used together, as I understand), and for cross promotion for WIN Ten on the main WIN channel. The WIN Ten feed itself is generally all Ten branded, again like SC10 used to be pre-star logo. -Spiky Sharkie [ talk ] 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed WIN has started dual-branding of both network and regional idents with a WIN watermark with a 9 watermark for some programming. PMA 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Logo Gallery

I'm not clear on why a special table needs to be created, given that a perfectly fine <gallery> thingo exists. The way it's set out at the moment is much harder to edit and looks a bit ugly TBH, surely something like this (below) would be better: Another problem with the current table is that it doesn't appear to wrap to the page's width. timgraham 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had already fixed the issue by removing duplicate logos, however User:Westpac1234 seems to be continuosly reverting. Stickeylabel 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed Non-network logos, as they do not belong on the network article, and they should instead be at their respective station articles. Also the 1960 and mid-1970 logos are not fair-use as they were stolen from a copyrighted website. I have also replaced the (1970-1979) logo with a vectorised PNG for fair-use compliance. Stickeylabel 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo's

"Stickeylabel" The two logo's are different and you uploaded both of them now why would you upload to images the same, because there not. Why are you deleting my information, what's wrong with it. If any other people disagree with Stickeylabel please leave a comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westpac1234 (talk • contribs).

You have defied the 3-revert rule, you are vandalising the page, you have blanked your talk page several times. You MUST comply with the rules at Wikipedia. You also need to cite your information. You are violating numerous rules. Revert what you have done, and cease reverting, or further action will be taken. Stickeylabel 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There i reverted the page back are you happy. I see you had nothing to say about the logo's, because you know there different. You think you know everything about WIN TV, but have you ever watched it. The slogan they use is WIN Television not Still the one get your facts right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westpac1234 (talk • contribs).

Please do not remove any comments from other users on this page without a vaild reason! Also please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Bidgee 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo Changes

124.183.155.27, seems to be adding multiple logos, and rendering the size of logos to a point where the article violates Fair-use. I have reverted such changes. Please in future discuss the size of logos and the amount of logos on the talk page, before implementing. Also keep in mind that the logo section and the main infobox is for displaying logos to enhance the article's enclyclopedia value, please do not add logos elsewhere if they have already appeared in either of these locations. Stickeylabel 11:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Stickeylabel" The two logo's are different and you uploaded both of them now why would you upload to images the same, because there not.--124.183.131.211 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The logo's are the same, the logo's are just stylised differently due to different on-air packages. If the logo section was to include every single stylisation and variation of a logo, then the list would be overly long, and it would detract from its original purpose. Stickeylabel 09:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There different you twit.--124.183.131.211 10:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then technically every single slight variation of the Channel Nine logo over the years should be added, then. The 2006-2007 logo is just the same as the 2007 logo but presented with visual effects on screen as part of WIN's identity. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulletins

If you don't like or like the new layout for bulletins please comment.--Ingleburn 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous layout was a lot clearer, took up less space, didn't interfere with large screen resolutions and offered the same information. Are your changes ever going to be of any benefit to this article, or are you happy just messing it up? You asked for people to comment, so there was mine. I recommend you revert it back. Smacca 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Me too, the blue is very hard on the eyes (like the Seven/Nine news pages) and it messes with the heading structure. Also, you seem to have changed everything to 'anchors' - that's not a term used in Australia. timgraham 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the previous layout was more suitable as per Smacca's and timgraham's reasoning. Therefore, I have reverted the changes. However, thanks for creating a formal discussion for your proposal, Ingleburn :). Stickeylabel 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I recommend you ask here first, Ingleburn, before you make any changes. That way we can all agree or disagree with your proposal . You have the potential be a good contributor to the TV articles, but at the moment you're not really benefiting them. Smacca 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is okay i was just trying to help, with the word anchors it was written on the the national nine news site before it was changed after i made these changes. Thank you for leaving a message, .--Ingleburn 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could i do it the same but no big headings, e.g:

Wollongong and South Coast

• Presenters: Geoff Phillips and Kerryn Johnston
• Sport: Amy Taylor
• Weather: Geoff Phillips and Kerryn Johnston
• Reporters: Colin Duffy, Matt Tinney, Lee Steele, Matt Snelson, Danielle Post, Nick Dole, Samantha Derrick, Terry Aylett

--Ingleburn 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this proposal as it does not benefit the article, and it only clutters it. The current arrangement is concise and is suitable for the article. Please Ingleburn dedicate some of your time on Wikipedia to adding content and expanding small articles, as opposed to rearranging established articles. Stickeylabel 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article rating change

