Talk:The WB

Cable stations

Someone should add in the article about the WB Cable stations, aka the WB100+.--James Stanley Barr 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ribbit Arena

What is Ribbit Arena, and why is it here? [David Levinson]

Ribbit Arena was/still is the games page on Kids' WB!'s website. [Anonymous]

The WB

Is the "The" strictly necessary in this article name? Unless WB is very particular about it appearing in running text as "The WB Television Network" (and maybe even then, if we get clarification on the article-naming policy) then surely it ought to move to WB Television Network. Alai 17:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "The WB" does sound dumb, doesn't it? But they're very particular about being referred to with the definite article. Most style books assert the rule that an organization is always the final authority on the correct usage of its own name. ---Isaac R 19:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think wikiprecedent keeps "The" in titles if it's part of the official name, e.g. The Beatles, The Rockford Files. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • There are different conventions for different cases. "Works" are well-established as always retaining the initial article, and names of bands seem to be another such, accordinbg to the MoS. However, the more general rule seems to most common use/capitalised "The" in running text. (Googling seems to indicate this is actually quite common, though perhaps only WB themselves even bother using the full title, somewhat biasing the results.) Alai 06:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was The WB, not WB. And besides there wasn't anything Warner Bros.ish about that network. UPN, which was more popular, was more Warner Bros.ish and it was Paramount (along with Chris Craft and United Television).

Page move

I'm placing this on wp:rm, in order to get some clarity here. There seems to be a lack of rigour in the naming conventions on this. Alai 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Two data points, for whatever it's worth: 1) a google search for "WB Television Network" gets only 4,000 more hits than "The WB Television Network", which seems to imply "The" is pretty commonly included at the beginning, and 2) If you go here[1], click "SEARCH trademarks", click "New User Form Search (Basic)", enter "wb network" and submit the query, you will see that "The" is part of their registered trademark. Niteowlneils 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did the move, and fixed all the double redirs, before coming to this page to explain the logic and keep "some fool" from reversing it. I was surprised to find that this change is controversial!

It was obvious to me that someone had chosen that name because of the "The" being used by, or service-marked by, the network itself. We don't use names because they are official, but bcz they are natural enough to be widely used, and therefore to be the name that real users (not corporate lawyers) are likely to look them up by.

WB put the "The" in there as much bcz it's unnatural to include in the name as bcz "WB Network" standing alone sounds funny. (It sounds funny bcz it combines an initialism and a word, which perhaps make it sound like Network is a surname which could make WB stand for something like "Wilfred Bartholomew".) The frequency of including the "The" is just like never using "National Broadcasting Company" (that's NBC) without a "the" (lowercase!) in front of it. But trying to make people capitalize the T is an affectation that supports the punchy "The WB" and "The Duck Frog" thing.

WP doesn't like The in titles, and this one is ugly and not needed. Hope you-all will just let it be now that it's done. (In intentionally left the "The" bolded in the lead of the article, but i don't think that's a big deal either way.)

Sorry if i've offended anyone by uninformedly editing boldly (tho this is not an apology for doing so).
--Jerzy·t 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At 130,000 for "The WB Television Network" to 4,100 for "WB Television Network", I think the 'common names' guideline clearly prefers "The" more than the 'avoid "the" guideline' prefers without. 151,000 hits for "National Broadcasting Company" compared to 18,800 for "the National Broadcasting Company" seems to indicate 'the' isn't often used in running text for networks unless it is part of the common name. Niteowlneils 09:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This information is unpersuasive. Why NBC is different may or may not be interesting, but it's not very relevant so far.

Have you figured out how to discount pages that were ordered changed by the site owners' legal depts, which reflect commercial propaganda rather than real usage?

I assume no one would make the corresponding arguement about "The United States", in the likely event that the results are similar. (That is a redir, as this is, and both should be.) And are you arguing that we must write

We watched The WB Television Network

rather than

We watched the WB Television Network

(which presumably both count on the The side in your search results, but reflect entirely different approaches to the name)?

What about

That's a The WB Television Network show.

vs.

That's a WB Television Network show.

