537:
network originally was a group of stations that broadcast common program content that originates at a network center. Signals were often relayed from one station to the next in round robin fashion in order that program distribution would occur. Nowadays, a network is seen both as the place where program material orginates (more properly a network operation center) and as a company that produces or arranges for the production of program material that will attact paying advertisers. For example, station WRC-TV operates on
Channel 4 and serves the Metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. That station is owned and operated by NBC, a network owned by General Electric. Some stations are not owned and operated by a network. They are called affiliates. All stations broadcast some non-network, local content. Community Antenna Television (CATV) is the ancestor of today's cable television. In mountainous terrain, it was customary for an entrepreneur to erect a receiving antenna on a high plateau and run cables to receivers in the valley. Subscribers could then profitably operate television receivers that were useless without a signal. It occurred to operators of CATV systems that they could inject their own programming for reception in the valley and charge fees to advertisers. Cable television thus was born. Widespread availability of cable television was spurred by geostationary satellites, which relay program content from a network operation center to cable television operators who resell the program content (with or without advertising) to a public that is willing to pay dozens of dollars per month for the privilege. The channels on which cable television program content is received need bear no relation to channels associated with terrestrial television stations. A cable network is like a non-cable network in that there is a network that produces and distributes program content and a network operation center that sends program content aloft, yet such can only be received in cooperation with a cable television system operator. A non-cable network's program content is intended to be transmitted by terrestrial television stations. Cable television system operators distribute terrestrial television station programming via wire so that subscribers may enjoy a better reception experience such as those valley folks did back in the day of CATV. (It is understood that a variation on cable television, known as direct broadcast satellite, exists. It permits subscribers to enjoy the same programs offered by cable television system operators via signals received directly from orbiting satellites.)
447:
signal (feed) a "station" would be okay, but in a world where many broadcasters produce multiple feeds on a nation-wide or even global scale, the term just doesn't make sense. For 20-30 years most terrestrial broadcasters in Europe have had at least two TV feeds - nowadays often four or five, like the BBC and ITV in the UK - which are broadcasted across a whole country via a network of unmanned relay transmitters, with local or regional news perhaps inserted at specific timeslots in some of these feeds. And broadcasters for satellite and cable may offer even more feeds, like
Discovery with 12 different feeds for the US market and 4-9 feeds in Europe (depending on country). The same is true for radio, where, for instance, the Danish public service broadcaster DR now is producing 27 parallell radio feeds (thanks to DAB and the internet).
220:
164:
94:
22:
84:
53:
184:
536:
These terms have been adapted somewhat from their original meanings as technology advances. A station is place where electromagnetic radiation emanates for reception in a surrounding region. A channel is a number assigned to a frequency band within which a station broadcasts its program content. A
362:
I've always been under the assumption that calling, say, NBC, CTV or ESPN a "television channel" was faulty because a channel, be it physical or virtual, is simply the location on which a television signal is sent. Until very recently I assumed
Knowledge had reached the similar consensus opinion, but
1003:
exists, which uses both "channel" and "frequenc", and is apparently a list of the subject of the article requesting to be moved. Due to this, there will be confusion involved due to a lack of consistency. Either way, the latter article needs to be moved to a "List of..." title, but whatever that is,
680:
One shouldn't have to read the article itself to differentiate between alternate uses of the term; by definition it's not the article you're looking for if you need that information! The hatnote makes the different options clearer and more upfront than having to digest article content. (Not *that*
609:- It is certainly a problem without a perfect solution. However, there is information that would go into an articles on television "channels" that would not go into an article on "networks", so my humble opinion would be to leave them separate. In general, I prefer the lesser evil of redundancy.
