text:
Talk:California State Route 17/Archive 1

It might be interesting to note that, in general, residents of Santa Cruz and other areas serviced by Highway 17 south of the summit dislike the proposition of making the expressway portions safer. They feel that removing the highway's treacherous nature would increase traffic into Santa Cruz county, an area that already has mild traffic problems.

No one calls it "State Route 17". Everyone calls it "Highway 17". I'm changing the text and moving the article back to reflect that fact. Nohat 01:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It appears Caltrans calls everything State Route X (and SR X), though I'm also getting matches on Caltrans's site for "Highway 17". As we should have a consistent naming for all, does anyone know what they are all called officially? The use of SR X seems to imply State Route is the official designation. --SPUI (talk) 12:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Naming conventions (common names) Nohat 15:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Should we move California State Route 82 to El Camino? Interstate 405 (California) to the 405? --SPUI (talk) 16:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (a) No, because parts of 82 aren't called El Camino Real--San Jose St. in Daly City/SF, The Alameda in SJ, Santa Clara St., etc.
 * (b) Perhaps, but only if no other roads are also called "The 405", which I doubt is the case. Nohat 17:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (b) Then we'd use The 405 (California). Just as here, people call it Highway 17, not California Highway 17. --SPUI (talk) 20:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think not including a word that indicate the article is about a highway makes it unnecessarily ambiguous. My point is just that most people call them "highways" not "state routes". In fact most people call Highway 17 just simple "17" but that's too ambiguous a title. The policy is to balance ambiguity with the common name. I think, however that California Highway 17 is sufficiently unambiguous and yet familiar--it didn't need changing to the perhaps more correct but certainly less common name "California State Route 17". Nohat 23:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SPUI, please stop moving this article. Nobody calls this road a "state route", so it should not be at an article with "state route" in its title. Nohat 19:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * CalTrans calls it a state route. That should be enough, for consistency's sake. --SPUI (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * consistency and official names are not part of the naming policy here. sorry. It's the common name that is the policy. Nohat 21:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The "common name" is "policy" to a certain extent; the city naming conventions make that clear. Except for New York City, which is somewhat of a special case, every U.S. city is at City, State, despite no one calling it that. --SPUI (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see what the city naming policies have to do with this article. It's not about a city. But disregarding that, the US city name "policy" is disputed and is only implemented as widely as it is because the vast majority of those articles were created by a bot. The only naming policy that enjoys continualy reaffirmed consensus support is the "use common names" policy, which applies here. Nohat 08:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that California state Route 17 would be better, because currently, all the other state route articles are also 'california state route XXX' now; the 'cliaofnria state highway XXX' will redirect to 'california state rotue XXX's article. For the sake of consistency, i'll agree with SPUI. --atanamir 22:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe they shouldn't be at those names, particularly if nobody uses those names. First and foremost articles should have titles that represent things that people actually call them! Nobody calls this road "California State Route 17", except for maybe a few bureaucrats in Sacramento and their admirers. I looked yesterday as I drove over this road and even road signs on the highway say "HWY 17". The book about this road is titled Highway 17: The Road to Santa Cruz (and not "State Route 17"). Consistency is not a valid reason to abandon common sense. Nohat 23:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not quite true that we always use the most common name - for instance, the ship USS Carl Vinson is actually at USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), because we decided to adopt a common style for USN ships that avoids what would be horrendous ambiguity problems, even though it makes some unambiguous names longer than they might be otherwise. Category:Peers is another well-knonw example. Pretty much any time people have had to organize scores or hundreds of similar articles, they've adopted a uniform naming scheme, even if it means that some names end up with a more verbose version than is common. The "use common names" rule should maybe clarify that it may be overridden by systematic naming schemes. Stan 05:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't a question of ambiguity. This is a question of using an obscure technical name ("state route") over the commonly-used normal name ("highway"). As far as I can tell, there is no benefit to using the obscure techincal name over the commonly-used normal name: there isn't any ambiguity to be avoided! "State route" is just a fancy name for "highway". I don't understand the point of using an obscure techincal name when there is a perferctly good unambiguous name that is also what people actually call it. Nohat 09:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * OK... i guess it doesn't matter that much to me either way -- but if you really do want it to be State Highway 17, I'd suggest you go through the entire List of California State Routes and change those all to California State Highways too. Having one 'California State Highway' article really sticks out like a sore thumb.  this place calls its a state route.  Plus, it's not exactly an 'obscure' name; I've heard state 'highways' been referred to as state 'routes' in many other states (more so than states that refer to them as 'highways').  Take the example of Gasoline -- everywhere outside the US calls it Petrol -- yet many here in California will gawk at you if you call it petrol; but on wikipedia, 'gasoline' redirects to Petrol.  Why can't we just do it that way -- have a California State Highway 17 article redirect to California State Route 17, and explain that it's commonly called 'California State Highway 17' in the body of the article itself?  Most encyclopedias have the 'obscure technical name' as the article titles.  In short, I think everything should either be California State Route, or California State Highway -- not a hybrid mix of both, as it will cause much confusion. --atanamir 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The analogy with petrol is not apt. The article is about the same substance which is used in the U. S. and outside of the U. S.—there is a "fairness in dialects" policy that states that an article which has multiple perfectly common names that varies by dialect has to be at one title and generally, it's the original title, UNLESS the topic is specific to an area where one name is many times more common, in which case the more common name is used. Since California Highways are specific to California, the titles of the articles should reflect what Californians actually call them. Further, I hope you weren't serious about applying your argument about "other encyclopedias"—clearly other encyclopedias' policies don't apply here. Nohat 17:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Also, just because other articles are badly titled doesn't mean this one should be. Consistency is decidedly not an official Wikipedia policy for naming articles. I am not personally responsible for correcting all the other articles' titles. Nohat 17:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I take you don't participate in any of the WikiProjects; one of their important roles is to agree upon consistency rules that override generic WP style, and the Don Quixotes of WP have rarely been successful in tilting at the projects. You're not going to succeed with your trickery, so persuade us or go away. Stan 04:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The wikiprojects do not have authority to violate the naming conventions; at most they can explain how the naming conventions have been interpreted with regard to certain groups of related articles. The only binding policies are the offical policies. Nohat 00:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Nohat just edited the new redirect to prevent moving it back. Call it bad faith, call it being an asshole, whatever. --SPUI (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * He copied the template too just to change the word 'route' to 'highway', lol. --atanamir 22:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Move the article back to its original articlespace. Consistency and namespace form are strong arguments for State_Route. I would dispute Nohat's assertion that "nobody calls it state route." I'm in the SF Bay Area and I often hear "state route" used. Perhaps that's just me - but then perhaps "Highway" is just Nohat. As noted, when there are sequences of articles on similar topics I see no reason not to use the route's official name as is used in every other article. It's also more specific - CA-17 is a *state route* - which is different from the generic and ambiguous "highway." "State Route" correctly classifies the route as part of the hierarchy of highways - State Route, U.S. Highway and Interstate. --FCYTravis 03:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Consistency and "namespace form" (whatever that is) are not valid arguments because they don't reflect Wikipedia's naming policy. As I said before, the only policy that applies here is the use common names policy.
 * I never meant to imply that absolutely nobody calls it a "state route"—obviously somebody does if that's its "official name"—just that the number of people who do so is infinitessimal compared to the number of people who call it "Highway 17". I would have thought that it was obvious that my rhetorical hyperbole was not meant to be interpreted literally.
 * The other articles should probably also be moved to reflect their common names, but that is not the issue in this case. This article is about "Highway 17", which is the salient name, as I explained above. There is a web site devoted to the road, and it's called Hiway17.com. If you do a Google search for "+California 'state route 17'" you only get about 2240 hits, whereas a search for "+California 'highway 17'" gives well over 33,000 hits, an almost 16 to 1 ratio of hits on the web, which being written language will tend to be more formal (and more likely to use the official name) than spoken language, where the disparity in usage is probably many times greater. There is even an entire book about this road, and it's titled Highway 17, not State Route 17.
 * There is nothing ambiguous about "California Highway 17". There are no other highways in California called just "17", as this one is.
 * This hierarchy of highways is not very persuasive as being somehow canonical. In fact
 * (California) (state) Highway :: U. S. Highway :: Interstate (Highway)
 * seems much more logical to me (they're all highways), although the U. S. Highway system and the Interstate Highway system are not hierarchical; they are complementary. Nohat 04:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In a sense they're hierarchical - US highways are less federally-funded than Interstate highways. U.S. highways are 50-50 federal match, whereas Interstate are 90-10 federal match. --FCYTravis 05:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correclty, the article was originaly at California Highway 17, or perhaps California State Highway 17. A few weeks or months ago, SPUI went through all the CA highways and changed them to SR names. I know in SJ-land, Highway 17, Highway 85, Highway 237 are more common than the SR names, while Highway 87 is probibly better known as Guadalupe Parkway than any other name. Gentgeen 05:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I will propose a compromise - the article remain at "California Highway 17" but the link on the List of California State Routes remain "California State Route 17" to conform with the other articles - and the name in the infobox also be edited to "Route 17" again to conform with the official technical usage that is standard for all other infoboxes in all other articles regarding California state routes. The boxes are about the legal definition of the highway - and the legal definition is of Route 17, not "Highway 17." --FCYTravis 05:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"California Streets and Highways Code Section 317. Route 17 is from Route 1 near Santa Cruz to Route 280 in San Jose." --FCYTravis 05:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This seems reasonable to me. I'm not too particular about the content of the box, other than the fact that it seems very silly for it to say "California State Highway System" and "California State Highway" in the very same box and then say "Route 17". But apparently people are attached to the word "Route". The title of the article, however, should remain "California Highway 17". Nohat 09:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well in Massachusetts it's the State Highway System (with signs saying State Highway Begins/Ends at the boundaries of state maintenance) but EVERYONE including MassHighway calls it Route XX. I haven't yet decided what should be used there, though some looking makes it seem that State Highway refers to the state maintained roads and Route to the numbered roads. Looks like that's another one to change the naming conventions of. There may be something similar in California; it appears to be the Streets and Highways Code but State Route XX. --SPUI (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * People are attached to the word Route because it's the legal name of the highway route. It's not silly at all to include the strict legal definition of the road in an infobox about the road. All Interstate, U.S. and State Routes in California are, by California law, simply considered Routes - there is no distinction in the CS&HC between them. Interstate 