Ingleburn, you can't change an article's rating without requesting the page be reviewed. This needs to be done on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment page. Also, I hardly think the WIN TV article is fit for a GA rating yet. It needs some work, which I'm sure you are determined to help with, but the changes are more than just layout. Content is the key, and I don't mean content from other Wiki articles either. Once the article is fit to be reviewed it can then be changed to reflect it's proper rating. Smacca 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article work

I have now expanded the history section to an appropriate length, and I am currently working to expand other sections of the article. May I please request that the News section and the identity section be expanded and cited to include key historic information. Stickeylabel 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it was a good idea to combine all the sections on each state - having them all lumped in together makes it a bit harder to follow (one I noticed in particular was related to DDQ in Queensland - it came out of nowhere). There's also quite a bit about WIN News in the section on the 2000s which should really be split off into its own article - something I might do myself sometime later. timgraham 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the article Tim :). However, in my opinion the history section makes far more sense now that it is in chronological order, as pre-network information for stations purchased by WIN don't really belong in this article. The section beings with WIN-4, the original station, and aims to chronologically state its history and its expansion. I will try to expand other sections of the article in the following days. Stickeylabel 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order seems like a good idea but at the moment it's a bit incoherent - the history section has all kinds of information on stations completely unrelated to them being a part of WIN. The wayit's been rewritten seems to indicate (a lot like the NBN one used to) that WIN has been a network all along - it hasn't, only really since 1979 when Bruce Gordon took over and started buying up other stations/smaller networks. Case in point are all the details about Star Television, which are almost completely irrelevant to the actual network's history.

The reason I preferred the older format was because it provided a bit of seperation between WIN's history and the station's history. timgraham 02:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the bits that aren't relevant and split off the WIN News section, I think it works a bit better now. timgraham 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I love the new layout, you have done a wonderful job on it.--Ingleburn 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the condensation of the Availability section, as it was over condensed with key links and details replaced by "in most areas" and "a number of". The section should be informative and should contain details about stations and simulcast availability. May I please request the section be expanded, as opposed to condensed. Stickeylabel 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of repeated stuff in there that read like a promotion (24 stations, yada yada). The history section has covered in depth what station WIN owns and where they're located (they don't mean anything these days anyway), and you've called their Nine stations 'affiliate networks' whatever that means. TransACT is the name of the provider, TransTV Digital is the package, and the various WIN-owned stations are also on Neighbourhood Cable in Geelong/Ballarat/Milura as well as Foxtel in Adelaide and Perth. Owned-and-operated station isn't a term really used in Australia either, since it's generally pretty self-evident. timgraham 13:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to start a debate, but it didn't read like a promotion and it was all cited. The sentence was simply stating that WIN Television is available via 24 stations. Owned-and-operated stations is also a term that is widely used and the word is linked to an article which explains what the term means. If there are any things missed in the section, then please try and expand it, don't condense it. STW and NWS were added as affiliates as they broadcast programming sourced and produced by WIN Television, including Susie, Fishing Australia etc. Good work with WIN News by the way, you've done a great job :). Stickeylabel 13:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now added availability information that was previously missed, and I have cleaned up the section. Stickeylabel 13:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the part that says it's expanded from one to 24 stations because the entire history section talks about that, changed Optus C1 to Optus Aurora since that's the name of the service, and added Mildura to the list of Neighbourhood Cable areas. I think the last paragraph is a bit big though - the list of stations might read a bit better as a list:

WIN is broadcast terrestrially through the network's owned-and-operated stations, including:

• MTN Griffith
• RTQ Queensland
• RTS Riverland

• SES Mount Gambier
• STV Mildura
• TVT Tasmania

• VTV Victoria
• WIN Southern New South Wales
• WOW Western Australia

Some WIN-produeced programming is shown on WIN Corporation's metropolitan stations NWS Adelaide and STW Perth.

Thoughts? timgraham 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it and I'm not even sure if the list of stations is even relevant..it's quite a big slab of text and outside of the local news bulletins there isn't much significance to them at the moment - the first paragraph covers availability quite well and it's been many a moon since those names/ID's/callsigns were used on-air. Something like that would be relevant to the history section though, because those names are after all historical. timgraham 08:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tim, I've sumbitted the article for GA review :). With regards to the availability section, the call-signs are not really historic as they still technically exist, they may have ceased to be present on-air, however that should not detract from their encyclopedic value. By the way, what did you think of the images I have added in the past 24 hours? Stickeylabel 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

There are just a couple of suggestions. The dropping of key Nine network programmes is mentioned at the end of the Programming section and in the previous section; it only needs to be mentioned once. The Logos section could be better placed as a sub-section at the end of the History section. The statement about "spanning the largest geographical area in the world" is a little awkward; perhaps it could be reworded slightly. Maybe "covering a larger geographical area than any other television network" would be an improvement.