341:
Really, this complaint is meritless and negative. There is a big difference between a biased article and one that has a lot of information about one country and not so much about others. If there is not enough information about international facts, or television in other countries, you have the
446:
For most
Europeans, including people in Ireland and the UK, a TV or radio "station" is a building/company from where a TV or radio signal is being broadcast, just as railway stations and fire stations are buildings. In a world where one company sends one signal from one transmitter, calling that
467:
has totally changed this, even in the US. Today's broadcasters are more like publishing houses that produce a variety of magazines for different target groups, and the apropriate term for their "magazines" would be "channels" (with the individual programmes being the articles that make up these
454:
I know that the term "station" has been the norm in the US and Canada, and it made perfect sense for a long time, when the radio and TV landscape largely consisted of local broadcasters with a transmitter on the roof, filling out their locally produced material with the feed from an affiliated
450:
To call each such a feed a "station" doesn't make sense, but "channel" does. On old TV sets the dial for switching between feeds was called a "channel selector", so using the term "channel" for the individual feeds make perfect sense for normal viewers (although the TV manucaturers originally
1055:
Ramp up the power at the
Pullman site. It’s pathetic. The reception drops out. The pixels cross and move. The sound drops out. Impossible to enjoy a program. Impossible to connect to a personal email to complain. Please forward to someone to fix the problem. Richland resident
516:
I understand that many may object to parts of this, as it means getting used to a new terminology, but the broadcasting world has changed drastically since the mid 1920's, when most of the current US terminology were coined, and the old terminology doesn't make much sense
468:
magazines, and the often separate playout company that handles the actual transmissions being the printing company). Interestingly enough, I've noticed that
Discovery in the US call their feeds "channels", just like they do in Europe.
1061:
173:
63:
688:
has since been delinked anyway. We could- in theory- relink it, but since that'd be for navigation purposes rather than for the benefit of the article itself, I'd rather not and keep them separate.
1094:
384:
I think perhaps service may be a confusing term as it could be applied to a broad network or an aspect of a television station. I agree with what you say about channel though and think that
1004:
the article proposed to be moved and the list article may need to have synchronous titles if they truly refer to the same subject (which it looks like they do, but I'm not completely sure.)
306:
Cantus, all things applying to the US are marked as such, I do not see any problem with a US-centric view. Some of the article applies to europe and other countries, like the mention of
1089:
511:- a group on broadcasters working together or being affiliates of a central broadcaster (i.e not a stand-alone broadcaster like CNN och Discovery, nor just the 'spider" in a network).
1099:
193:
67:
1057:
774:
In short, there's a lot of blurring due to varying formal and informal uses of the terms in different regions, so we should be very clear on which article refers to which.
625:
939:
870:
Maybe the more-general "assigned number" or "allocated number" might be better? Within the lede, we don't really have to explain how they are assigned or allocated.
867:, to which it redirects. The term "descriptor" is also used, but this seems to mean all the metadata associated with a logical channel, not just the channel number.
319:
If you believe it's too US-centric, maybe you should take a shot at broadening it out. It's very clearly not in need of a neutrality note -- it's almost laughable.
455:
network (a form of radio and TV distribution almost unknown in Europe, where most radio and TV has always been run on a national scale). However, cable, satellite,
978:
962:
230:
418:
refer to a frequency band, but it also can refer to "a route of communication or access" or "a course or pathway through which information is transmitted."
1109:
198:
154:
601:
429:
I agree that "television service" is too vague. Cable/satellite companies are "television services," as are businesses that repair television sets. —
401:"Station" is the correct only when referring to over-the-air broadcasts. In common usage, the term "television channel" refers to television stations
1104:
618:
1114:
234:
788:
723:}} template was not the correct one to use, since it's for similarly spelled terms which have obviously unrelated meanings. IMO, this falls under
592:- They are two different things - network is much more specific - and I think the distinction is important enough to warrant separate articles. --
521:
545:
357:
366:
Would the term "television service" be more appropriate as a blanket term for stations, networks, and cable/satellite-based undertakings? The
310:. If someone has information on other countries, he or she will add that information at a later date. I beleive you are overthinking NPOV. --
378:
1084:
855:
later in the article and that is really what is meant, but saying "A television channel is a... virtual channel" seems somewhat circular.