80 is Route 80, U.S. Highway 399 is Route 399. In fact, there are actually several highways that have different signed numbers than the legal Route number. For example, part of the highway that is signed Business I-80 in Sacramento is actually, by law, Route 51. The bottom line is, telling someone that a highway is "Route 17" is important information that is NOT conveyed by simply calling it "Highway 17" because Route refers to the specific definition of the state highway in California law. --FCYTravis 19:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps then, like the taxoboxes, the highway info boxes (excuse me, state route info boxes) should contain the common name in addition to the official name, and any other names the highway might go by, like Highway 85, which is called "The West Valley Freeway". Also, since all the numbered highways in California are state routes, then why is it only the state highways, and not U. S. Highways or Interstate Highways, that are on pages titled "State Route"? It seems that being a "state route" is a secondary designation consequent of firstly being some other kind of highway, in this case a California Highway. In fact, it seems that the title "California Highway 17" conveys more information in fewer words than the title California State Route 17, because the latter could also be a U. S. Highway or an Interstate Highway, whereas the former is plainly not. Nohat 01:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Because a "State Route" is not a "Route." A "State Route" is the official title of a California "state highway." "Route" is the legislative definition of the road. As I mentioned earlier, some "Routes" are not actually signed with their route number. Route 51 is not signed as State Route 51. Instead, it's signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. I know it's confusing, but the job of Wikipedia isn't to pretend the confusion doesn't exist - it's to properly explain the confusing parts. I agree that including the common name of a highway in the taxoboxes would be useful in certain instances - the only possible issue is where certain lengthy highways have different "common names" over different parts. For instance, SR-1 is variously the Cabrillo Highway, the Pacific Coast Highway and the Shoreline Highway along its length. However, I think these few cases can be worked around - otherwise I think it would be quite useful to include those common names in the boxes. --FCYTravis 04:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * On a purely technical note, "california state highway" is in a way misleading too because not all 'state highways' are 'highways' -- 17 is eacutally an expressway and a freeway. 'state route' is a neutral term that doesn't invoke confusion between whether or not the route is a freeway, and expressway, a highway, or a road. --atanamir 08:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * To make it clearer: All State Routes are Routes. All Routes are not State Routes. --FCYTravis 04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. So it is possible for a route, which is defined by the state, to not be a state route. If ever there were an reason for not modeling a naming scheme for wikipedia articles, it would be this confusing nightmare. Another problem with having roads like Highway 17 have the title "State Route 17" is that it blurs the distinction between routes defined by the state (including state routes) that are commonly known by their number and other state routes, like Route 82, which are not commonly referred to by their number, but instead by the names of the roads that compose the route.
 * It was not confusing until you decided to make it confusing by having one or two articles as 'california highway XX' and eveything else as california state route XX. --atanamir 08:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It was very confusing for someone familiar with Highway 17 who is looking for an article about it to find it at a name that they have never heard of. This is the point of the use common names policy—it's an implementation of the principle of least surprise. The smallest number of people will be surprised if an article is at a title that represents the most common name for the topic covered. Nohat 08:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt people have 'never heard of' it being referred to as 'state routes' before. Caltrans traffic reports and web site always refers to them as state routes.  --atanamir 08:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The situation is too complicated for there to be a one-size-fits-all solution for titling these articles, because you get silliness like "California State Route 17", which is a name that only bureaucrats and their admirers use. This is exactly the sort of situation where "use common names" is the only policy that could sensibly apply. Nohat 05:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The "one-size-fits-all" solution is what the government did to make it easier to manage all the routes by giving them one naming convention. For those that value consistency in an encyclopedia (obviously not you), by giving all the articles one title that matches the official name of the routes helps make the information easier to find / recognize.  This is also one of the goals of the CA/SR wikiproject -- to help structure the articles better, which is what you are now undermining.  --atanamir 08:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I haven't changed the structure of the articles, I only changed what they were titled. The "state route" titles still act as redirects. I'm not undermining anything; in fact I am improving Wikipedia by making the article titles conform to the official policy for article titles. If you disagree with the policy, go discuss at the policy's talk page, but don't undermine Wikipedia by willfully disregarding the policy. Nohat 08:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * To clarify, the articles themselves should of course explain that each road has an official designation "State Route whatever", but the titles should reflect the common name of the road. Nohat 05:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What about this as a compromise -- just what it used to be -- California State Highway 17? cahighways.org refers to it as "california state highway route 17," and the article itself resided at CASH 17 for quite some time as well. It's somewhat in between 'california highway 17' and 'california state route 17', and all the articles can be named this way to meet the consistency needs of me and several other people that have spoken up here. --atanamir 08:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Makes sense to me. Make it so. --FCYTravis 09:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you get to unilaterally move articles based on your belief - with NO consensus expressed - then I get to too. "Hiway" is in "common usage" as expressed by the Web site you noted, and State is an important differentiator. We've offered I don't know how many compromise efforts and you've consistently and dogmatically refused every single one of them. I edited the redirect. Fair is fair. --FCYTravis 18:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't a battle. There's no "fair" or "unfair'. There's obeying the policy, and there's wantonly disregarding the policy. No one has shown how the policy supports having the title be anything other than the article's original title California Highway 17. Individuals don't make up the rules as they see fit—policies have been decided upon and are to be followed. If you disagree with the policy, the correct avenue of action is to dispute the policy on the policy discussion page, not to wantonly disregard the policy and try to "negotiate" some kind of alternative arrangement. Nohat 20:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You are arguing that you are the sole interpreter of the policy and that nobody can question your interpretation of it. Clearly, there are many people contesting your interpretation and I see *no* consensus for the move. --FCYTravis 21:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There was not consensus to move it to the SR title, either. All Nohat has done is restore the article to its original title, which is also the more commonly used name.  I also think that most of the other state highways should be returned to their original titles. Gentgeen 21:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No one has contested my interpretation of the policy. Everyone is just ignoring the policy and making up other reasons to support having the article at "California State Route 17", none of which are supported by the policy. No one except me has framed their argument for what the article title should be in terms of official Wikipedia policy.
 * I also note that this article was originally titled "California Highway 17", and there was no attempt to gather support for moving to the "state route" title. All the California highway articles had perfectly reasonable names until some presumably well-meaning but imperious users went on a misguided attempt to introduce unnecessary "consistency" that gives many articles ridiculous names that makes Wikipedia hard-to-use and confusing for everyone except bureaucratic fetishists, not to mention blatant violations of policy. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" —Ralph Waldo Emerson. Nohat 21:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) Be Precise, when necessary." - "State Highway" is a precise term that is necessary to distinguish the road from the generic "Highway." I think if we can come to agreement that perhaps "State Route" is too bureaucratic, then adding "State" to the "Highway" preserves the idea of the "common name" - after all "Highway 17" is still intact so that when one searches that term, they'll find it - WHILE still honoring the precision of the road being a State Highway as opposed to a U.S., Interstate, county or even local "highway." --FCYTravis 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What other highway could possibly also be called "California Highway 17"? Nohat 21:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * While California State Highway 17 does not necessarily specifically have an analogous Interstate or U.S. highway, there are several State Highways that do invoke this ambiguity. State Highways 110, 15, etc. are paired with Interstate Highways of the same number. Also, there are several lettered County Highways and roads that possess the number 17. It simply makes sense to use the unambiguous, systematic, concise AND COMMON "State Highway." --FCYTravis 21:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There are county routes that also may bear the '17' route number and may also be highways. We have already offered a compromise at 'State Highway 17' from 'State Route 17'; clearly, we are not going to agree on any one name.  But perhaps you should yield as well and agree on 'State Highway 17' as the compromised title for the article. --atanamir 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW Nohat, if you're arguing that "Highway 17" is the common name, I don't see why you're so dogmatically fighting adding "State" between "California" and "Highway." The addition of the "State" does nothing to modify the common name. It simply explains and clarifies that common name. Otherwise, following your sacred policy, the California belongs after the "Highway 17" in parenthesis - Highway 17 (California), as all it's doing is disambiguating the location. --FCYTravis 21:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I can accept "California State Highway 17" as an acceptable compromise, but internal references in the article should remain simply "Highway 17". It should be noted that the disambiguation policy at Disambiguation says, "Do not disambiguate ... if there is no risk of confusion". Articles whose titles are ambiguous should have titles that are more specific; however, just because there are a couple that are ambiguous doesn't mean that every one needs to be preemptively disambiguated. Also, the parenthesis for disambiguation are only to be used if it the disambiguator can't be attached to the name for syntactic reasons. In this case it can, so parentheses are unnecessary. Nohat 22:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's certainly reasonable, Nohat. I don't think anyone's arguing that every internal reference in the article has to be to that. Once past first reference, I think it's perfectly reasonable to just shorten it to "Highway 17." As you said, it is common usage. That certainly makes sense. Repeating overly long phrases does nobody any good. (As an aside, perhaps this would make an interesting article... the ways in which people perceive route numbers seems to vary widely, and it would be interesting to note that different regions of the U.S. have developed different highway dialects. A-la "Highway 17" here, but "the 5" in Los Angeles, or "the expressway" back east.) --FCYTravis 22:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, and you convinced me pretty thoroughly on the "State Route" issue... I did a little digging and found that there's just not that much there *at all* that calls 'em state routes... the various "Highway" constructs are much more numerous. There were all of 11 hits for "California State Route 17" - one was CalTrans and most of the rest were Wikis. Yup, you're right, nobody but bureaucrats call it "State Route 17!" LOL. --FCYTravis 22:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's because it's State Route 17, but we include the California for disambiguation purposes. --SPUI (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. So is there any opposition now to my moving this article to "California State Highway 17"? Nohat 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No complaint from me; i will be happy this fiasco is over with. --atanamir 02:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Same complaint as I've already explained at length. --SPUI (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * A google search for '"Highway 17" California' yields 37,600 hits, while one for '"State Route 17" California'  yields only 5980 hits.  I have no objection to the article residing at the more common name. (oh, and a side note about Wikipedia practice with regard to allowing governments to tell us how to title articles, go look as Kiev.) Gentgeen 04:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * oops, the main article page can't be moved. only the talk page can be?

