Talk:C-SPAN/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

C-SPAN Community Closing

C-SPAN is a true blessing of the 21th century, just before the elections

On September 24, 2004, C-SPAN also become famous for another outstanding community coverage:

http://www.c-span.org/community/index.asp?Code=Community

COMMUNITY HOMEPAGE Welcome to the C-SPAN Community! Use this site to direct your participation in Community forum discussions and other viewer interactivity. Share thoughts, exchange views, and get educated on a range of public policy issues.

C-SPAN's Community is Temporarily Closing As of Friday, Sept. 24, C-SPAN's Community will go off line while we make changes to the software supporting C-SPAN Alert and the Community. When the Community returns, it will have a new look and feel that should make your participation even better than before. To participate in the new Community, you will need to register as a new user with a new password and screen name.

Also, if you want to receive the daily C-SPAN Alert, you'll need to re-register on the Alert page. As before, we will ask community members to review the discussion etiquette guidelines.

Keep your eye on C-SPAN.org for the return of the C-SPAN Community!

CONTACT COMMUNITY MANAGER Do you have questions, comments or concerns about community? Do you want to report a community disruption? Email the community manager at [email protected] or use the COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 22:09, December 26, 2004.

Seems like many more are needed to get the C-SPAN hisory correct??

Seems like many more are needed to get the C-SPAN hisory correct?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 22:43, December 26, 2004.

More on voiceovers

<voiceovers> One of the most famous "voiceovers" was when ABC had to get C-SPAN to _not_ voiceover Rafsanjani, instead use his own interpreter, as was decided on before that Rafsanjani-ABC contract. Luckily C-SPAN participated in the legal solution, by airing both the voiceovered version and the not-voiceovered version, on prime-time, the way the contract was almost written.

Unluckily, not a tape commercially available, nor internet-archived by C-SPAN, due to ABC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 22:51, December 26, 2004.

balance of C-SPAN, Wahington Journal and Book-TV

The Book-TV(C-SPAN2) balance is funnier, in terms of what is aired, internet-archived and what is not. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 13:17, January 7, 2006

Latest Link spelling accusations and allegations

heritage is now spelled as hertiage by C-SPAN, according to their website. http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=heritage+image

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062306_hertiage.rm (does not work)

but a minor correction actually works, including the Rush Limbaugh, talking from the ROnald Reagan Building and others.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062306_heritage.rm

This time it was mainly fun, but sometimes it is much more difficult to figure out what really went worng with the C-SPAN, post-2004 modern links.

Allegations of a dysfunctional search engine, SPLElling ploblems

Since september, 2004, the use of the C-SPAN search engine has more and more resulted in, even for simple search objects like "Bush":

---

The search engine is unable to complete your search.

You may want to try one of the following:

   * Check the spelling of the search terms.
   * Try alternative search terms.
   * Try more general search terms.
   * Try removing some search terms.
   * Try using the Advanced Search page.

It is impoving, from eight every week to just two every week, but this one, from the 20th presidential month of 07 was funny.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter202007_dir.rm

obviously should be the second month, not the 20th month of 07

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter022007_dir.rm

Keep your eye on C-SPAN.org for the return of the C-SPAN Community!(as of 2004), look and feel even better than before any Elections

http://www.c-span.org/community/

C-SPAN's Community is Temporarily Closing

As of Friday, Sept. 24 (2004), C-SPAN's Community will go off line while we make changes to the software supporting C-SPAN Alert and the Community. When the Community returns, it will have a new look and feel that should make your participation even better than before. To participate in the new Community, you will need to register as a new user with a new password and screen name. Also, if you want to receive the daily C-SPAN Alert, you'll need to re-register on the Alert page. As before, we will ask community members to review the discussion etiquette guidelines.