? (In fairness, i'll mention that the NYTimes is dealing with a related issue in writing "...belonged to Al Qaida" but "was a Qaida operative". But i suggest that most pub'ns' practice of writing "was an Al Qaida operative" is merely a concession to readers' ignorance about whether the organization is named after a martyr named "Al". While foreign languages are such a fringe case as to be confusing, you'd probably find "Der Brandenburger Tor" out-Googling "Brandenburger Tor", but we're not as likely to be confused about German grammatical articles as about Arabic ones.)

--Jerzy·t 02:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I only mentioned NBC because you brought it up.
2. With redirects and piping, editors can write it anyway they want.
3. Scanning the first 10 pages of hits, it looks like even in mid-sentence, "The WB..." appears about 80-90%, with "the WB..." just 10-20%.
4. I can't imagine that a significant portion of the 130k hits were done due to legal or other pressure. Niteowlneils 29 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

WB Television Network → The WB Television Network – Generally, The WB is used with the "The", and the article for The CW (a similarly named network that will replace this one in the fall) is at The CW Television Network. (Yes, there are uses without the "The", but usually that is a local station or programming block or to be grammatically correct, but that's something else.) While I understand that it is unobstructed by the history of the proposed name, there may be controversy, and I feel that such differing opinions should be brought up (the last discussion was back in June!). So, I'm putting it up for consensus.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support, per nom. —A 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per normal WP style, "The" is not included in the title unless it is always inseparable from the rest. This makes linking easier. Jonathunder 21:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Jonathunder. Irregardless if "The WB" is in colloquial usage (which redirects to the current article); similarly, The CW Television Network should be moved and retitled without the definite article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as "The" is part of the network's official name. Should The Simpsons be moved to Simpsons and The Hague be moved to Hague? DHowell 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Both of these binomial examples would be ambiguous without the article; the current topic wouldn't be. The Encyclopedia of Television sees fit to omit "The" in its entry, as do many other references online. As well, it's ironic that The WB refers to the youth portion as "Kids' WB". Moreover, arguably, The Hague could be moved to s-Gravenhage or Den Haag. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment ^{[See below]} DHowell 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• ^{^} How about The Beatles? Certainly "Beatles" would be unambiguous, but that's not their official name. The New York Times is an even better example. Your source, by the way, also omits the word "Television", so I'm not sure how authoritative that should be in naming issues. "Kids' WB" is just a different trademark, no doubt they thought "Kids' The WB" wouldn't sound right. In just about every other instance, the network always uses "The" in front of "WB", and capitalizes it, even in the middle of sentences (e.g., [2], and look at the copyright notice at the bottom for the legal name of the network). Even you did it in your own comment! Finally, "The Hague" is the most common name for the city in the English language, so unless that were to change (à la Torino, a proposed move currently under discussion), it should remain exactly where it is. DHowell 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of definite articles is debatable in many respects. For a binomial term like "The Beatles", it seems appropriate (though wouldn't lose sleep it it were nixed) ... and, despite the name, the online URL for The New York Times www.nytimes.com excludes it. Moreover, the reference above likely omitted "Television" given that it's a compendium about that medium and is still umabiguous without it.

Importantly, there's a distinct difference (at least more recently in general parlance) when referring to "T/the WB" in short (the network) as opposed to just the initialism WB (which can refer to either the parent company or something else), and a longer form where the network is utterly unambiguous without "The". And I'm sure the company had reason to not refer to the youth element as "The Kids' WB" instead? Inconsistent marketing/mojo we needn't pander to: for the long form, use of the definite article is superfluous for the Wp title.