Re: proposed move (June 2005)

 * Support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before. Please see the above discussion. NO! Nohat 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gene Nygaard 16:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Highway 17 is six times more popular than State Route 17 (see discussion above). Gentgeen 17:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What proposed move? I thought this was done and over with. --Rschen7754 20:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * If that is true, there should have been some mention on this talk page of what was decided and what action was taken.
 * This is currently listed on Requested moves, even though the proper notice of that fact, according to the rules of that listing, does not seem to appear on this talk page, so the issue is not really properly presented yet--unless somebody improperly deleted a notice to that effect. Gene Nygaard 12:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

 * Check it out: Naming conventions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is still not good. California State Highway 17 is compromise, but still too awkward.  It would be much better to call it Highway 17 (California), if the local name is to be preferred. Joydawg 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We're working on conventions, see WikiProject Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. That discussion has gotten a bit long winded, but it seems to be approaching a standard.  Using a name like State Route 17 (California) is perfectly fine.  Redirects can take care of Highway 17 or Highway 17 (California).  I just see no reason for the article name to be some sort of halfway mix. Can't wait for the backlash when it's implemented though Joydawg 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... well this is the only CA highway article not at "California State Route". It just looks tacky to have one that is not at the standard. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anybody know what year the center divider went in?

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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.

don't move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move (March 2006)
This is the correct name. Disambiguation is to be done with parentheses to allow for pipe trick usage. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've been through this before. Please see the discussion in the /Archive. "Route" is just not a word that anyone but a few bureaucrats in Sacramento use to describe this highway. Nohat 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "State Route" is the proper term, and is abbreviated "SR". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Proper term" is not relevant to article titles. Articles are titled by their "common name", which is decidedly NOT "State Route" or "SR". Nohat 05:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles that fall into a system should be named according to that system, not by what the local idiots decide to call it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus support for a policy like that. If you dislike Wikipedia naming conventions, then you should make your own encyclopedia. Nohat 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh eat my penis. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A very compelling argument, indeed. Nohat 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already made my argument. Now I am just having fun. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How very cute *rolls eyes*Gateman1997 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Reluctant support. I'd prefer California State Route 17. But we have WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How very cute *rolls eyes*Gateman1997 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The "California State Route X" naming is only used by Caltrans on its Cal-NExUS pages, suggesting that whoever wrote that part of the site preferred that. Everything else on the Caltrans site uses State Route or SR without the California. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, it's the more appropriate name. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask in what sense it is "more appropriate"? Because it's certainly not the name that anyone who actually drives on this road other than bureaucrats uses for it. Nohat 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well they're obviously talking about California State Routes though. So maybe they omit it. But who would think to type in "State Route 17 (California)"? The common internet user would not! Although if this is the only way that we do get unamity and consistency with a touch of being technically correct then I'll support it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what redirects are for. — Mar. 1, '06 [06:10]
 * Support. Speedy move to the correct title, use redirects for all other titles. — Mar. 1, '06 [06:12]
 * Oppose - it makes much more sense for this article to be named California State Route 17. - Chadbryant 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but shouldn't the move be made to California State Route 17 since all other California state routes use that format? AjaxSmack 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That format does not fit naming and disambiguation conventions, as the route is "State Route 17", not "California State Route 17". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may very well be "State Route 17" by legal definition, but a standard has been established by the naming of nearly every other article on Wikipedia concerning a state route/highway that said article should follow a " State Route " scheme. - Chadbryant 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that standard, as it uses incorrect disambiguation, and as such does not allow for pipe trick usage. I have moved Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey's articles to proper disambiguation. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the state route articles for forty-seven other states still maintain the " State Route " scheme. If anything, insisting on adding the state name in parentheses at the end of the article name will only succeed in confusing the reader performing a search. - Chadbryant 07:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I always call it Highway 17. A Google search for "State Route 17" California comes up with 536 hits, while "Highway 17" California has 103,000 hits, so the other local idiots seem to agree with me. As can be seen at Talk:Kiev, Wikipedia doesn't let governments dictate what we title articles. Gentgeen 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose it should be renamed California State Route 17 132.205.45.148 18:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would support California State Route 17, but ideally it should be kept here.JohnnyBGood 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose either bring it in line with the rest of the state or leave it be. Do not move it to the State Route XX (CA) model.Gateman1997 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Gateman1997. Locally we call it Highway 17 but that's unfeasible.  We should either leave it be or conform to convention. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Locals may be interested in another proposed rename: Talk:Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport ProveIt (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "to allow for pipe trick usage" - talking about a hair on the tail wagging the dog. -R. S. Shaw 03:25, 4 March 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.

For future reference, this road is most commonly called "Highway 17", not "Route 17" or "State Route 17":
 * Google shows a 2.5 to 1 ratio of results for "Highway 17" vs. "Route 17" and a 17 to 1 ratio for "Highway 17" vs. "State Route 17".
 * There is a published book about the road. It is called Highway 17: The Road to Santa Cruz (ISBN 0962997404).
 * There are actual state-installed signs posted on Highway 17 that say "Highway 17".
 * The government-run bus line that goes over the highway is called the "Highway 17 Express"..
 * Caltrans sometimes calls it "Highway 17", so even they aren't consistent.
 * A Web site concerning it is called Highway17.com
 * The Bay Area traffic information line, 5-1-1, calls the road "Highway 17" when giving information about traffic. In fact, you cannot get traffic information about Highway 17 if you say "route 17" or "state route 17". You must say "highway 17" or just "17" to get information about traffic conditions on the highway.

This road is very clearly most commonly called "Highway 17". Anyone who lives in the area can tell you that. Any page move proposal that would move this page to a title which does not contain "Highway 17" would be a move in violation of one of Wikipedia's longest-standing policies concerning the naming of articles, the use common names naming convention.