I've decided to put this article on hold as the article is very close to GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos thanks for reviewing the article :), I have fixed the issues raised above. However with regard to the Logo section, I have left it in its current position as it is the structure used by most network articles in the Australian WikiProject and other WikiProject's around the world. There are also GA articles with a similarly placed section. I hope that this is not an issue, and I hopefully the article is now of GA quality :). Stickeylabel 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article

Hi Stickeylabel, and thanks for explaining that :) In terms of a standard format being used across articles I wonder if you have considered the possibility of a Featured Topic (WP:FT) on Australian television. I've been suitably impressed with the three articles I've reviewed now on this subject. The breadth of coverage is very good, with an impressive amount of detail, without the article bogging down in trivialities. So I would just like to offer every encouragement... -- Johnfos 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing the article and the support :). The Australian television Wikiproject are trying to get the core articles for Australian television up to GA quality, and it would be great to be able to enhance the main article, Australian television, to an FA standard. Hopefully once these are completed, the topic can be nominated as a featured topic. Stickeylabel 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

availability section (yes, again)

I can see why you would be concernede about the article being too condensed but in my view the changes (that were reverted almost straight away) made the section a bit clearer (the callsigsn aren't used on-air anymore and it's been quite a few years now that the majority of people can see where the link they're hovering over leads to). There were also a number of things completely unrelated to the part which you seemed to take issue with so it'd be nice if they could have been left there.

I don't intend on getting into a lengthy dispute, which is why I've brought it up here - come up with something better (which in my view, the original wasn't), or put it back. timgraham 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed various aspects of the section back to your version :). With regards to the various navbox's that you have changed, please gain concensus first, as the current layouts are consistant with all other navbox's on WP:AUTV, as they suit the small amounts of wikilinks needed. Stickeylabel 07:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Slogan

Would "Across Australia" or "Australia's Largest Regional Network" be more appropriate as the slogan? They (as well as Nine) have not used Still the One the entire year. - Boochan 07:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right.. I haven't heard 'still the one' on either for quite some time. timgraham 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Second thought: is there a citation for either? I think it's reasonable to assume WIN use 'Australia's largest regional television network' these days since it is all over their website and also said by the V/O at the end of WIN News. As for Nine, I'm not sure. timgraham 07:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Australia's leading regional television network [1], Australia's largest regional television network [2], Still the one nowhere except here. timgraham 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Schedule

This may seem a little controversial, but I have removed the schedule information for this page. It is simply too difficult to maintain a schedule here as almost every single state/region has a different time (especially for WIN News. Apparently, NSW has it on at 6:30pm (so does Canberra)[3] but Townsville has it on at 6:00pm.[4] Tasmania complicates things by having it on at 6:00pm[5] whilst Victoria views it at 6:30pm[6]. Other differences occur on other days at different times, this is just one major example. Auroranorth 11:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing a good table couldnt fix :| SatuSuro 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's what I deleted, a table. Auroranorth 11:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to my previous comments: Stickylabel has reverted my deletion saying it clearly says that the schedule is not region-specific. I am afraid it is - to NSW and some of Victoria. The schedule is only correct for those two states, therefore it is region-specific. Please discuss here before reverting again - I see comment is yet to be made by Stickylabel. Auroranorth 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just watch what you're doing Auroranorth. A lot of time and effort is put into these schedules and you're blatantly removing them. I agree on why you removed them. I think it can be misleading to have a TV guide styled table to display the different types of program a regional affiliate has, as it can cover many regions with completely different programming. Perhaps you'd like to suggest what you have planned to replace this table. Like I said, a lot of hard work and dedication was just flushed down the toilet by you, so I hope you plan to pour as much time in to something better. -- Smacca | Talk 12:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smacca. I'm glad you've joined us here, as others who have reverted my 'deletion' have chosen not to. Let's brainstorm. I propose a list/table to show what times WIN News is shown on each O&O station. Auroranorth 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Smacca. What you are doing is wasting Wikipedian's time, both the time to revert changes and the time taken to make the schedule. You are also wasting time with this discussion, the time taken could be better spent on constructive edits. I agree, in a sense, that Wikipedia should not be a TV Guide (see WP:NOT). The schedule does not list the weekly variations (eg different movies) and its only purpose is to give an insight into the programming (and genre of programming) of WIN TV. There is even a link to the WIN Guide below the schedule. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to have a paragraph/half a paragraph for each region to detail affiliations and news times - I'd find that a bit more useful encyclopedically than just a table and lots of small text. The metro station articles already cover typical schedules so perhaps instead of duplicating that here it would be best to build upon it.. timgraham 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just elaborating in response to Tris' comment - the WIN schedule is almost entirely a copy-and-paste from the Nine Network article. It's not removing information that doesn't already exist elsewhere. timgraham 12:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... Auroranorth 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not wasting your time as long as this discussion is taking place. If there's an issue, it's not a waste of time, even offline. Auroranorth 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