Lastly, it's interesting that (the) Netherlands is currently entitled without the article despite it being integral to its (English) name. And, as a segue, I can't opine on what's happening with Turin/Torino, but other alternate renditions have held (Kolkata, Zürich, Beijing yet Peking Man et al.) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You should probably file a move request for the CW thingummy as well, now. —Nightstallion (?) 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dang, I just missed the vote. I would have supported it. It's what I typed when I first tried linking to it. —Fitch 10:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move, as there is consensus for a move on Talk:The CW Television Network, despite the lack of a consensus here. There appears to be consensus that we need to be consistent between these two cases. An administrator is asked to remove the redirect at The WB Television Network. Note that one of the oppose votes is from an anon, so the final vote is 2-1-1. Morgan Wick 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move, redux

WB Television Network → The WB Television Network – "The WB Television Network" is the official name of the network. The network is commonly referred to as "The WB". "The" is as much a part of this name as it is a part of The Beatles, The Hague, and The New York Times. Recently, The CW Television Network was moved to CW Television Network, in opposition to consensus on that page (see that talk page), in order to be consistent with this page, for which there has not yet been a consensus on the name. So I'm proposing both pages be moved for consistency. In support of this, I cite the Naming Conventions: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name." - See [3] and [4] for examples where "The" is capitalized as part of the network name. DHowell 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose as before. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support CFIF (talk to me) 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, as just like I said on the RM for the CW network's article, it now appears that the naming convention that was used to keep the "The" off the article title can apparently be used to put it on, too. I think it's confusing me, so I'm now cool either way. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the network flash ident on TV doesn't have "The" on it always. 132.205.45.148 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, can you clarify on what you are talking about? -Whomp 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are only specific instances when "WB" is officially seen without "The", and that is in individual station IDs (i.e. "WB11"), and in programming blocks (i.e., Kids' WB, Daytime WB). Colloquially, one might refer to a "WB program", but this is no different than talking about a "Beatles' song" or a "New York Times article". All other cases, the network is always referred to as "The WB". Note that we don't normally say "the CBS", "the Fox", "the NBC", "the ABC", or "the UPN", because "the" is not part of those network names. DHowell 03:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per what I said here. -Whomp 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Please also take part in the debate at Talk:CW Television Network Morgan Wick 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the two examples initially listed ([5] and [6] ), one is the network itself, which can be expected to style itself in whatever way it pleases. The other is a press release, which was likely reproduced verbatim from the network. For a better estimation of actual usage, try Google News. For example, here's a smattering of results: AP wire, lower case; SF Chronicle, lower case or missing; Knight-Ridder News Service, lower case or missing; Country Weekly, lower case. This was just checking a dozen of the top hits (eliminating duplicates). older ≠ wiser 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to our naming conventions, we use the version that is official, so the WB's own examples are paramount. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Morgan Wick 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have decided to close this vote despite the lack of a consensus and my lack of administrator power to remove the applicable redirect (I have not tagged it with a speedy notice because of the lack of consensus here) because there is consensus to move on Talk:The CW Television Network and I don't know of anything that specifically says I can't close votes. An administrator is asked to remove the applicable redirect. Anyone who objects to this should discuss in this space, but unless there is a good reason why these two cases should not be treated equal, it's either staying closed or the CW debate is being reopened (against a 6-1-1 consensus there to move). Morgan Wick 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this move has not yet been carried out. An administrator is asked to remove the redirect at The WB Television Network. Morgan Wick 01:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No administrator support was necessary, as Wikipedia allows anyone to move over a redirect, as long as there is no edit history other than the creation of the redirect itself. Page move done. DHowell 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign-off Date

Where is the evidence of this supposed sign-off date of September 3?--Dleav 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere. The official signoff date is now September 17, 2006 (according to a WB press release). The CW Television Network begins the next day with 7th Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.224.115 (talk • contribs)

The only press release I've seen talks about the official roll-out starting Wednesday, September 20, 2006 with America's Next Top Model. --Powerlord 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What happens to this article when the WB signs off??

I was wondering, when this network officially signs off, what happens to this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MLT2712 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 August 2006

We keep it for historical purposes. The same goes for any defunct company. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Like with companies like May Company (department stores rolling into Macy's/Federated). TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Closedown

That was so sad! With the goodbye, montage of actors, and the frog saying goodbye! I was almost in tears!Seamus215 02:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG! I cried when I saw that. At least the WB went out with style and class. I hate the new CW!