Nohat 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything you've said is correct, and I would definitely agree that Highway 17 is the de facto name (it's what I use :P), for the portion in and around the Santa Cruz mountains, but to reiterate, this does not include the segment between Los Gatos and San Jose, which is usually referred to as just 17, like most other Bay Area freeways, and which has construction signs that refer to it as "Route 17". Historical portions such as the Nimitz and Richmond Bridge aren't "Highway 17". If the consensus is that is *has* to be Highway 17, then I suggest it should be Highway 17 (California). Joydawg 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Interstate 405 (Washington)

NPOV issues in the Future section
I am currently attempting to revamp / update this section. From what I'm seeing on the WSDOT website, this project is actually NOT underway. In fact, Proposition 1 failed with voters, so the funding is not there. Aside from that fact, the recurring statements regarding congestion are a major part of the entire NPOV issue. Unless these statements accurately reflect the source material, they need removed... Edit Centric (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a swing at it. Take a look and edit away! Travisl (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * No, that looks good! The only thing on these edits is the mention of Prop 1 failing the vote. The way it reads right now is that this was for the separate Renton project, and not the Nickel Project. The WSDOT reference ties it to the Nickel... Edit Centric (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I had my head up my arse again. The Renton to Bellview is PART of the Nickel! Ok. (Don't mind me, it's multi-tasking day, with a thousand little projects here and there to get closed up. Edit Centric (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * That's OK. After re-reading what I wrote, I realized that I still didn't understand it.  I researched more, found another source, and clarified the article. Travisl (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * You rock! Check also the talk page at I-5, I have some suggested "post-event" prose there... Edit Centric (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Intersections
Major Intersection as described in the 2001 Washington State Atlas and Gazetteer, all mileage points are approximate as indicated by exit numbers in the Rand McNally US Road Atlas 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEG24601 (talk • contribs) 22:01, August 17, 2005

removed cleanup-infobox tag
I've gone ahead and added the missing data to the infobox, as well as the corrected the incorrect browse links. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Interstate 405 (Washington). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080906212957/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/accessdowntown/ to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/AccessDowntown/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 405 (Washington). 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/20080410164014/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/TDO/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/HwyLog2006.pdf to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/TDO/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/HwyLog2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326014935/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Annual_Traffic_Report_2007.pdf to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Annual_Traffic_Report_2007.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/corridor/newfunding/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 405 (Washington). 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/20080625093148/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/1970_ATR.pdf to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/1970_ATR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030044027/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AFDDA538-123B-43F8-A166-B30BAA34C492/0/40yearsReport.pdf to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AFDDA538-123B-43F8-A166-B30BAA34C492/0/40yearsReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

History
Greetings. Two issues in the History section that I'd like to discuss. Since I don't have experience with this page, I have not made any changes to the text.

In the first paragraph, this sentence is not correct: "The area's first railroad was laid by the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway in 1887 and completed from Renton to Woodinville in 1904, under the ownership of the Northern Pacific Railway." While the SLS&E was one of the area's first railroads, it was not THE first; and, more importantly for this article, the SLS&E did not build the line from Renton to Woodinville, known as the Lake Washington Belt Line. The Northern Pacific did, and the line opened for business in the Spring of 1905.

However, to add complexity, there was an earlier Lake Washington Belt Line, on a different alignment for much of the distance, c.1890-1895. It was not completed. The SLS&E did not build the segments of this line that were completed either, but instead a subsidiary of the NP did, the Northern Pacific & Puget Sound Shore Railroad, under contract from the Lake Washington Belt Line Co. For references, see here (I am co-author of the content): https://kirklandhistory.org/1905-lwbl-ckc/1905-lwbl-history/

This part of the article could be rewritten to make the point that the LWBL's intent was parallel to and a precursor of I-405's intent--to bypass Seattle for traffic that did not originate or terminate there, which was fully realized in May 1913, when the newly-opened NP Auburn yard and servicing complex replaced Seattle as the terminus. (Kurt Armbruster's "Orphan Road" describes well how congested the downtown Seattle rail yards on Railroad Avenue had become by 1900.)

In the fourth paragraph, something appears to be missing in the discussion of I-405 predecessors. It begins with "SSH 2A and the eastern portion of SSH 1L were replaced in 1957 by the Renton Branch of PSH 1". This implies (to me, at least) that the name changed to PSH 1. However, the next paragraph begins "In 1964, the system of primary and secondary state highways was removed in favor of new state routes, and PSH 2A was renumbered SR 405". So, did SSH 2A become PSH 2A instead of a branch of PSH 1? If so, would be good to make that explicit in the fourth paragraph. Kent Sullivan (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've corrected both using the sources I have at hand.  Sounder Bruce  05:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thank you. Your changes are spot-on. Kent Sullivan (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There might be more information on the LW belt line in the Horace Chapin Henry papers at UW Libraries special collections . ☆ Bri (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Interstate 405 (Washington)


text: File:Shawn on Pillow Rock.jpg

title: File:Shawn on Pillow Rock.jpg


text:
User:Americanidiot

I'm Americanidiot, a Californian of the male gender. My user name comes from the hit Green Day track/album. My hobbies include playing video games, watching television, playing video games, reading, browsing the internet, and playing video games. My favorite type of video games would probably have to be Role Playing Games. I like Sony better than Nintendo. Take that Nintendo fanboys! My favorite kind of music is rock. Rock on!! I like Weezer, They Might Be Giants, My Chemical Romance, and Green Day a lot, and my favorite console is the PS2.

My Video Games

 * Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy PS2
 * Star Wars: Battlefront PS2
 * Star Wars: Battlefront 2 PS2
 * Star Ocean: Till the End of Time PS2
 * Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly PS2
 * Fairly OddParents: Breakin' Da Rules PS2
 * SpongeBob SquarePants: Revenge of the Flying Dutchman PS2
 * The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age PS2
 * Frogger: The Great Quest PS2
 * Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets PS2
 * Final Fantasy X PS2
 * Soul Calibur 2 PS2
 * Kingdom Hearts PS2
 * Lego Star Wars: The Video Game PS2
 * Tekken 4 PS2
 * NCAA Football 2003 PS2
 * Crash Nitro Kart PS2
 * Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 PS2
 * Tony Hawk's Underground PS2
 * Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door NGC
 * Super Smash Bros. Melee NGC
 * WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Party Game$ NGC
 * Pokemon Colosseum NGC
 * Animal Crossing NGC
 * A Series of Unfortunate Events NGC
 * Fire Emblem GBA
 * Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones GBA
 * WarioWare: Twisted! GBA
 * Metroid: Zero Mission GBA
 * Metroid Fusion GBA
 * Final Fantasy VII PS1
 * Final Fantasy VIII PS1
 * Star Ocean: The Second Story PS1
 * Tekken 3 PS1
 * Crash Bandicoot: Warped PS1
 * Crash Team Racing PS1
 * Paper Mario N64
 * Mario Party 3 N64
 * Mario Party 2 N64
 * Super Smash Bros. N64
 * Star Fox 64 N64
 * Donkey Kong Country GBC
 * Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone GBC
 * Pokemon Yellow GBC
 * Pokemon Red GBC
 * Pokemon Silver GBC

Favorite Movies

 * Star Wars trilogy
 * ''Lord of the Rings trilogy
 * Various Disney Movies
 * And Many More...

Favorite Books

 * Harry Potter septology
 * Eragon(Inheritance trilogy)
 * Series of Unfortunate Events
 * Bartimaeus trilogy

title: User:Americanidiot


text:
Owned-and-operated station

In the broadcasting industry, an owned-and-operated station (frequently abbreviated as an O&O) usually refers to a television or radio station owned by the network with which it is associated. This distinguishes such a station from an affiliate, which is independently owned and carries network programming by contract.

The concept of an O&O is clearly defined in the United States and Canada (and to some extent, several other countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Japan), where network-owned stations had historically been the exception rather than the rule. In such places, broadcasting licenses are generally issued on a local (rather than national) basis, and there is (or was) some sort of regulatory mechanism in place to prevent any company (including a broadcasting network) from owning stations in every market in the country. In other parts of the world, many television networks were given national broadcasting licenses at launch; as such, they have traditionally been mostly (or entirely) composed of owned-and-operated stations, rendering a separate notion for such a concept redundant.

Usage of the term in the United States
In the broadcasting industry, the term "owned-and-operated station" refers exclusively to stations that are owned by television and radio networks. On the other hand, the term "affiliate" only applies to stations that are not owned by networks, but instead are contracted to air programming from one of the major networks. While in fact there may be an affiliation agreement between a network and an owned-and-operated station, this is not necessarily required, and may simply be a legal technicality formalizing the relationship of separate entities under the same parent company. In any event, this does not prevent a network from effectively dictating an owned-and-operated station's practices outside the scope of a normal affiliation agreement; for instance, network programming is very rarely preempted by O&Os except in cases of major breaking news of interest to the O&O's viewing area, despite individual affiliates' rights to do so.

The term "station" applies to the ownership of the station. For example, a station that is owned and operated by the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is referred to as an "ABC station" or an "ABC O&O," but an affiliate. Likewise, a station not owned by ABC but contracted to air the network's programming is correctly referred to as an "ABC affiliate"; that is, the station is affiliated with ABC.