Controversies

This section was starting to become overgrown with tick-tock coverage of various complaints about alleged bias; I've trimmed this to the single FAIR study which I think adequately conveys this point of view. While the fact that this complaint has been made by a number of individuals and organizations merits inclusion, every last instance does not. I have removed references to Lamb's previous career and the former WaPo ombudsman's question; the former is a non sequitur, the latter lacks context. Meanwhile I have added information from C-SPAN about their ideological viewership as a means of presenting another viewpoint. In the interests of disclosure, I should note that C-SPAN was a client during the 2008 election, but they are not any longer. Cheers, WWB (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And I've now done some additional research and included two new sources to put the David Irving controversy in better context. The edits are nominally favorable to C-SPAN, but I believe this version is more informative and neutral. I do plan to research this a bit further; if anyone disagrees, I'm happy to work together on getting this just right. WWB (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

History

I have no expertise for making a contribution to this page, but as a user I expected to find information on the restrictions under which C-Span was allowed to institute its coverage. For example, my understanding is that C-Span is not allowed to show the empty seats in House and Senate chambers during proceedings. In my view, this is important information for the Wikipedia article, in that the restrictions are not widely known, and they impact how a viewer interprets C-Span content.

Presently, I see no information here on how C-Span came to be, from the congressional side. As I recall, there was considerable resistance from some Senators and Representatives to allowing coverage, and the coverage restrictions were compromises that allowed the idea to proceed. I think that discussion of the House and Senate members who supported and opposed the idea, and a summary of the arguments presented, is important to the history.

And because C-Span's coverage is significantly impacted by their congressional mandate, perhaps some of this should be treated under the History topic, and some under the Coverage topic. Muserjc (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a Congressional mandate per se that bars C-SPAN from showing empty seats in the House and Senate chambers. Most people don't realize that C-SPAN doesn't own or operate the cameras inside the chambers which are, in fact, owned by Congress which provides a public feed to all news organizations. It is this feed which C-SPAN puts on the air after adding their own graphics. Congress's cameras do occasionally show empty seats in the House and more frequently in the Senate where senators may speak from anywhere on the floor. One exception is for the State of the Union speech in the House chamber which is covered by network pool cameras. Here's an interesting CQ column about C-SPAN's Congressional floor coverage: http://public.cq.com/public/20070115_media.html. —D. Monack ^talk 22:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

C-SPAN HD

Where is the C-SPAN HD live online stream? --93.82.15.235 (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of C-SPAN article

{{request edit}}  Done

Last fall and early this year I worked with the generous volunteer assistance of several editors to help improve a number of C-SPAN related articles, including Washington Journal and WCSP-FM (now assessed GA) and creating a few, like C-SPAN Video Library. I've done so cautiously and with deference to other editors' judgment because of a possible conflict of interest in that I work with C-SPAN's communications team. More recently, I've spent the past couple months working on the best possible version of the C-SPAN article I could. I have recently finished it, and just this afternoon have posted it to a page in my user subspace.

Because very few edits have been made to this article since I started working seriously on this draft in mid-January, I am quite confident that there is nothing the existing article does well that my proposed version does not, and I think it's a good candidate for simple replacement. That said, I recognize this is no small request. The current article is more than a stub (actually, it is rated Start-class) and mine is in the neighborhood of 4,000 words. To that end I should add that I do not wish for this to fall on the wrong side of TLDR and that another near-term goal is to include appropriate images for illustration. However, little of it would be public domain or CC-BY-SA so rights issues would have to be dealt with, and I figure it's better to leave those to the second step.

In any case, if there is an editor who is interested in helping me make this article a lot better, please feel free to read through my draft and make changes or offer suggestions. If you agree that this is an improvement even at this point, I invite you to move it over, and I'd like to assist in its continued development. If you have ideas about what else this article could or should include, I have resources at C-SPAN to draw upon, so I can help try to answer questions. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who happens to find this note, a long-ish discussion about this draft is presently taking place on my user Talk page. WWB Too (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Having gained consensus on my user Talk page, another editor has now updated the entry. My next goal will be to introduce acceptable images to illustrate the article and then take it to GA review (perhaps even to FA) and to act responsibly, given my potential COI. Any questions or comments that help to continue developing this article are especially welcome. WWB Too (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination

