Talk:KMSP-TV

Untitled

On January 15, 1994 KMSP-TV was one of the original UPN affiliates. On September 8, 2002, KMSP switched affiliations with WFTC. They made the switch and KMSP became FOX 9, while WFTC became UPN 29.

KMSP-TV was also one of the top two unaffiliated stations in the country as of 1989, from a book I read about Minneapolis. -- rmsharpe -- (02:53, 21 Nov 2004)

Removal of newscast schedules?

To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Newscast_schedules.2C_redux, where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tidying up

I took the liberty of cleaning some of this article, and even added to stuff I put in it a while ago. However, one user seems to like all the grammatical and spelling errors previously there, and has reverted. I tried to meet the person halfway. Some of the stuff should be eliminated, such as a listing of the entire current news staff, which, for some reason, people are adamant about putting in all TV articles. Quite frankly, I'd rather see historic logos than that, but maybe that's just me. I'd like to get rid of "Current Personalities" except for perhaps a few names. Past personalities should stay, IMO, since there have been some pretty big names here. Anyways, I tidied this whole article up a bit. If someone has a compelling reason why they feel it is inappropriate, express yourself below or on my talk page.--Fightingirish 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

1) It's Fox, not FOX. Despite the network's use of capitalization on its logo, it's still just a word. No uppercasing on the fifteenth or twenty-fourth letters.

2) As the article is written now, there is no need for additional subsectioning. There really isn't enough text for certain sections to justify creating its own sub-heading.

3) The "Current Personalities" section is relevant to the topic, and is in most television station articles. It should stay. If a listing of past personalities gets included, the list shouldbe kept to those considered "notable" enough.

4) FYI I fixed some typos and spellings today. First, Erick Maitland is Spelled Erik Maitland. He also has both a AMS and NWA Seal (Not the previously listed AMS seal). Second Christine Clayburg's position has been eliminated (source: I work there / star tribune newspaper). Erik now does Friday and Saturday Nights along with the weekend morning news. Third, on M.A. Rosko and Todd Walker, they both were listed as a features reporter. It is supposed to be (and has been changed to) feature reporter.

Thanks, Fox 9 Morning News Employee

That's all. Rollosmokes 05:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply...

I'll compromise and leave it as "Fox". Fox prefers it capitalized (there was a debate about this on a few articles and that seemed to be the consensus. Besides, way too many articles to change.

If there's room for every staff member down to the janitor on this page, another subsection wouldn't hurt. Again, I'll compromise, which is something you don't seem willing to do.

The article as it stood read poorly, was repetitious, had spelling and grammatical errors and made unsubstantiated claims. My revisions cleaned it up a bit.

This is Wikipedia, not Rollosmokesopedia, meaning anyone is allowed to edit. This is not your own little fiefdom. Nobody died and made you king. Revert me once more and I'll get an administrator involved.

Sorry to be a bit rough, but you need to learn to compromise.--Fightingirish 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry to be a bit rough, but you need to learn to compromise."

So, that is what I get for making suggestions? And after I explained my reasons on this very talk page? Give me a break! What you did was a complete revertion, not a revision. Is that a compromise? I don't think so. I took the liberty of explaining my reasons, and perhaps you should have expained yours for completely reverting back to YOUR PREFERRED VERSION. One more thing: DO NOT THREATEN ME. Rollosmokes 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been willing to compromise. You have not. I have stated my reasons, contrary to what you may think. You have simply taken a 'my way or the highway' approach by simply reverting what you don't like. And in doing so, you have violated the three revert rule. And yes, I have reported you on this, as is my right to do so. Hopefully this will be resolved once and for all.

And no, I did not 'threaten' you. I only stated that I would get an administrator involved to keep this from blowing up into an edit war. Kinda stupid to make such a fuss of this, don't you think?--Fightingirish 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Revert me once more and I'll get an administrator involved."' That, along with your harsh (your words, not mine) language sounds like a threat to me. Rollosmokes 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You consider that a threat??? Geez, get a grip! Kinda like you using ALL CAPS, threatening me not to threaten you. BTW: The page you linked to refers to legal threats. Totally unrelated to this.