However, informally or for promotional purposes, affiliated stations (or non-O&Os) are sometimes referred to as a network station, as in "WFAA is an ABC station" even though that ABC affiliate, in the Dallas–Fort Worth market, is owned by Tegna, Inc. A correct formal phrasing could be, "ABC affiliate WFAA is a Tegna station." Similarly, one may informally refer to "ABC affiliates" in regards to all stations (including O&Os) that air ABC programming, or to "the ABC affiliation" in regards to the transfer of rights to ABC programming from an affiliate to an O&O.

Some stations that are owned by companies that operate a network, but air another network's programming are referred to as an affiliate of the network that they carry. For example, WPSG in Philadelphia is owned by the CBS network's parent company Paramount Global, but has no network affiliation and airs syndicated programming; it is an independent station. Prior to September 2023, WPSG aired programming from The CW, in which CBS owned at the time; therefore, WPSG was a CW O&O prior to October 2022.

The stations carrying The WB Television Network were another exception. The controlling shares in the network were held by Time Warner through its Warner Bros. division, with minority interests from the Tribune Company and, for a portion of the network's existence, the now-defunct ACME Communications. While Tribune-owned stations such as WGN-TV in Chicago, WPIX in New York City and KTLA in Los Angeles (along with most of the ACME stations) aired programming from The WB, they did not fit the standard definition of an owned-and-operated station. A similar exception existed when UPN launched in January 1995 by co-owners Chris-Craft and Viacom. Each of the companies owned a number of stations that aired the network. However, the stations were also not considered O&Os under the initial standard definition. This ambiguity ended with Viacom's buyout of Chris-Craft's share of the network in 2000, which came not long after its merger with the previous CBS Corporation. The stations were referred to informally as "UPN O&Os" (Chris-Craft later sold its stations to Fox Television Stations, the subsidiary of the then News Corporation that primarily operates Fox's O&Os, in 2000 ).

Following the shutdowns of UPN and The WB, CBS Corporation (former owner of UPN) and Time Warner became co-owners of The CW Television Network, which largely merged the programming from both networks onto the scheduling model used by The WB. The network launched in September 2006 on 11 UPN stations owned by CBS Corporation, and 15 WB affiliates owned by Tribune (which exchanged its ownership stake in The WB for affiliation agreements on most of its stations with the new CW network). Certain UPN and WB affiliates in markets where Tribune and CBS both owned stations carrying those networks either picked up a MyNetworkTV affiliation or became independent stations. The standard definition of an O&O again does not apply to The CW, but the CBS-owned stations that carry the network were referred to as "CW O&Os" (Time Warner, later known as WarnerMedia, did not own any station except one during its existence). After Nexstar Media Group (who acquired Tribune in 2019) brought a 75% interest in The CW (Paramount Global and Warner Bros. Discovery, who respectively succeeded CBS Corporation and WarnerMedia, each retain 12.5% ownership), all of the Nexstar-owned CW affiliates became O&Os.

Some O&Os choose to refer to themselves as "network-owned stations" instead, reflecting the fact that while they may be owned by a national network, much of the operation is usually left to the discretion of the local station.

Australia
In Australia, Seven West Media, which owns the Seven Network, Nine Entertainment, which owns the Nine Network and Paramount Global, which owns Network 10 each own and operate stations in the five largest metropolitan areas (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide). These television markets together account for two-thirds of the country's population. In addition, Seven also owns and operates its STQ station in regional Queensland, its CBN station in regional New South Wales and in the ACT, its AMV station in regional Victoria, its PTV station in Mildura and various stations related to the former GWN7 network in Western Australia and Nine owns and operates its NTD station in Darwin. Nine also owns and operates its NBN station, based in Newcastle.

The two national public broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), own and operate all of their local stations.

Indonesia
In Indonesia, although public networks (i.e. RRI and TVRI) own and operate all of their local stations since their early years, the trend of private networks own and operating more than one station only arose in the 2000s, as the restriction on private radio station's broadcast area was lifted and new regulations concerning network broadcasting system was in effect. The situation is similar to that of the neighbouring Philippines (see below), since most of them are transmitter stations with few regional programming (the notable exceptions are the stations of Jawa Pos Multimedia and Indonesia Network, consisting of distinct TV stations owned by same company, with few or none national programming). Also, the terms "network", "station", and "channel" are used interchangeably, and the flagship station (mostly in Jakarta) could be watched on pay TV.

Most of the local private stations that are member of national networks are owned and operated by the same company as their parent network, though they were established as different companies. The stations typically has on-air name format [network name] [city/province], reflecting their respective network and their broadcast coverage. There is only a single counterexample to this rule: RBTV (Yogyakarta) airing in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, is an affiliate of but only 25% shares are owned by Kompas TV.

Due to regulations in 2002 Act on Broadcasting, currently owned-and-operated radio stations tend to air mostly local programming, while owned-and-operated television stations are allowed to air mostly network's national programming.

Japan
In Japan, commercial terrestrial television is focused on five organizations, known alternatively by either the name of their flagship Tokyo station or a network name (usually branded as a "news network" although all of these organizations provide more than just news programming).

The four largest of these – Nippon TV (NNN/NNS), Tokyo Broadcasting System (JNN), Fuji TV (FNN/FNS), and TV Asahi (ANN), two of four of them owned by major newspapers (Nippon TV by The Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings and TV Asahi by The Asahi Shimbun Company) and Tokyo Broadcasting System being highly affiliated with The Mainichi Newspapers Co. despite the Mainichi's lack of ownership – each own and operate stations in the Tokyo, Keihanshin, Chukyo and Fukuoka metropolitan areas. These four television markets together account for more than half of the country's population. In addition, these four networks also own and operate some stations in other television markets. Most of the Japanese television stations outside the four flagship media markets have affiliates with one of those networks, therefore, they are not owned-and-operated stations. However, in the strict North American definition of "owned by the network", nearly all of those network affiliates would have been classified as owned-and-operated stations, since the networks (or in the case of Nippon TV, Tokyo Broadcasting System and TV Asahi, the newspapers who own/affiliated with them) has controlling shares in those stations. The smaller TV Tokyo (TXN) clearly owns and operates all of its local stations.

The public broadcaster NHK operates two terrestrial channels, NHK General TV and NHK Educational TV. Both of these channels have some regional stations, all of which are owned and operated by NHK.

Philippines
In the Philippines, networks such as the former ABS-CBN, GMA Network, and TV5 own and operate almost all their local television stations, although a few affiliates also exist. As regional stations simulcast/relay almost the entire programming lineup of their parent network's flagship station (usually based in Metro Manila), the terms "network", "station" and "channel" can in practice be used interchangeably to refer to either one. Even when a network's local station features programmes that deviate from the flagship station, viewers there may be able to see the flagship station through pay-TV operators.

In addition, networks are often informally referred to using their flagship stations' terrestrial channel numbers. For example, ABS-CBN is referred to as "Channel 2" or "Dos", which corresponds to the assigned channel number of its Manila O&O DWWX-TV. This is applicable even if a viewer receives the network on a different channel number (either because the viewer resides in a different viewing area or receives the channel through cable or satellite).

Germany
ARD, one of Germany's public broadcasters, is actually an umbrella organisation made up of the different regional public broadcasters. This effectively renders ARD a case of where the regional stations own the network. One of ARD's channels, Das Erste, has exactly the same output across the country but each of the regional broadcasters contributes content to it. Meanwhile, each ARD-member broadcaster uses channel 3 to show its own output and lineup in the viewing areas they serve (although a common time exists for regional news bulletins at 19.30 and a simulcast of the national newscast Tagesschau at 20.00 Central European time). Within some regional broadcasters, further variations exist for the regional news bulletins. Viewers across Germany are able to view the different regional variations of channel 3 through free-to-air satellite, pay-TV subscription, or through the ARD media library available on ARD's website and mobile app.

United Kingdom
The ITV network is jointly owned by the owners of the local "Channel 3" stations throughout the United Kingdom, which since 2016 have been consolidated into two companies: ITV plc (whose Channel 3 franchises are branded ITV1) and STV Group plc (which operates its franchises as STV). Officially, the stations own the network, rather than the network owning stations as is the case in most of the other countries listed here. However, since the 2004 creation of ITV plc, which since 2016 has owned and operated all of the Channel 3 licences serving England, Wales, southern Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands, as well as the UK-wide breakfast licence, most of the operations of the network have been absorbed into that entity. Moreover, the separately owned station serving northern and central Scotland (STV), and to a lesser extent the ITV plc-owned UTV in Northern Ireland, often deviate significantly from the schedule of the ITV1 channel as programmed by ITV plc. As a result of this restructuring and other changes in the relationship between ITV and STV, the Channel 3 franchises owned by ITV plc could now be considered ITV owned-and-operated stations, with STV being comparable to an affiliate.

