Talk:Fourth television network

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Overly Negative, Largely Unsourced[edit]

I removed a bunch of info in bulk, as it was either unsourced, or long lines of opinions only represtenting a single point of view. Plus, the article ignores the entire syndication industry that existed before FOX. Suddenly There Is a Valley (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "largely unsourced", as the entire paragraph you removed was completely sourced with inline citations, and the article currently has 30 inline citations. All you did here was add citation needed tags to material which was already cited. And all you did with the next edit was remove a sourced paragraph under the claim of NPOV. The edit summary stated Sorry, but overly negative quotes, even if widely held, quoted with no rebuttle [sic] do NOT count as NPOV. What rebuttal is there? Who was claiming that no fourth network was needed? I've never read that. Unless cited material which rebuts the claim can be made, the POV tag and partial blanking are unnecessary.

Also, why did you blank your message here after writing it? I can't very well respond to a blank page, but the tag you left on the top of the article states "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but having read the original article I can't see where the comments around NPOV or overly negative or largely unsourced come from. The original article was a very good introduction to the topic - as I read it fact based based on sourced material. I did not - and still can not find any overly negative aspects or single point of view in the topic. If Suddenly there is a valley thinks otherwise, they would be better adding to the article, rather than criticising the contents. RichardLowther (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Richard. I've restored the original text for now. I'm open to reworking material that may be POV or inaccurate (feel free to modify as needed), but the paragraph that was removed was fully sourced; I've asked Mr. Suddenly for an explanation, but he hasn't edited since the POV tag was added a month ago. The edits immediately preceding the tagging were a little erratic, so for now I've restored the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Fourth television network[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fourth television network's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lat":

From Mizlou Television Network: Penner, Mike (April 24, 1986). "Freedom Bowl Announces 3-Year Deal With Mizlou". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
From Kaiser Broadcasting: Walters, Donna K. H. (August 04, 1985). "An Empire Fades Away, but Its Legacy Lingers On : Final Chapter Is Being Written for What Once Was West's Greatest Industrial Power". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 28 August 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
From Paramount Television Service: Lowry, Brian. "After 5 years, the WB and UPN still head in different directions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 May 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Spshu (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox past 1994[edit]

I am not sure why there is a need to add any thing about Fox past the 1994 NFL coup & station realignment as that seems to be the point were they clearly are the 4th TV network. --Spshu (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fourth television network. 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:

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: 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) 00:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]