Following recent significant improvements to this article's content, sourcing, formatting and illustration—an extensive effort led by myself, but involving the assistance of others—I have nominated this article for GA review. In my judgement, it meets all six listed criteria, so I believe it is deserving of GA status, as I'll describe below:

• Significant efforts by several editors have been put into checking that the article is clear, concise and well-written, well-sourced, and follows the manual of style as closely as possible.
• The article follows the MoS guidelines and is organized into logical sections. In-line citations to reliable secondary sources are present throughout the article, and are particularly used to support opinions, quotations and statistics.
• As you can see from the length of the article, it covers C-SPAN's history and operations in substantial detail. Summary style has been used throughout to ensure that there are no unnecessary details.
• The article uses a wide variety of secondary sources representing a range of viewpoints. Critical views are included as well as favorable ones, where appropriate. I should note here that, in the section Public and media opinion, both positive and negative opinions from reliable sources were included by myself. This section underwent two edits I would take issue with (this edit adding a non-significant incident; this edit removing fair criticism; I recommend returning to this version) but I am not terribly bothered by the current version.
• Otherwise, the article has been reasonably stable, with no edit wars either before or after major edits were made, and very little vandalism.
• Prior to my involvement, the article's only image was C-SPAN's logo. Since then I have persuaded C-SPAN to release several photographs under an appropriate Creative Commons license, which I have embedded throughout in a logical, topical, aesthetically pleasing way.

For these reasons I believe the article is a good candidate for GA review. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. WWB Too (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good link, parking it here for the time being

This is a good link, and it has some stuff we might want to use later on: http://www.pophistorydig.com/?p=11852 - I am parking it here for the time being, and doing the same at Brian Lamb. KConWiki (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:C-SPAN/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. No disamb. links. The fourth external link to americanheritage.com is dead.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "in time for the first session made available by the House"->"in time for the first televised session made available by the House"

   done - Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   Change heading from "Government access" because it also discusses non-government events. How about "Scope of coverage"???

   done - Seems a reasonable suggestion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   "Since 1979, the network has televised more than 24,246 hours of floor action.[7]" - temporal statement that is quickly out-of-date. Please add an "As of" or "Between 1979 and May 2011"

   done - added - Between 1979 and May 2011 - diff - Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   "During periods when the Senate is not in session, C-SPAN2 carries other public affairs programming.[29]" - isn't this true of both 1 and 2, that when each chamber is out, other programming fills in?

   done - Yes, changed to reflect this is true for both. WWB Too (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   "C-SPAN archival video is available through the C-SPAN Video Library, maintained by C-SPAN archives in West Lafayette, Indiana." - sentence is redundant and needs footnote.

   done - Added cite, reduced redundancy, included Purdue Research Park WWB Too (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   Please reword for clarity, "tracking convention and debate coverage in the blogosphere and on social media.[85][86]"

   done - Changed to: "discussion from blogs and social media about the major party conventions and candidate debates" WWB Too (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   Please spell out "DBS operators."

   done - Full name and parenthetical "(DBS)" now included WWB Too (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   "uninterrupted live public affairs events" - will a reader understand what you mean by this regarding C-SPAN 3 programming?

   comment - I believe so. A variation on the phrase is used three times in the article, referring to each network. If you can clarify which part may be confusing, I can consider more specific changes. WWB Too (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   "uninterrupted live coverage of public affairs events" may help? Racepacket (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

   The "Shows" and "Special programs" sections should have prose introducing the embedded lists.

   done - Now added. If any thoughts on how I've worded these, feel free to edit or comment. WWB Too (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   http://www.c-spanvideo.org/about is a more reliable source about the C-SPAN archive.

   question - I am unsure what or where you want this to replace? - <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/about|title=About C-Span video library|publisher=C-Span|accessdate=June 4, 2011}}</ref> Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   I believe this refers to the C-SPAN Video Library section above, for which Racepacket asked me to include a citation. So I modified your cite and used it in my revision of that sentence. WWB Too (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   This works, thanks. Racepacket (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Anniversaries section - 25th also featured a viewer contest with the winner serving as a call-in program host and 25 hours of continuous call-in programming.