The truth of the matter is that you are not being cooperative. You have not proven that anything is wrong with my edits, only that you don't like them. That is not an acceptable reason. Though, looking at your talk page, edit wars seem par for the course as far as you are concerned. FYI, I have never been warned or blocked before. You have. If you continue your uncivil behavior, I have every right to get an administrator involved. Now play nice.--Fightingirish 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that better time could be spent referencing this article instead of edit warring over Fox vs. FOX, KMGM vs. KMGM-TV, parenthesis vs. commas, etc. Absolutely ridiculous. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire History section is unreferenced, even though there's a lot of referenceable material here. I grew up in the Twin Cities and I remember the three-way network affiliation switch between KMSP, WTCN (now KARE), and KSTP, but we still need to have a reference for that material. There should also be a reference or two somewhere for the list of past and present personalities at the station. The article needs actual constructive editing, not edit warring. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All I've been doing is constructive editing. I did as I was supposed to do -- explained my reasons in this talk page, something Fightingirish didn't do -- and I get villified for it. And I've never dealt with this person before. Rollosmokes 06:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of the information came from the excellent Studioz7 web article (though I don't want to plagiarize the thing). I also spent many years living in the Twin Cities, so I'm not just some rube. I also started incorporating stuff in this article last summer, so I am definitely not a fly-by. Much of the stuff I wrote for this article is still there. Now, I am trying to organize it and clean it up, but my efforts have been slowed down a bit from some New Yorker with an obsession for reverts. Give me time and I'll try and make something of it. I'll also try and track down more sources, though that can often be a bit difficult, given how the web is friendlier to short-term history. Might have to visit the library (I think those are still around) or something.

And Elkman, if there's anything you feel is worth adding, by all means do.--Fightingirish 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to do this...

As Firsfron said, this is really ridiculous. However, since Fightingirish can't see the forest from beyond the trees, I'll have to break this down for him (and anyone else interested), paragraph-by-paragraph, sentence-by-sentence:

The station is noted for having a number of Emmy-winning photojournalists and reporters.

Here, reporters doesn't have to be Wikified.

The station began broadcasting as KEYD on March 12, 1955 and was affiliated with the DuMont Television Network. One of its first news reporters was Harry Reasoner, who later in life would become one of the first presenters on 60 Minutes.

First, the words "later in life" sound lame and unprofessional from a writing standpoint. It should read "...later in his career". Also, Reasoner's work at ABC News -- seen in the Twin Cities on KMSP, his former station -- is relevant enough to be mentioned here. And 60 Minutes should be italicized as it is a title of a television show.

It later changed its call sign again to KMSP-TV when the station was sold to its longtime owner United Television (then a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox) in 1958.

Get rid of the word longtime (which will become redundant was the article moves along) and the parenthesis around 20th Century Fox, and use a comma instead.

On August 29, 1978, ABC announced that KSTP-TV would be its new affiliate in the Twin Cities. The signing of channel 5 made nationwide news, as it had been an NBC affiliate for 30 years, and its radio station for 50.

KSTP radio's relationship with NBC is trivial to this article.

However, NBC, miffed at losing one of its strongest affiliates, and not wanting to pick up ABC's rejects, turned down KMSP's offer almost immediately and signed an affiliation agreement with independent WTCN-TV.

Redundant Wikifiying of KARE/WTCN-TV.

It rebranded itself as "Receptive Channel 9", and became quite aggressive in programming, obtaining broadcast rights to several state high school sports championships (MSHSL), the NHL's Minnesota North Stars and the Minnesota Twins baseball team. The stripped-down newscast was moved to 9:30, then by 1981 to 9:00 and expanded to a full hour.

Fightingirish, what's wrong with adding -p.m. after the times?

Over time, IT became one of the most successful and profitable independent stations in the country.

Pretty obvious. This is what happens when complete reverts are done without fixing the real problems (see the bold type).