144:
433:
924:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1065:
879:
491:- a company, often not owned by the broadcaster, that handles the actual transmission of each channel for one or several broadcasters.
392:
817:
803:
736:
674:
374:" for the latter group whereas U.S. equivalents ("cable networks") are sometimes dubbed "programming services" for legal purposes. -
1119:
1079:
990:
656:
583:
1036:
901:
116:
1019:
952:
247:
871:
593:
120:
1046:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
906:
827:
642:
624:
I started writing a response here, but my conclusion was that we need a central point for discussion, so I've started
843:
I am not sure "virtual number" is a good definition. What is a "virtual" number, when all numbers are abstract (even
752:
are definitely warranted because in many areas (including- but not restricted to- the United
Kingdom and Australia),
273:
260:
page, or perhaps one by country (as in the networks article) and one by network only (as in this stations article). –
697:
531:
107:
58:
351:
791:
allocated licences for a sixth television channel for non-profit community and educational use on a trial basis".
637:
553:
570:
1000:
579:
754:
the term "channel" is often used interchangeably with "station"... referring to what
Knowledge describes as a
677:
with the rationale "rmv inappropriate hat (links already presented with proper context in first sentence)".
771:
article covers what *we* usually mean when we refer to a "TV channel" or "TV station" in colloquial speech!
33:
257:
986:
456:
915:
897:
575:
226:
928:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
884:
875:
661:
597:
21:
859:
837:
560:
982:
925:
647:
It doesn't seem that encyclopedic and its optionated especially in the last section I think.
39:
405:
to their cable/satellite counterparts. This broader category is the subject of the article.
1032:
893:
720:
614:
541:
518:
471:
So, I would like to propose that the
English language Knowledge adopts the follwing terms:
347:
8:
1015:
948:
652:
974:
970:
966:
958:
890:
813:
768:
764:
755:
749:
745:
732:
716:
712:
685:
566:
549:
283:
253:
276:
if you are interested in standardizing the various television station/channel pages.-
724:
704:
430:
371:
99:
799:
763:(though that term isn't really used as much here). (#) In other words, neither the
693:
419:
293:
1050:
1028:
864:
852:
633:
610:
343:
331:
320:
311:
112:
115:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
1005:
944:
848:
648:
1073:
809:
728:
668:
375:
261:
389:
163:
267:
844:
795:
689:
289:
111:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about
629:
277:
93:
851:
is a term used in telephony and is not the sense meant here. We have
707:}} hatnote was plainly inappropriate, since such links belong in the
681:
much here, admittedly, but it's still the principle that applies).
256:, but there is already an article there. We really need to have a
780:
1095:
Unknown-importance
Broadcast engineering and technology articles
973:
could otherwise turned into a disambiguation article between
965:– I think this page should be used for some the more generic
485:- an enitity that produces one or more feeds for TV or radio.
183:
741:
On reflection, you're probably correct about the "see also".
83:
52:
464:
451:
introduced the term "channel" to mean a pre-set frequency).
367:
288:
Article seems to be too centered on the United States... —
225:
On 28 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be
1090:
Start-Class Broadcast engineering and technology articles
460:
307:
1100:
Broadcast engineering and technology task force articles
808:
Your addition using the About template is fine by me. --
569:
and this article be merged together. Discuss here or at
89:
174:
the Broadcast engineering and technology task force
725:Linking to articles that are related to the topic
1071:
252:At first I thought of moving the entire page to
727:, which is an inappropriate use of hatnotes. --
119:. To improve this article, please refer to the
787:of the British Broadcasting Corporation" and "
388:is the most sensible unambiguous description.