   done - The best source I found for this was from C-SPAN itself. New paragraph now included. WWB Too (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   Explain how the C-SPAN archive started at Purdue University, but is now a part of C-SPAN. - covered in http://www.c-spanvideo.org/about

   "Organization and operations" section should be expanded to cover: a) how many people serve on the Board. b) How is the board selected, c) What is the annual budget and other public info from the IRS Form 990? d) What happens when C-SPAN "makes a profit" on a project? e) What is C-SPAN's state of incorporation? - see for example, http://riskman.typepad.com/perilocity/2007/03/malamud_opens_c.html and https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/10930/Morris_Glenn_Michael_phd2010sp.pdf?sequence=1 http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/84-0751854/national-cable-satellite-corporation.aspx

   Before the Digital Bus, were there other buses for "campaign bus" and "school bus"??? - http://legacy.c-span.org/about/company/index.asp?code=MILESTONES lists the chronology of the various buses.

   Is the difference between Afterwords and Booknotes that now the interviewer is a relevant topic expert, while previously with Booknotes the interviewer was consistently Brian Lamb?

   C-SPAN radio - unique programming includes White House tape recording archives and Supreme Court oral arguments.

   comment - Answering all of the above questions will take a little more time. They strike me as all good questions, though some will take more digging, and others are less likely to have non-OR answers. Some of this may be in my research, but some of this surely is not. I'm happy to do so and can reasonably pledge to do so by Wednesday of this coming week. If non-crucial for GA, I would certainly address these before entertaining notions of seeking FA. WWB Too (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   "Public and media opinion" is too biased pro C-SPAN. I am sure there are critics whose views are not represented in this section. Prior critical material was deleted from the article and should be reviewed to see if it can be used to "balance" this section.

   reply - I replaced some of the prior opinions that imo helps balance the section NPOV- diff - Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

   "The must-carry regulations, passed by Congress in 1992, affected the availability of the C-SPAN networks, in particular C-SPAN2, as some providers cut the channel altogether to make space for mandatory local stations.[100][101]" - this is presented as a fact, but is actually a debatable opinion. The fact is that cable operators are always selective as to which channels to carry. C-SPAN could be bumped for the Golf Channel, but that is a business decision made by each operator, not by the must carry rules.

   reply - I made a small removal edit diff in an attempt to correct this, leaving no cause and affect factual assertion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:C-SPAN Video Library screenshot.png - need fair use rationale.

   reply - I removed the webshot diff as it seemed like a weak claim of nonfree use to me - evertyone knows what webpages look like. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Thank you in advance on your hard work. I enjoyed reviewing WCSP-FM and look forward to working with you again. Racepacket (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The fourth external link and fn 18 are still problems. Racepacket (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the last two concerns. The article now has passed the GA criteria, and I hope you will consider the remaining items for FAC. Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mega thanks for your focus and effort, Racepacket. I'll certainly address the remaining questions before considering FA at some point in the near future. And likewise, Off2riorob, this couldn't have happened without your help. Many thanks. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, cool - I like to help out in my own inimitable manner where I am able. Well done. Thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Info box change

For some reason both edits ignored my edit summary. I thought that the live link should actually take the user to a live link not just a web page. I found the wiki link explaining what video on demand is to be confusing. I expected to be taken to a c-span web page not a wiki link. Time Warner in my area just deleted about a month ago the last remaining c-span channel from the lowest tier; for me this article is very important.1archie99 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested updates