In 1981, KMSP went through another ownership change when United Television was merged with Chris-Craft Industries.

Again, Fightingirish, what's so wrong with expanding this sentence and adding references to KMSP's new sister stations, KCOP and KPTV?

By 1988, KMSP was one of several Fox affiliates nationwide disappointed with the network's weak programming offerings at the time, particularly on Saturday nights, which were bogging down KMSP's otherwise successful independent lineup. They started pre-empting and time-shifting network shows, much to Fox's irritation. After an ultimatum by the network to run the full schedule in the desired time slots was rejected by KMSP, Fox named KITN Channel 29 as its new Twin Cities affiliate, and KMSP returned to full independent status.

There was a paragraph I had written which re-worded this, and it was removed. The fact that KMSP was dropped by Fox was in what I had written -- and it should be written as such here. There is no capital C in channel, and there is a -TV suffix after KITN.

KMSP became one of UPN's most successful affiliates. In addition, it was still enjoying success with local sports programming featuring the Twins(now on WFTC), as well as the MSHSL championships (now on KSTC).

See the boldface? Where's the space between the words?

KMSP remained as a UPN affiliate even after the station, along with several other stations owned by Chris-Craft, was sold to the Fox Television Stations Group in 2001. An affiliation swap was expected after KMSP's affiliation contract with UPN ran out, as Fox likely would prefer the affiliation on their own station, one with a strong, established VHF signal and news operation. The move was made easier when Fox obtained local affiliate WFTC from Clear Channel shortly after in July 2001.

Again, another paragraph I rewritten in a better manner was replaced. First, it's just Fox Television Stations, without the word Group (despite the title of the Wikipedia article). Second, "...shortly after" is redundant.

Fox proceeded to invest heavily in KMSP, creating the station's strongest news operation ever (they even briefly produced a newscast for sister station WFTC). In addition, Fox soon become a full-fledged competitor with NBC, ABC and CBS with shows like "24", "House" and "American Idol" and an aggressive cable news operation. Ironically, the late night edition of "Fox9 News" today often draws better ratings than the newscasts on KSTP-TV, which obtained the ABC affiliation from it decades earlier.

A paragraph that can, and should, be pared down. First, there is no need to list programs. Second, there should be a space between Fox and 9 in Fox 9 News.

On September 9 2006, 4Kids TV programming moved to sister station WFTC.

Pretty trivial.

Lastly, the subheadings for news personnel can be simplified, as I tried to do in my edits of this article. The names don't have to be bolded either. If you had just taken the time to thoroughly examine my work before criticizing it, you would have seen what I had done to both streamline the article and make it a better read. Instead, you have pretty much labelled my work as vandalism and choose to use your preferred version. That can be considered as claiming ownership of this article, which is not allowed. I dind my part in explaining my reasoning, and I will be making these correct changes once again. The least you can do is explain your reasons for making your changes. Rollosmokes 06:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. You started it and did the exact same thing, reverting every single edit I made. In the process, you reverted someone else's edit as well. The very first revert was done within hours of my edits. As I stated before, this article is far from finished. I initially had explained much more than you have why I made the changes. Making changes is one thing, erasing other people's edits for no good reason is another. And that's the rub. You deliberately erased edits you did not agree with. I haven't used the word 'vandalism' yet but quite frankly, I would consider this to be just that. And again, you have a long history of warnings and bannings for edit wars and uncivil behavior. I don't.

Again, I started editing this article a year ago. No, I'm not claiming ownership, like you have tried to do with Metromedia, YES Network and others. Even above, I encouraged others to add input. But to get into flamewars over piddly stuff is ridiculous. My problem is your reverts. And the fact that you were unwilling to compromise, And judging from your past history, I saw that as very rude behavior.

"By the way, I have made more edits since, adding information that is also sourced. Keep that in mind next time you decide to 'revert'. --Fightingirish 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Okay, I made a few changes. Some notations:

1. KSTP radio's relationship with NBC is very noteworthy. And part of the reason why the affiliate switch made big news across the country. This was a pretty big deal in the Twin Cities at the time. Not that you'd know that, of course.