All good ideas, but I'm not participating any more, Aurora. You clearly didn't get anything out of what I said before. Just keep doing what you're doing, deleting content you think is wrong and earn your reputation as an evil editor. Very disappointed how you went about this, mate. -- Smacca | Talk 12:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Smacca, that was all rather sudden. I am agreeing with timgraham, and believe that his idea is better than a NSW-centred table. Auroranorth 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well get a move on then, make the table. Or are you just going to pluck an idea from someone? Don't delete anything unless you, yes you, not us, have something better to replace it with. Deleting something FIRST then wanting everyone to participate in a happy discussion about it is NOT the right way to do it. Deleting something FIRST spikes the WRONG reaction in ALL CASES, Trisreed saw that, I saw that and no doubt members affected by this are seeing that too. Discuss before delete? Not neccessarily, I guess it depends on the size of the issue, but having a better alternative to something you're about to delete is perfect! But you haven't demonstrated that at all on this page and others. Like I said, very disappointed. -- Smacca | Talk 13:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil on talk pages - your comments may begin to verge on that side of things if we go down that path. We are not making a table (unless I am mistaken), rather text. Auroranorth 13:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So, this issue can't be talked about then? You'll just continue deleting stuff you deem wrong and drag us into discussion? I'm just curoius as to whether you're actually any benefit to Wikipedia at all. -- Smacca | Talk 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Smacca, I was merely warning you that your comments may begin to become uncivil. Saying, no, for the benefit of WP:CIVIL, 'implying' that I am no benefit to Wikipedia is definitely uncivil in my eyes. Please, if we are to resolve this problem we need to get an outside opinion. I am 'disappointed' that you fail to see that I am trying to help. On Wikipedia, I believe comments like yours above are not doing the encyclopedia much good. I will be retiring for the night from here, and will return in the future. As you can see from my talk page, I am on a Wikibreak, and am only intermittently online. I've 'dragged' you into discussion twice where I seemed fit - or where I disagreed with you. Discussion is better than an edit war, remember. OK, signing off (temporarily, I may be on later on tonight), and don't forget, be nice! Auroranorth 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's just what I was looking for. You said "Discussion is better than an edit war," - that's exactly what you did, started an edit war by deleting the table first, just like on the GWN page. You said "I've 'dragged' you into discussion twice where I seemed fit." - thats exactly my previous point aswell. Dragging us into discussion is one thing, but deleting something with having no ideas at all is wrong. Ok, now I'll leave this discussion until you show us one of your ideas for a replacement, otherwise this is just you 'putting us to work' and making us brainstorm to justify your rude deletion, like last time. -- Smacca | Talk 09:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the background is for this hostility but I agree with Auroranorth's reasoning, coming from Townsville myself it seems very NSW centric to put a schedule in that reflects only one of WIN's schedules, it should be all or nothing or make it very clear that there are variations on the schedule from region to region. but the main thing is we need to keep the discussion civil, it didn't even get near breaching the 3RR so I don't know why one reversion is such a problem. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It has become apparent that I need to apologise for being bold and going ahead with these edits. I am going to let this rest for the time being whilst a new system is developed. Auroranorth 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let it rest? So you're going to delete the table, and leave us to do the work? You're right Tris, this is a waste of time! I'm going to another page to contribute something. -- Smacca | Talk 09:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like User:Timg231/drafts#Schedule might be more appropriate (it's nowhere near complete but it is an idea..I think it's a bit more relevant than present). timgraham 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, the schedule's purpose on the article is only to provide genre information for the primary programming lineup shown on the network, and to also allow readers to understand the demographic of the network. The schedule is clearly marked with the following: The above represents WIN Television's usual primetime schedule. It does not reflect one-off events or region specific programming, notably Western Australian and South Australian broadcast markets, and program starting times may vary from those shown. This states that the schedule firstly should not reflect event programming, and secondly that it is not correct for all broadcast markets, notably for Western Australia and South Australia. The schedule should not be replaced with text, to explain different news programming of the timeslots from 5:30pm to 7:00pm, as this would violate Wikipedia policy. Readers are instead given a direct link to the wintv.com.au tv-guide. May I suggest as a solution to this discussion, that a schedule is created for WOW (WIN WA) and SES/RTS (WINSA), and a link from, notably Western Australian and South Australian broadcast markets,, is made to these station articles where genre related information vastly differs. Please remember that the purpose of the schedule is not to provide accurate timeslot information, the main purpose is only to provide genre information, and to allow readers to understand the demographic of the network. Stickeylabel 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have it spelt out to me, but there you go..and although you say it doesn't reflect event programming I see it being 'corrected' an awful lot (for instance the Sea Patrol double ep was on there). I know the disclaimer is there but I think the whole reason this was brought up was because the whole arrangement was getting so unwieldy (with that many exceptions)