Extended content

In early 2011 I worked with other editors to improve this article. Since then, some information has become dated, especially following a transition in leadership in 2012. Because I'm working as a consultant for C-SPAN, I'd prefer not to edit this article directly. Here are two suggestions related to the leadership change, which I hope another editor will implement: The first sentence of Development should be revised to show that Brian Lamb is the former CEO, as confirmed by this New York Times story. Suggested edit: Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chairman and former chief executive officer, first conceived of C-SPAN during 1975 while working as the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of cable industry trade magazine Cablevision. The second paragraph of the Organization and operations section needs to be updated to reflect the same, likewise verified by the NYT. Also, the number of employees is out-of-date; the updated figure can be found here. I suggest the following: As of January 2013, the network has 282 employees. C-SPAN is led by co-CEOs Rob Kennedy and Susan Swain. Founder and former CEO Brian Lamb serves as the executive chairman of the board of directors. If another editor agrees these updates are straightforward, I'll have two additional suggestions to follow it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC) This was completely straightforward and well-documented and added it "as is". Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up requests

As mentioned in my first note, I have two more requests for this page, both of which are related to C-SPAN's programming.

• First, C-SPAN recently announced a new series on the First Ladies. This has been covered by Politico and the Associated Press. I would like to add the following to the end of the Special programs section:

In 2013, C-SPAN introduced a new program, First Ladies: Influence and Image. The series, comprising 35 planned episodes profiling the First Ladies, was created with support from the White House Historical Association.

• While reviewing this article, I realized that the Shows and Special programs list sections of this article simply reiterate shows that are already covered in detail in the Programming section. Since the information here is covered elsewhere in the article with better context, I was wondering if it would be better to remove these sections. Perhaps this is a good time to discuss creating a separate List of C-SPAN programs article?

As before, I'd like for an independent editor to make these changes for me. I'll respond here to any comments here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, I saw the First Ladies section has been added to the article, and thanks! One problem, and it's my fault: this should actually be at the end of the Special programming section and not Special programs (I had the link right above, but the wrong heading named). On the other hand, it points to the redundancy of the second section, which I mentioned in my second point. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The content was well-documented and straightforward. I added the requested content into this article, with a minor change in wording. (I hate the use of "comprised".)

As for a separate list article for programs - it looks like it would be pretty short list, just 12 items. I don't see any particular need for a list article this short.

(continuing) You're right about the placement, I'll make the change, but still don't see the need for a list article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I would actually suggest it could be cut without creating a list article; my real concern is that it's redundant and uncited, but it's up to you. Relatedly, I'm interested in taking this through the FA process sometime soon, and I'm just guessing that might be at issue there. Thanks again! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the sections, because they're very clearly redundant information. Silverseren^C 03:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thank you Silver. I do think it's better without. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C-SPAN?

Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor(s) -

Let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):

• Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
• Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
• Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
• Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as {{C-SPAN|laurabush}}, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
• What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been doing, and plan on continuing to do, some of this, which comes under the heading of "Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles." Please see the following template, which is specifically mentioned in WP:EL (since 2010). The idea is that if any copyrighted but non-copyright-violating source on the internet (e.g. C-SPAN) posts videos, we can link to it via this template, and place it in the article where we would otherwise place it, if we could include the video on Commons.

Some folks think that any external links must be low down in the article; this is not the case with the external media template, but in respect to their wishes, I generally put it down by "See also" if there is no totally obvious place that it belongs. Some folks don't like the ref - but I believe this is best to include. The only tricky thing is the "headerimage" - this makes the template look more like a video and also makes it look more normal on a Wikipedia page. In general it can't be from the copyrighted video! But we usually have pix that are similar to what's on the video! You don't need to include it.

External videos
Washington Friday Journal, July 5, 1996, segments 1:57:30-2:08:00 and 2:27:30-3:00:05, C-SPAN
Congressional Cemetery, Part 1, 27 minutes, C-SPAN
Congressional Cemetery, Part 2, 29 minutes, C-SPAN