From 1982 to 2010, a somewhat comparable situation existed for the fourth channel allocation, with Channel 4 broadcasting in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and S4C, operated by a separate public authority, broadcasting in Wales. Until the digital switchover in Wales in 2010, S4C's analogue service broadcast primarily Welsh-language programming, along with English-language programming from Channel 4, often on delay. In this sense, S4C could be considered a Channel 4 affiliate, with Channel 4's operations in the rest of the UK being similar to an O&O. Since the digital switchover, S4C has been a fully Welsh-language service, with Channel 4 available in Wales at all times on a separate digital channel.

However, S4C has some ties to the BBC even as the latter does not own the former. The licence fee, which is primarily used to fund the BBC, also partly goes to S4C. S4C's main newscast, Newyddion, is broadcast from BBC Wales' studios. Some other BBC personalities like Huw Edwards also appear regularly on S4C. S4C is also available on the BBC's iPlayer for everyone in the UK.

While BBC One has regional output, the BBC produces all such regional programmes itself, and in this sense all BBC "stations" are owned-and-operated; however, as with the ITV network, there are regional variations in scheduling on this channel between the constituent countries of the UK. BBC Two used to have a version for Scotland but on February 17, 2019, this variation was discontinued to make way for a new television channel entitled BBC Scotland (Scotland viewers now get the same version of BBC Two seen in England). Channel 4 offers regional advertising (as did Channel 5 until 2015), but otherwise there are currently no regional programming variations on those channels or on any other UK-wide television channels.

Local Television Limited owns and operates several stations across major metro areas in the UK and is seen on Freeview channel 8. Compared to other established services, each of the owned and operated stations has more hours of content that caters to the viewing areas of such.

Unlike in the US, O&Os intended for a certain viewing area are viewable anywhere in the UK. O&Os from other viewing areas are available on Sky and Freesat and the BBC's iPlayer allows users to select the region/viewing area they are interested in and will thus give them the corresponding BBC One feed. BBC Scotland and BBC Alba are available across the UK through the iPlayer. UTV, the ITV O&O for Northern Ireland is available across the UK but users need to add this channel manually to their Sky or Freesat lineup.

Argentina
Argentina's public broadcaster TV Pública owns and operates all of its stations. However, commercial broadcasters like (Telefe, Eltrece, América and Encuentro) have private affiliates outside Buenos Aires.

Brazil
In Brazil, government regulations limit the number of stations a television network can own. As a result, the five major television networks (TV Globo, Record, SBT, Rede Bandeirantes, TV Cultura and RedeTV!) tend to have O&Os only in the country's three largest cities, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Brasilia, and rely heavily on affiliates to distribute the networks' programming to other areas of the country. Some markets (such as Belo Horizonte, Recife and Manaus) also have O&Os from one or more networks; for instance, Globo and RedeTV own and operate their stations in Recife, while SBT, Record, and Rede Bandeirantes do not. Smaller television networks, including (TV Gazeta), typically only have one owned-and-operated station.

Chile
The major Chilean television networks currently own and operate all of their stations. Canal 13 had an affiliate in northern Chile, Telenorte, until it disaffiliated from the network in 1989.

Mexico
Due to the lack of an ownership cap in Mexico, some Mexican television networks own and operate all of their stations; a few media companies, such as Grupo Televisa and Azteca own multiple stations in several markets that each carry programming from the various networks that it also owns (or in the case of Televisa, shoehorn programs cherrypicked from its various networks onto one station). However, there are privately owned local stations that still exist, which broadcast programming originating from the stations located in Mexico City.

Peru
In 1974, Telecentro was created as a division of ENRAD (Empresa Nacional de Radiodifusión), a state controlled company used to operate all of the country's radio and television stations. However, private broadcasters still owned the broadcast stations. When satellite transmission links were introduced in Peru in 1989, many affiliates had become repeaters of the main stations based in Lima.

Canada
In Canada, due to the population being concentrated to fewer urban centres (compared to the United States), as well as more lenient policies regarding media ownership (for example, an ownership cap on television stations does not exist, except for within one media market), many television stations have become (or began operation as) O&Os. For instance, CTV and Global currently own and operate an overwhelming majority of their local stations (most of which are located in major urban centres); the few affiliates are located in smaller regional markets like Lloydminster and Thunder Bay.

CBC Television, with its role as the publicly funded broadcaster, has at least one O&O in every single province, as well as CBC North serving the three territories as well as northern Quebec. While the majority of Canadians are served by CBC owned-and-operated stations, the CBC previously had some privately owned affiliates. The number of these particularly decreased in the early 2000s, however, and as of January 2017, no private CBC affiliates remain (the last such station disaffiliated in September 2016), and stations that have left the network since the mid-2000s have generally not been replaced. Indeed, the public broadcaster shut down most of its own TV rebroadcast transmitters in 2012, and now relies instead on cable and satellite carriage of its O&Os in regions outside the largest markets.

The CBC's main French-language network, Ici Radio-Canada Télé, is the only French-language network in Canada that has O&Os located outside Quebec. The network maintains an O&O in each province except in Atlantic Canada, where CBAFT (based in Moncton, New Brunswick) previously served the entire region via relay transmitters (and remains available on cable/satellite). The territories likewise now receive programming through cable/satellite carriage of out-of-province O&Os, usually CBFT Montreal.

The other two French-language networks – Noovo and TVA – only have O&Os (and, for that matter, affiliates) within Quebec (privately owned Radio-Canada affiliates were only found within Quebec as well, the last affiliated station shut down in 2021).

Along with the major networks, some media conglomerates also run second-tier television systems (e.g., Rogers Media's Omni Television and Bell Media's CTV 2). These systems share the same parent companies as most of their local stations, and such stations can be considered O&Os as well. For example, all of CTV Two's local stations are owned by Bell Media. On the other hand, Canwest's E! added a few private affiliates not owned by Canwest in Western Canada prior to its demise in 2009; those affiliates have since joined Rogers' Citytv network.

United States
In the United States, unlike Canada's O&O-heavy geography, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently mandates that the total number of television stations owned by any company (including a television network) can only reach a maximum market coverage of 39% of the country. Given this restriction, television networks only have O&Os in a fraction of the 210 designated market areas around the country (the remainder of the markets are served by affiliates that are owned by other media companies). Periodically, networks may sell O&Os to comply with this FCC restriction.

O&Os tend to be found in large urban centers such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and other markets that are typically among the 10 largest in the U.S. (such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, and Philadelphia), although they have also been found in markets as small as Green Bay, Wisconsin (DMA No. 69, 2006–07) and Toledo, Ohio (DMA No. 76, 1995–2011) in the past. Some networks (such as Ion Television) and non-commercial religious television networks (such as the Trinity Broadcasting Network and Daystar) own the vast majority of their stations, with only a few privately owned outlets carrying their programming (in the case of TBN and Daystar, both networks own their stations directly and through subsidiary licensees, such as Community Educational Television for TBN and Word of God Fellowship for Daystar).

Owned-and-operated stations used to be common in the days of network radio, however beginning in the 1980s, these radio networks began to be broken up. For all intents and purposes, NBC no longer exists as a radio network, beyond brand licensing and distribution agreements with Dial Global for NBC Sports Radio content. ABC was previously non-existent as well, until 2015 when it relaunched an in-house radio network after Cumulus Media Networks, the then-owners and distributors of the ABC News Radio brand, replaced the ABC News brand with Westwood One News (via CNN). CBS's radio stations are now a separate company (CBS Radio) from its broadcast service. In the late 1990s, the original CBS Radio Network was reassigned to then-corporate sibling Westwood One via a series of complicated transactions, absorbing the former Mutual and the original NBC Radio (which General Electric spun off in 1987 after its merger with RCA) in the process. Westwood One was spun off in 2007 and merged into Dial Global in 2011, with the new company taking on the Westwood One name. Today, CBS maintains separate distribution agreements between Westwood One (for CBS Radio News and its sports play-by-play packages, most notably the NFL and the NCAA) and Cumulus Media (for CBS Sports Radio).

However, new radio networks have cropped up with their own owned-and-operated networks. iHeartMedia owns many stations in the top 100 U.S. markets, and in turn feeds them with programming, either from corporate subsidiary Premiere Radio Networks or via internal distribution; in particular, this is done with their talk radio station portfolio. Voicetracking purposes are handled either by internal methods or through their Premium Choice format menus, the latter of which is geared towards small and medium-market stations with air talent selected from stations in larger markets.

Cumulus Media often does the same with its own stations and broadcast service known as Cumulus Media Networks. The Walt Disney Company, which sold off ABC Radio in 2007 to Citadel Broadcasting (which was merged into Cumulus in 2011) still owns the ESPN Radio network. ESPN Radio has only a few owned-and-operated stations in mostly major markets. Until 2021, Disney also owned the Radio Disney network, and almost all of Radio Disney's outlets prior to its transition to a mainly digitally distributed service in 2014 (leaving Los Angeles flagship KDIS as the network's only remaining O&O until 2017, when it became affiliated with spin-off network Radio Disney Country).