789:In 1993 the Australian Broadcasting Authority
999:for the simple fact that a page by the name
711:section at the bottom of the page. Links to
1110:Top-importance Television stations articles
19:
914:The following is a closed discussion of a
248:This list is of TV networks, not stations
1105:Start-Class Television stations articles
863:is used several times (as plaintext) at
1115:Television stations task force articles
1058:2600:6C54:7800:15BF:1859:6C4A:A5D8:C958
1072:
626:a discussion at WikiProject Television
571:Talk:Television network#Merge proposal
565:I see that it has been suggested that
838:broadcast frequency or virtual number
532:Station versus Channel versus Network
933:The result of the move request was:
214:
105:This article is within the scope of
15:
1085:High-importance television articles
719:are a bit more arguable, but the {{
628:about how best to organise this. -
501:- a single feed from a broadcaster.
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
194:the Television stations task force
182:
162:
14:
1131:
274:Talk:Lists of television channels
1042:The discussion above is closed.
218:
129:Knowledge:WikiProject Television
92:
82:
51:
20:
1120:WikiProject Television articles
1080:Start-Class television articles
907:Requested move 28 November 2022
149:This article has been rated as
132:Template:WikiProject Television
1001:Television channel frequencies
940:closed by non-admin page mover
1:
1037:22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
1020:16:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
991:11:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
434:23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
393:23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
191:This article is supported by
171:This article is supported by
1066:20:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
953:14:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
657:22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
638:02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
379:20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
358:Is "channel" the right name?
7:
902:09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
880:08:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
783:is the flagship television
675:the removal of the hatnotes
522:19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
258:list of television networks
10:
1136:
818:20:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
804:20:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
744:However, the inclusion of
737:19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
698:19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
643:Digital Television Section
584:23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
272:Please see my comments in
155:project's importance scale
602:00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
556:) 1:30 (UTC), 7 May 2006
334:04:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
302:08:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
280:02:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
264:23:28, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
190:
170:
148:
77:
46:
1044:Please do not modify it.
921:Please do not modify it.
323:03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
314:09:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
619:14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
352:14:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
342:solution in your hands.
860:Logical channel number
187:
167:
108:WikiProject Television
28:This article is rated
186:
166:
123:for the type of work.
979:television frequency
963:Television frequency
832:The lede starts: "A
231:Television frequency
414:The word "channel"
135:television articles
117:join the discussion
113:television programs
975:television station
971:Television channel
967:Television station
959:Television channel
891:Television Channel
834:television channel
769:television channel
765:television station
750:television network
746:television station
717:Television station
713:Television network
686:television station
567:Television network
372:specialty services
254:television network
188:
168:
34:content assessment
943:
557:
544:comment added by
245:
244:
213:
212:
209:
208:
205:
204:
100:Television portal
1127:
1012:
983:PhotographyEdits
937:
923:
862:
828:"Virtual number"
684:On top of this,
673:I disagree with
672:
662:Hatnote restored
539:
363:apparently not.
268:Massive problems
233:. The result of
222:
221:
215:
137:
136:
133:
130:
127:
121:style guidelines
102:
97:
96:
86:
79:
78:
73:
70:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1070:
1069:
1053:
1048:
1047:
1006:
919:
909:
894:Chocolateediter
887:
865:virtual channel
858:
853:virtual channel
830:
666:
664:
645:
563:
534:
519:Thomas Blomberg
489:Playout company
360:
300:
299:
286:
270:
250:
219:
151:High-importance
134:
131:
128:
125:
124:
98:
91:
72:High‑importance
71:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1133:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1052:
1049:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1022:
956:
931:
930:
916:requested move
910:
908:
905:
886:
885:Merge proposal
883:
872:178.164.139.37
849:Virtual number
829:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
793:
775:
772:
742:
663:
660:
644:
641:
622:
621:
604:
594:64.247.122.178
573:
562:
561:Merge proposal
559:
538:
533:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
514:
513:
512:
502:
492:
486:
469:
452:
448:
439:
438:
437:
436:
424:
423:
422:
421:
409:
408:
407:
406:
396:
395:
359:
356:
355:
354:
338:
337:
336:
335:
325:
324:
316:
315:
295:
294:
285:
282:
269:
266:
249:
246:
243:
242:
235:the discussion
223:
211:
210:
207:
206:
203:
202:
199:Top-importance
189:
179:
178:
169:
159:
158:
147:
141:
140:
138:
104:
103:
87:
75:
74:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1132:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1045:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
993:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
955:
954:
950:
946:
941:
936:
929:
927:
922:
917:
912:
911:
904:
903:
899:
895:
892:
882:
881:
877:
873:
868:
866:
861:
856:
854:
850:
846:
841:
839:
835:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
794:
792:
790:
784:
782:
779:For example "
776:
773:
770:
766:
762:
760:
759:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
682:
678:
676:
670:
659:
658:
654:
650:
640:
639:
635:
631:
627:
620:
616:
612:
608:
607:Do not merge.