{{external media | width = 210px | align = right

 | headerimage=[[File:Habs cong cem 200693pu.jpg|210px]]

 | video1 =[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/73378-1 Washington Friday Journal, July 5, 1996], 
    segments 1:57:30-2:08:00 and 2:27:30-3:00:05, [[C-SPAN]]
    <ref name="span A">{{cite web | title =Washington Friday Journal | work =
     | publisher =[[C-SPAN]] | date =July 5, 1996
     | url =http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/73378-1 | accessdate =February 23, 2013 }}</ref> 

 | video2 =[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301813-1 Congressional Cemetery, Part 1],
     27 minutes, [[C-SPAN]]
   <ref name="span B">{{cite web | title =Congressional Cemetery, Part 1 | work =
    | publisher =[[C-SPAN]] | date =September 28, 2011
    | url =http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/73378-1 | accessdate =February 23, 2013 }}</ref>

 | video3 =[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301813-2 Congressional Cemetery, Part 2], 
     29 minutes, [[C-SPAN]]
   <ref name="span C">{{cite web | title =Congressional Cemetery, Part 2 | work =
    | publisher =[[C-SPAN]] | date =September 28, 2011
    | url =http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301813-2 | accessdate =February 23, 2013 }}</ref> }}

As far as starting a project, I'd wait until 4 or 5 people get involved, and then just start a page called WP:WikiProject C-SPAN or something similar. I've worked a lot with GLAM (see e.g. WP:Smart), I think that's all that is needed. Until then maybe get a list of possible videos and articles (maybe in your sandbox) and go at it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Small update

• Actually I just rewrote the whole section using all the available sources.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. I'd like to work on getting another properly-licensed image or two into the article, then take this for peer review and up to FA status if possible. If you have any interest in helping with that, let me know! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Another quick request: last week C-SPAN released updated figures on their audience size; this was covered in several independent sources including Broadcasting & Cable and The Washington Times. I would like to see a sentence added to the end of the Audience section to include this new information. Suggested edit in first box, prepared markup in second:

Suggestion for Audience section

In January 2013, Hart Research conducted another survey which showed that 47 million adults, or 24 percent of adults with access to cable television, watch C-SPAN weekly.

References

Markup for Audience section

In January 2013, Hart Research conducted another survey which showed that 47 million adults, or 24 percent of adults with access to cable television, watch C-SPAN weekly.<ref name="JohnEggerton">{{cite news |title=Exclusive: C-SPAN Study Finds Almost Quarter of Cable/Satellite Subs Watch Weekly Audience is up 4% since last Hart Research survey |author=John Eggerton |url=http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/492404-Exclusive_C_SPAN_Study_Finds_Almost_Quarter_of_Cable_Satellite_Subs_Watch_Weekly.php |newspaper=Broadcasting & Cable |date=19 March 2013 |accessdate=22 March 2013}}</ref><ref name="JenniferHarper">{{cite news |title=C-SPAN the emerging hipster network: its audience 'trends young' |author=Jennifer Harper |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/mar/19/c-span-emerging-hipster-network-its-audience-trend/ |newspaper=The Washington Times |date=19 March 2013 |accessdate=22 March 2013}}</ref>

I'd also suggest that in the two sentences immediately preceding could be updated slightly to make past tense, given this new information. Meanwhile, I realize there is a risk of the section turning into a proseline, so if another editor believes one of the older estimates should be removed to make way for this information, that's fine. This request, like those before, was prepared in connection with my work for C-SPAN, so I ask that another editor review and make the change(s) if appropriate. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting new images for this article

As mentioned above, I'd like to help add a few more images to this article. The second half contains few images, and my goal here is to suggest at least two which might work here. At my suggestion, C-SPAN has made several images available for use under a CC-BY license, via their (well-established) Flickr account. I've added these images to Wikimedia Commons and would like to suggest:

• Adding this screenshot of the C-SPAN Video Library to the top of the Availability online section, which explains the C-SPAN Video Library and online archives. I'd suggest it be right-justified to continue the staggered arrangement.
• Adding this photo of Rob Kennedy, Brian Lamb and Susan Swain to the Organization and operations section where these three individuals are discussed. I'd suggest adding it to the second paragraph of the section, left-justified.
• Those two images made the most sense to me, however this would still leave several sections without any image at all. Just in case, there is also this image of Barack Obama's victory speech on election night 2012, which might be useful.