Let's Place A Candlelight Vigil On The Network

Well, The Network Has Died, And I Feel That We Should Put A Candlelight Vigil On The Network, Who's With Me? ( Places Candle On WPIX-TV WB11 Logo That Was Never Used Anymore, And Places Another On The WB Logo, Crumbles CW Logo And Throws It In The Garbage, Then Tunes To FOX )

Frank0115932 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel you're Right. I never see any new Episodes On The CW. All they are doing are destroying All great networks and not showing new episodes while The Bad Moves On. COME BACK, WB 11!

I agree. The candelight vigil is a WONDERFUL idea. You, my good friend, are a genius!

Illegal YouTube link?

Yes, I know that the WB finale promo is on YouTube, but it was illegally uploaded, as it is unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Should the link remain on this article? Milchama 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How many images are in this article alone that are unauthorized but get a fair use stamp?

Three. But going back to the topic: People upload millions of copyrighted videos without authorization every day on YouTube and countless other video sites. Also, if it is "illegal", I think the link should be removed and people can find it themselves. Same goes for other pages with links to copyrighted YT videos (about a month ago I found a link to Pepper Ann's intro on YouTube. I removed it because the video had been removed). WizardDuck 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WB acronym

You need to cite proof that "WB" does not stand for Warner Brothers before stating in the article that it doesn't.

Add most-watched programs of the network per season since 2001-2002?

I recently added a table of the most-watched programs of the network of the 2001-2002 season. I meant to include the TV seasons following 2001-2002, up until the present. However, another Wiki user had deleted it shortly thereafter. My question to anyone here is should tables of the most-watched programs per season since 2001-2002 be included? I believe that such an addition is informative and an interesting read. Let me know what you think. -- Dechnique23 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for closure

Why did WB shut down? Make the reason simple.--67.10.200.101 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Eather they could not hold the budget for The WB Along with UPN, MyNetworkTV, Or not enogh Viewers.

MySpace

I'm deletin g the link to a fake MySpace run by the wb. Obvisusly, it's not, as it was started in November, AFTER the network shut down. Kdupuy9 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daytime WB logo.jpg

Image:Daytime WB logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWB...logo.gif

Image:TheWB...logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Past Shows" Section

I removed the "Past Shows" sub-section of the "History" section of the article. Another such list (and, IMHO, a better constructed one to boot) can just as easily be found at List of programs broadcast by The WB, so this section was just plain redundant. Gujuguy 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wblogo.png

Image:Wblogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the page have a logo of The WB?

I'm asking you, it should have one. --64.183.61.212 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article's first sentence

...doesn't parse:

The WB, is a online network that was launched on April 28, 2008. It was formerly a television channel The Warner Bros. Television Network launched on January 11, 1995.

Can someone who knows something about The WB fix it? --zenohockey (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tribune Broadcasting's WB stations

To settle something about The WB, were Tribune Broadcasting's WB stations affiliates or owned-and-operated stations? Tribune did maintain an ownership stake in The WB, but some editors disagree as to whether the Tribune-owned stations that were aligned with the network were actually O&Os or affiliates; does the fact that Tribune's ownership stake in The WB was small (12.5%, then later 22%) play into which distinction applies, does one company's ownership stake in a broadcast network have to be 50% or more to constitute any stations it owns that carry the network's programming an O&O? TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The WB. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribune.com/investors/transcripts/thecw_06.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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The WB's new logo in 2010?

You thought the WB changed their logo in 2012 as a web channel? Think again. The WB ACTUALLY changed their logo as a web channel in 2010. --67.226.16.44 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The WB for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The WB is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The WB until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

Merger Proposal

I would like to propose merging The Night of Favorites and Farewells into the WB. Why? The WB already covers TNFF already.Meanwhile the Actual Article is 1: Not meeting the Guidelines for GNG (The Article itself had the tag placed Est 2013!) Only one source out of the 3 used is actually reliable. The other 2 are just YouTube.As a result,I propose TNFF be Merged into or preferably Redirected to the WB.The Next Best thing would be to have the article’s head off and dice eaten.

Go on place your votes.

Place em here. Danubeball (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support: I suppose it could be merged into a lengthy closure/final night section. But I wouldn't dismiss the YouTube sources. They're certainly for archival purposes and not manipulated propaganda pushing--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Merged. Mainly because of there being only one comment and that one supporting it.Danubeball (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)