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
590:Do not merge.
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
558:
555:
551:
547:
543:
523:
520:
515:
510:
509:radio network
506:
503:
500:
499:radio channel
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
483:radio company
480:
476:
473:
472:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
435:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
420:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
404:
400:
399:
398:
397:
394:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
364:
353:
349:
345:
340:
339:
333:
330:Removed NPOV
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
301:
298:
291:
281:
279:
275:
265:
263:
259:
255:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
217:
216:
200:
197:(assessed as
196:
195:
185:
181:
180:
176:
175:
165:
161:
160:
156:
152:
146:
143:
142:
139:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
101:
95:
90:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1054:
1051:Transmission
1043:
1024:
1008:
1007:
996:
957:
934:
932:
920:
913:
888:
869:
857:
845:real numbers
842:
833:
831:
786:
778:
757:
753:
708:
683:
679:
665:
646:
623:
606:
589:
576:Jerome Potts
564:
535:
508:
504:
498:
494:
488:
482:
478:
474:
431:Lifeisunfair
415:
402:
385:
365:
361:
296:
287:
271:
251:
238:
192:
172:
150:
106:
64:Broadcasting
40:WikiProjects
1027:per above.
945:– robertsky
926:move review
756:television
721:Distinguish
540:—Preceding
475:Broadcaster
30:Start-class
1074:Categories
1029:Rreagan007
935:not moved.
505:TV network
495:TV channel
479:TV company
332:Mboverload
321:Boisemedia
312:Mboverload
284:US centric
126:Television
59:Television
1009:Steel1943
969:article.
649:team6and7
546:Mrockman
239:not moved
810:Paul_012
729:Paul_012
709:See also
705:See also
669:Paul 012
554:contribs
542:unsigned
376:Stickguy
262:radiojon
68:Stations
785:channel
781:BBC One
758:network
390:Dainamo
386:station
153:on the
1025:Oppose
997:Oppose
796:Ubcule
703:The {{
690:Ubcule
611:Apollo
517:today.
370:uses "
344:Apollo
290:Cantus
36:scale.
840:"...
836:is a
630:IMSoP
278:dcljr
227:moved
1062:talk
1033:talk
1016:talk
987:talk
977:and
949:talk
898:talk
889:See
876:talk
814:talk
800:talk
777:(#)
748:and
733:talk
715:and
694:talk
653:talk
634:talk
615:talk
598:talk
580:talk
550:talk
465:IPTV
463:and
368:CRTC
348:talk
237:was
145:High
847:)?
767:or
761:(!)
477:or
461:DTT
457:DAB
416:can
403:and
308:PAL
229:to
1076::
1064:)
1035:)
1018:)
989:)
981:.
961:→
951:)
918:.
900:)
878:)
816:)
802:)
735:)
696:)
655:)
636:)
617:)
600:)
582:)
574:--
552:•
459:,
350:)
201:).
66:/
62::
1060:(
1031:(
1014:(
985:(
947:(
942:)
938:(
896:(
874:(
812:(
798:(
731:(
692:(
671::
667:@
651:(
632:(
613:(
596:(
578:(
548:(
507:/
497:/
481:/
346:(
297:☎
292:…
241:.
177:.
157:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