I hope another editor can add these images, assuming agreement that their inclusion would improve the article. Given my relationship with C-SPAN I won't be adding them myself, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And this has now been implemented by another editor. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C-SPAN, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia College and The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

I am pretty busy IRL, so apologies that it is taking me a while to make some comments.

Lead

• Why is "streaming media" in quotes?
• My rule of thumb for references in the lead is either to only add refs for direct quotes and extraordinary claims (as the lead is a summary of article, the refs will be in the body) OR to cite the lead like everything else - this is currently in between. There are two refs in the lead, but neither of them seem to be for a direct quote or an extraordinary claim.
• I also note that current ref 2 used only in the lead - again the lead is a summary, so shouldn't the information in the lead be repeated in the body of the article (with ref 2 cited there as well, presumably)?
• I also see the phrase "6-cent" is only in the lead - again, the lead should be a summary and this should be repeated in the body of the article.
• Last sentence of the first paragraph is quite long - would it be clearer as two sentences? Or do the TV and radio clauses have to be together?

Images

• Caption has problems With C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb and then-president of C-SPAN Paul FitzPatrick, Sen. Robert Byrd flips the switch for C-SPAN2 on June 2, 1986. First off, I recognize Byrd (at right), but many readers will not, so I think the caption should identify the people in it someway. Second, one sentence with three uses of "C-SPAN"?? How about something like With C-SPAN's founder Brian Lamb (left) and then-president Paul Fitzpatrick (center), Sen. Robert Byrd flips the switch for C-SPAN2 on June 2, 1986. or perhaps Sen. Robert Byrd (right), C-SPAN's founder Brian Lamb (left) and then-president Paul FitzPatrick flip the switch for C-SPAN2 on June 2, 1986.
• I think a lot of readers look at the images first - a caption like Rob Kennedy, Brian Lamb, and Susan Swain tells them next to nothing. How about something like Founder Brian Lamb flanked by C-SPAN's co-CEOs Rob Kennedy and Susan Swain in 2012
• Could some more free images be added? Perhaps a photo of the House in session and/or one of the Senate (with captions explaining which channel covers which)?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All great questions / comments, Ruhrfisch. I'll look into each and respond again a bit later this week. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Replies to Ruhrfisch's comments

Ruhrfisch, thanks again for the detailed comments. I've looked at them more closely and prepared replies for you. My answers, in the same order:

Lead

• I'm not sure why "streaming media" is in quotes. It looks like it was added in November 2012 by an IP editor who made a number of copy edits. (Here's the diff.) I'm fine with you removing the quotes if you would like.
• As for the two references in the intro, reference #3 can be removed if the information about the radio app being available for iPhone, Blackberry and Android devices is also added to the Radio broadcasts section. This is a vestigial remnant from the period where it was only on iPhone, and I agree it should be updated. Reference #4 can simply be removed. This information, though supported with a different source, is also covered in the Organization and operations section.
• Yes, this information and source should be added to the body of the article, in the Radio broadcasts section. This was an oversight on my part.
• The information about the 6-cent fee is included in the Organization and operations section, only the number 6 is written out as a word, so it may not have turned up if you did a ctrl-F search.
• I think breaking apart the final sentence of the first paragraph is a good idea. I'd suggest "United States, while" would be a logical point to break the sentence in two.

Images

• Good point about the overuse of "C-SPAN"s in this caption. I think either of your suggestions would be appropriate.
• Your suggested caption sounds good to me and you're right, it provides more information.
• About other free images: yes, there are some on Commons! Here's the category: commons:Category:C-SPAN. There are also two sub-categories. My only suggestion would be to retain the staggered placement of the photos. There is already a photo of the House gaveling in present in the article, but it's also always possible I could ask C-SPAN to release another screen shot under Creative Commons, though that would take some time.

I hope my answers here are helpful. Please go ahead and make changes when you're able, and let me know what you think about the ones where I don't have a clear recommendation. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)