What policy would changing it violate? timgraham 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if we left the schedules to each station page - although that said I think it's probably fine for the moment..having to update them accross station pages would be more complicated that it is now. timgraham 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Thank you, that's just what I was looking for. You said "Discussion is better than an edit war," - that's exactly what you did, started an edit war by deleting the table first, just like on the GWN page. You said "I've 'dragged' you into discussion twice where I seemed fit." - thats exactly my previous point aswell. Dragging us into discussion is one thing, but deleting something with having no ideas at all is wrong. Ok, now I'll leave this discussion until you show us one of your ideas for a replacement, otherwise this is just you 'putting us to work' and making us brainstorm to justify your rude deletion, like last time. -- Smacca | Talk 09:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Smacca, please stop the personal attacks, nothing can be deleted from wikipedia, that is a common misunderstanding; people who edit on wikipedia can only add to the project as all previous versions are saved in the history and sections which are not included in new versions can easily be restored. It only disrupts the project when an edit war breaks out, which did not happen in this case. There is no problem with removing content if it is thought to be justifiable, because if someone disagrees with it they can revert it and all parties can then discuss on the talk page, if every edit was discussed then we'd get nowhere. Things only need discussion if there is disagreement, which there was in this case and therefore there is discussion, you need to move on from what might have been minor rudeness in the first instance, because it is your comments that are breaching WP:CIVIL. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Channel 7 in SA

Is there going to be a schedule for SA? We now have Channel 7 programming (ie. Decent television) now, and I would love to do the schedule myself, but the one look at the table code scared me! :o

Douglas 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's one at SES/RTS. timgraham 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now created a WIN South Australia schedule at the SES/RTS article. As well as this, both the WIN WA and WIN SA schedules are now wikilinked below WIN Television's current schedule. Stickeylabel 06:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on WIN Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210090649/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,22251563-30540,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22251563-30540,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070907011603/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,22364267-7582,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22364267-7582,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#WIN and SC Ten

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#WIN and SC Ten. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WIN Television. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070829065945/http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00000280/01/tanner95.pdf to http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00000280/01/tanner95.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment (2022)

WIN Television

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted -- Problems with focus and sourcing remain largely unaddressed. Femke (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WIN Television was listed at GA in 2007 and survived a GA sweep in 2009. It has been more than a decade. While there is a good amount of what probably are good offline newspaper citations, the page is unfocused and does not do enough to explain the scope of WIN's operation. It is not a GA in its current condition; only now was a {{cn}} removed from the lead paragraph!

• If I were not already familiar with how regional television in Australia worked, this article might confuse me. This article sorely needs a table that lists all of WIN's regional services and their network alignment.
• Material that is heavily about WIN's early years in Wollongong should be at WIN (TV station) with a {{main}} on the section here.
• The programming section should focus on local/regional productions by WIN and not on what is produced by the metropolitan stations they carry in different areas.

The article sorely needs repair from editors with more knowledge of Australian television. If this is not obtained, it should not stand as a GA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist clearly way short of current GA requirements. It's been almost 3 months and none of Sammi Brie's suggestions to improve this look like they're being implemented. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Joseph2302 I did add some of the first table and made some changes, but this needs someone with a bit more knowledge on where to get Aussie TV sourcing, especially historical regional Australian newspapers (a Wollongong publication is sorely needed). Trove has the Canberra Times 1926–1995, so there is some coverage post-aggregation of WIN Canberra, but... That's potatoes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist No sourcing for 2021–present: Return to Nine affiliation and some of the other sections suffer from single sentence paragraphs. Aircorn (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• WIN Television 2018.png (discussion)
• WIN logo-large.webp (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)