2. One of the things I corrected in my edits is the IT thing. Yet you kept reverting my edits back, and this returned. It is now gone. Next time read the edits before zapping them. Don't try to blame this all on others.

3. Who cares about KCOP and KPTV? Irrelevant in this article.

4. As for "-TV" suffixes, the FCC normally recognizes those if another radio station also employs those calls. From 1984 to 1991, channel 29 was recognized simply as KITN. Following that, a radio station carried the KITN call letters, so channel 29 was known as KITN-TV. This is all pretty trivial and stupid. Who cares?

5. I tried to eliminate some of the redundancy in the article. Of course, these corrections went away when you reverted. Again, don't put that all on me. Incidentally, many other people have added to this article since the last time I really touched it (which was probably last year).

6. I really don't care about afternoon cartoon blocks, but for some strange reason, people like to put this stuff in TV station articles. I could care less, and left it so I wouldn't incur anyone else's wrath.

7. Again, this article is far from done, and knowing the nature of Wikipedia, it likely never will be. The initial edits I made the other day were a start. Perhaps I would have gotten more done if someone hadn't tried to start a stupid all-out edit war.

8. And again, I explained my reasons before. Much more than you explained your reverts. So playing the victim card will not fly with me. I see right through it. I have been more than willing to discuss and compromise. You have not.--Fightingirish 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, time to make this a really good article

I've been retooling this article, and in the process added sources, corrected some wrong information and even added a reference section. It's far from finished, as I need to add more to the references. But this will hopefully come a bit closer to what a good article should be, rather than piddly fighting over "-TV" prefixes and such. That's ridiculous to fight over. It's time to add some meat to this thing. --Fightingirish 15:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now this is getting ridiculous! I rewrote the article, adding references, sources, etc. And someone comes in and reverts the whole damned thing! What is wrong with you people?

Nonetheless, I do respect that the article has been locked. Let's work this out. I do request that the edits of 75.73.209.164 be reverted. That is obvious vandalism. (On edit: This person has contributed to this article in the past, but should not have reverted.)

And no, Rollosmokes, that is not me.--Fightingirish 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version you wrote last night, as this is the only version with actual references and stuff. I am not endorsing this version, either, but at least it seems some effort went into referencing this version, and referenced items generally should not be removed. Each party may make requests for check user if he desires, or we can simply discuss the article itself and move on, as it seems unlikely to me that either party was involved in the last revert. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this would be a good starting point for analyzing the article, to see what could be added or subtracted. So far, I think this is heading in the right direction. Let's start here and do this in a dignified manner, without all the ridiculous bickering. --Fightingirish 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

When will this become unlocked again?--milk the cows (Talk) 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've unlocked it now. Feel free to edit. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Change Request

Please add back the notable events list found in all previous versions before this war began.

The notable events section was simply a list of events which was already covered by the prose in the history section. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we would naturally prefer to have paragraphs of prose instead of a section consisting entirely of lists. If there was something specific that was included in the list, but which hasn't been included in the history section's prose, we could add that information in prose form to the history section, provided a reliable source can be found to support that material. Sound good? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Timeline in the history is missing the newest developments at Fox such as adding newscasts, and the addition of 3d traffic, and the implementaion of Robotic Cameras.

Heidi Collins will join Fox 9 in mid october so i put her in the Anchor team. I also changed it so Weeknight anchors show 1st, then morning news team, and weekend team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.98.25 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

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:NLIST 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) 03:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KMSP-TV. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131214084824/http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/090602/spo_0906020016.shtml to http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/090602/spo_0906020016.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

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) 17:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KMSP-TV. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130522064140/http://www.wcvb.com/tv/news-team/-/9850618/12149278/-/i4gpoi/-/index.html to http://www.wcvb.com/tv/news-team/-/9850618/12149278/-/i4gpoi/-/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508022231/http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/tvq.html to http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/tvq.html

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) 12:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)