Most religious radio networks, such as Salem Communications, Moody Radio, the Bible Broadcasting Network, and Air 1/K-Love, own and operate all of their stations. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is not allowed to own or operate any of its stations by way of its ownership model, as its individual member stations own the network instead in the manner of ARD.

Branding
A network's O&Os often share similar branding elements among themselves, reinforcing their common identity as stations owned by the same network; for example, a common shared element among O&O stations involves identifying themselves by combining the name of their parent network with the station's channel number (such as "CBS 2," which is uniformly used by CBS O&Os KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, WCBS-TV in New York City and WBBM-TV in Chicago), which started to become a normal mode of branding in the mid-1990s (beforehand, O&Os of certain networks – such as CBS and NBC – incorporated the network's logo into their own while verbally being referred under a more genericized channel branding). This kind of sharing may also present some savings to the parent network (i.e., the owner), as its O&Os can use the same graphics and music rather than to have each station commission their own individual branding package. Examples include the circle 7 logo (originally designed in 1962 for ABC's aforementioned O&Os, all of which at the time had broadcast on VHF channel 7) and the "This is Chicago, Chicago My Town" musical signature for local newscasts (originally used by WBBM-TV, and later spread to other CBS O&Os). Fox also has a set of branding guidelines for both its O&Os and affiliates. Supposedly, NBC and ABC also have branding guidelines for its affiliates, but not as extreme as CBS or Fox; since the 2013–14 season, however, when ABC unveiled an updated version of its logo, all of the network's affiliates are now required to use the ABC circle logo as a part of the station's own logo, which must additionally be approved by the network for use.

Networks in Canada took corporate branding to its logical conclusion; references to local call signs and channel numbers have almost completely been eliminated from the O&Os except during station sign-on and sign-off sequences (although some O&Os may occasionally refer to their channel numbers in passing).

In the UK, the similar O&O branding elements are prevalent in the continuity sequences, especially when a national BBC News bulletin on BBC One is introduced. In here the regional announcer tells viewers "This is BBC One [name of region]", as well who will present the national and regional news bulletin. The fonts and graphics styles used in the national news bulletins are mirrored in the regional news bulletins. The format and order of segments of the regional bulletins are almost exactly the same as each other. This is also applicable to the weather segments.

In Sweden where Sveriges Television (SVT) owns and operates all its stations, the regional news programme segments have identical graphics elements to each other and to the main national programmes they are either part of (e.g. Morgonstudion) or follow (e.g. Rapport and Aktuellt). For instance, during Morgonstudion, rather than a in-studio presenter stepping in to present the regional news, that segment is a montage of the top regional news reports.

Currently, other television station groups (such as Hearst Television) also implement common branding practices among its stations (even when affiliated with different networks). Some of the branding elements are now used by stations that are not O&Os or even affiliates of a certain network (such as Sunbeam Television's WHDH in Boston and WSVN in Miami using a variation of the circle 7 logo, and ABC affiliate KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa using CBS' "I Love Chicago" motif). Likewise, network affiliates may also license graphics packages for use on their newscasts and imaging from their networks to reduce the costs of licensing imaging from other parties; though it has been reduced in usage than in the past, many affiliate stations also license the network's imaging for their entertainment program and news promotions. Nonetheless, such practices and elements can still be traced back to the O&Os, which represented the earliest television station groups under common ownership, before the emergence and proliferation of national station ownership groups in the subsequent decades.

Opportunities for talents and other staff
Positions at network O&Os are frequently sought after by those who wish to eventually work for a television network. Many O&Os have served as a stepping stone for television personalities at their parent networks. For example, former Today and NBC Nightly News presenter Tom Brokaw used to work for NBC's Los Angeles O&O, KNBC, before moving to the network while Matt Lauer and Al Roker worked for NBC's flagship O&O in New York City, WNBC-TV, before becoming hosts on Today. Additionally, Roker had begun his career with NBC at former O&O WKYC-TV in Cleveland, known as a "farm station" which developed talent for the larger O&O stations and network (although, until after it ended following Multimedia's purchase of controlling interest in the station in 1990, this strategy left WKYC as a longtime also-ran in the Cleveland market due to heavy staff turnover). Roker's predecessor as the Today show's weatherman, Willard Scott, was an on-air personality at WRC-TV, NBC's O&O in Washington, D. C., before going to New York in 1980. Another example was BBC London News presenter Emily Maitlis, who joined BBC News 24 and BBC Two's Newsnight in 2006.

Although working at an O&O does not guarantee a network job down the line, the on-air presenter or correspondent does potentially receive additional exposure to the network and often a larger audience given that O&Os are often found in the largest media markets. Behind-the-scenes personnel at an O&O station may also be promoted to a higher network-level position. Emmy Award-winning videotape editor Walter Balderson, for example, began his career in television as an engineer at WRC-TV in Washington before eventually becoming NBC's videotape editor for The Huntley–Brinkley Report, as well as other NBC network shows in New York.

Presenters and other staff at the O&Os also take on occasional roles at the network level, alongside their existing capacities at the station/regional level. For example, several local anchors at CTV's O&Os have filled in for Lloyd Robertson in the past on the network's national newscast CTV National News; and weathercasters from CTV's Toronto and Vancouver O&Os (CFTO-DT and CIVT-DT, respectively) present the weather segments on CTV News Channel. A number of personalities at New York City radio and television stations have also done assignments for both a station and a parent network at the same time, due to their proximity to network studios and offices. Likewise, presenters from the network appear on some of their O&O stations' local news bulletins. For instance in the UK, the ITV Lunchtime News presenter also presents the ITV News London bulletin that immediately follows. Another example is BBC's Breakfast, which broadcasts from Media City Salford Quays, the home of BBC North West (serving greater Manchester and Liverpool); BBC North West Tonight Presenter Roger Johnson presents some Sunday editions of Breakfast.

Local weather presenters may make occasional appearances on national programmes or vice versa. In the BBC, the national weather presenters make occasional appearances on BBC London news bulletins and weather presenters often allocated to BBC London (and sometimes other BBC regions) occasionally present the weather for BBC's national bulletins. A similar practice happens over at Swedish network SVT where the regional weather portion in many of the regional news bulletins is presented by one of SVT's national weather presenters.

Co-located network and station facilities
Parts of a network's operations may also be co-located in the same premises as one or more of its O&Os. For example, production of Global's national newscast Global National is controlled from its Vancouver O&O CHAN-DT, while CTV's network headquarters are co-located with CFTO at 9 Channel Nine Court in Scarborough, Ontario (the address refers to CFTO's over-the-air channel number). NBC's national network operations in both New York City and Los Angeles are housed in the same facilities as their local stations in the respective cities, WNBC and KNBC, and both of these O&Os are considered flagship stations of the network (conversely, NBC's affiliate news service NBC News Channel is based out of the studios of WCNC-TV in Charlotte, North Carolina, which the network maintains an affiliation with but has never owned). Moreover, NBC's Washington O&O, WRC-TV, had previously housed the network's Washington bureau from which Meet the Press and some MSNBC programmes originated from.

Networks and stations share common facilities in some areas. For instance, some BBC London News bulletins also use the same studio (Studio B) as the national BBC News at Six and Ten bulletins. Previously BBC's Studio D, which used to be home to BBC London News, was also occasionally used by the BBC News Channel when the latter's main studio, Studio E, was out of service. Studio D has also been used for the BBC interview programme Hardtalk. The BBC's flagship morning programme Breakfast used to share the same studio as BBC's Northwest Tonight, the BBC's newscast for the region encompassing Manchester, Liverpool, and surrounding areas but since mid-2023, the former has moved to a different studio but still within MediaCity UK.

The co-location of network facilities at O&Os may also facilitate the production of promo shoots that feature both an O&O show and a network show. For instance, the lead presenters of an O&O's late-night news show may shoot a promo in the same studio with the host of the parent network's late-night talk show that airs immediately after the former. Similarly, a network may thus also show promotional posters/billboards for the programmes of the O&O station it is co-located with along that network's office/studio corridors.

Content sharing and contribution
In the US, during the early stages of breaking news in an O&O's market that may be of potential national interest, its sister O&Os elsewhere may rely on a correspondent working for the former to provide on-air updates. In addition, the news websites of major networks have local news sections and rely on their O&Os for that. Likewise, the ABC News app on Apple TV has a local news section with video reports prepared by its different O&Os. In connection, the O&Os share their content on each other's websites and social media feeds (e.g. content originating from KABC-TV Los Angeles are occasionally posted on WABC-TV New York).

In the UK, some BBC regional offices (e.g. BBC Bristol, BBC Wales/Cymru, BBC Scotland) are credited for producing some BBC programmes like Dr Who, Question Time, and Bargain Hunt.

In Germany, some programmes that air on ARD's national channel Das Erste are produced by regional stations that are members of the ARD network.

In the Philippines, GMA Network's regional stations contribute to and power a daily news bulletin focused on regional news that airs nationwide on sister network GTV.

Ownership and network changes
In general, an O&O is very unlikely to experience changes in its ownership, since it is often a significant source of revenue for its owner; and since its owner is also its parent network, the chances for an O&O to ever switch networks are also rather low – unless the station is, on the rare chance, sold to another network.

However, in instances where the network finds an O&O to be no longer financially viable, it may choose to sell the station to a new owner or, in severe cases, simply close the station. Even profitable O&Os might be sold off, often as a result (or in anticipation) of mergers and corporate deals, especially ones which put the network over the ownership limit in its local jurisdiction (e.g., the aforementioned 39% ownership cap in the United States imposed by the FCC). In addition, a network might decide to sell some of its O&Os and use the money raised to (at least temporarily) alleviate financial problems. Depending on the new owner, the station might continue to carry programming from the same network, affiliate with another network, or even become another network's O&O.

The following are examples of transactions involving O&Os:

Australia

 * STW-9 in Perth and QTQ-9 in Brisbane became O&Os of the Nine Network in 1987, when the parent company of both stations, Bond Media (headed by Alan Bond), purchased the network. After that company's collapse, STW-9 was sold to Sunraysia Television and remained a Nine Network affiliate; it later came under the ownership of WIN Television until Nine Entertainment Co. bought the station in 2013, and turned STW-9 into a Nine O&O once again. QTQ-9, meanwhile, always remained a Nine O&O during that time.
 * NEW-10 in Perth signed on the air in 1988 as a Network Ten O&O. However, the station was sold off the next year as the network faced financial problems. The network – under CanWest Global ownership – re-acquired the station in 1995, and NEW-10 has remained a Ten O&O ever since.

Canada

 * CKVU-TV in Vancouver was purchased by CanWest Global in 1988, subsequently becoming part of that company's CanWest Global System (renamed the Global Television Network in 1997, as part of a national expansion of that brand outside what became the new network's Paris, Ontario flagship CIII-TV). However, in 2000, CanWest purchased the television stations of Western International Communications (WIC), which included CHAN-TV in Vancouver and CHEK-TV in Victoria. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) does not allow any single company to own more than two stations serving the same market that broadcast in the same language; as a result, Global had to sell one of the stations. It opted to keep CHAN as that station had much higher ratings than CKVU, as well as a network of rebroadcasters that reach 97% of British Columbia. CKVU was eventually sold to CHUM Limited, and became part of the Citytv television system (now simply known as City, which has since been re-classified as a television network).
 * After purchasing the WIC stations, Canwest started a parallel system, first known as CH, and later as E!, for the WIC stations in areas overlapping existing Global stations (such as the aforementioned CHEK). However, in the midst of financial difficulties, Canwest stated in 2009 that "a second conventional TV network [was] no longer key to the long-term success" of the company, and the five E! O&Os subsequently faced various outcomes: CHCH-TV in Hamilton and CJNT-TV in Montreal were sold to Channel Zero and were converted into independent stations; CHBC-TV in Kelowna became a Global owned-and-operated station; CHCA-TV in Red Deer closed down on August 31, 2009; and CHEK-TV in Victoria was sold to a consortium of station employees and local investors for $2, and now operates as an independent station.
 * Shortly after purchasing the Global network following Canwest's bankruptcy in 2010, Shaw Communications realigned a small station it already owned, CTV affiliate CJBN-TV in Kenora, with Global. However, the station retained its local branding and continued to be managed by Shaw's Kenora cable operation. When Shaw sold its Shaw Media arm to Corus Entertainment in 2016, CJBN was not included in the sale. CJBN thus transitioned from a Global O&O to an affiliate; however, both Shaw and Corus are controlled by the family of JR Shaw, which means that CJBN was thereafter considered a de facto Global O&O. Shaw ultimately decided to close CJBN entirely later in 2016.

United States

 * In December 1993, the National Football League awarded Fox the broadcast contract to televise games from the National Football Conference. As a result, it agreed to purchase a 20% stake in New World Communications. Many of the television stations that were owned by New World were located in major NFC markets, and switched to Fox between September 1994 and September 1996 (including two – WGHP in Greensboro, North Carolina and WBRC in Birmingham, Alabama – that ended up being turned over to a blind trust before they were acquired by Fox directly, due to ownership conflicts caused by New World's concurrent purchases of stations owned by Citicasters and Argyle Communications). New World Communications would be acquired by Fox in July 1996, making them owned-and-operated stations when the merger was finalized in January 1997.
 * In July 1994, Westinghouse Broadcasting (also known as Group W), the broadcasting division of Westinghouse, announced a deal to affiliate three of its stations with CBS. While WBZ-TV in Boston and WJZ-TV in Baltimore switched to CBS (from NBC and ABC, respectively) on January 2, 1995, the affiliation swap involving KYW-TV was delayed in Philadelphia when it was discovered that a cash sale of WCAU to NBC would have resulted in huge taxes that were required to be paid on top of it. NBC traded ownership of KCNC-TV in Denver, Colorado, KUTV in Salt Lake City, Utah and the VHF channel 4 allocation in Miami to Group W to solve the problem, with the two O&O swaps and the Miami channel swap taking place on September 10 of that year. Westinghouse merged with CBS in August 1995, resulting in these stations becoming owned-and-operated by CBS, with Group W becoming CBS Corporation by early 1997 (KUTV would later be sold to Four Points Media Group in 2008). As a result of the merger, CBS was required to sell former ABC affiliate WPRI in Providence, Rhode Island (which was sold to CBS in the spring of 1995 and swapped affiliations with WLNE-TV on the day the affiliation swap was completed) due to a significant signal overlap with WBZ-TV.
 * In December 2015, NBC announced it would not renew its affiliation with Sunbeam Television-owned affiliate WHDH (which gained its affiliation as part of the aforementioned Group W/CBS affiliation deal in an affiliation swap with WBZ-TV) once its affiliation contract with the network expired on December 31, 2016. Initially, NBCUniversal wanted to transfer NBC network programming to WNEU-TV, which had a decent signal that covered the New Hampshire portion of the market, but was only receivable over-the-air in the northern areas of Boston. Sunbeam's owner, Ed Ansin, told the Boston Globe that "No network has elected to give up such a strong station and go to a startup station," after having disclosed that he had rejected a $200 million offer to sell WHDH to NBC in September 2015, leading the network to threaten to shift its programming to WNEU; however, he still predicted that NBC would remain on channel 7. NBCUniversal later announced that it would acquire Telemundo affiliate WTMU-LD (which would change its callsign to WBTS-LD) in August 2016; the sale of WTMU would be completed in November of that year. On October 18, 2017, NBC agreed to purchase WYCN-CD, a Nashua, New Hampshire-based Class A station that had also sold its frequency rights as part of the spectrum auction. Previous owner OTA Broadcasting then entered into a channel sharing agreement with the WGBH Educational Foundation to carry WYCN-CD's signal over WGBX-TV to serve as the full market simulcast for WBTS-LD once NBC acquired WYCN's license. The sale of WYCN-CD to NBC was completed on January 18, 2018; On August 8, 2019, WBTS and WYCN swapped call signs, with channel 8 becoming WYCN-LD and channel 15 changing to WBTS-CD. On August 31, 2019, WYCN-LD shut down its RF channel 46 transmitter; that October, it moved to channel 36, relocated its transmitter to Norton, Massachusetts, switched from NBC to Telemundo, and changed its city of license to Providence, leaving WBTS-CD as Boston's sole NBC station.
 * In October 2022, Nexstar Media Group purchased a majority stake in The CW from Paramount Global and Warner Bros. Discovery, who retained minority stakes in the network. Nexstar had previously acquired Tribune Media in 2019, and with its CW affiliates in most major markets. As such, those stations and other existing Nexstar-owned CW affiliates effectively became CW O&Os, resulting in the CBS-owned CW O&Os merely becoming affiliates. This includes several stations that run the network on a digital subchannel, including those receiving programming from small-market feed The CW Plus, and stations owned by other entities such as Mission Broadcasting and Vaughan Media, which Nexstar provides services through local marketing agreements.
 * On May 5, 2023, CBS announced that its eight CW affiliates would drop the network and go independent in September, with the intention of adding more local programming, including live sports, as well as programming from other Paramount properties. As part of the above deal of Nexstar acquiring a majority stake in The CW, CBS was given the right to end its CW affiliations.
 * On June 14, Nexstar announced that three of its MyNetworkTV affiliates would switch to The CW to replace three of these eight CBS-owned stations.
 * On August 31, Nexstar announced that KAUT-TV would affiliate with The CW beginning September 1, replacing KOCB as part of an agreement with Sinclair to affiliate with two of its stations in Pittsburgh and Seattle.

title: Owned-and-operated station


text: User talk:24.23.27.191

title: User talk:24.23.27.191