Talk:WMAQ-TV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of newscast schedules?

User:Amgine is conducting a systematic removal of all local programming information from the television station project. To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Newscast_schedules.2C_redux, where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nbc5oldlogo.JPG

Image:Nbc5oldlogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmaq2000.jpg

Image:Wmaq2000.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmaq60s.jpg

Image:Wmaq60s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmaq75.jpg

Image:Wmaq75.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmaq86.jpg

Image:Wmaq86.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nbc5oldlogo.JPG

Image:Nbc5oldlogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing former reporters

Two notable names missing are Paul Hogan, the late investigative reporter, and Peter Karl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithyearman (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Headings

The Wikipedia Manual of Style on heading (WP:HEAD) says that:

• headings within articles should not contain wikilinks -- the links should be included in the text of the section instead;
• the Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

Important things to know about this subject

not:

Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:

• capitalize the first word,
• capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
• begin all other words with lower case letters

In addition, I have changed the heading "On-Air Talent" to "On-air staff". "Talent" is industry jargon. It does not describe the position or the work. It is meaningless to readers unfamiliar with American broadcast industry jargon, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. "Staff" indicates that these people are being listed because they work for the station. Ground Zero | t 11:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

list of former staff

My edits were very thorough and were left alone for nearly one year until now. I worked very hard to list all of the former WMAQ anchors and reporters that were at one point part of the station. I feel and others have told me I have done a very good job and answered a lot of their lingering questions. Please post my version of the page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.95.42 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out the discussion here, for a summary of why several people (including me!) think the list is unnecessary and inappropriate for WP: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit war is getting ridiculous ... several people obviously believe (as do I) that if a person doesn't have a WP article, they don't belong in this list - regardless of the amount of work that went into gathering the list or finding Web references. That seems to be the consensus. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As long as its ok with you, I am going to restore the material that was deleted on the Chicago stations and will also tag the section as unreferenced. This gives me and other editors a chance to locate sources and make some editorial decisions rather than having almost the entire list deleted as unreferenced and apparently non-notable. Thanks NoSuchThing85 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSuchThing85 (talk • contribs)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected - 48 Hours

Since it appears the parties involved want to use the revert function instead of this talk page I have removed the ability to do that for 48 hours. Explain your reverts, use the talk page, work out the issue please. --WGFinley (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel that since the consensus states that only personalities with established articles should be listed and Users Deconstructthis and NeutralHomer are ADAMANT ON REINFORCING THIS POLICY, that Hawks should not be included to the list. If the prior unreferced list were still there, then I would have gladly listed Hawks. Just b/c of his death, he should not be listed unless an article is created for him and just having a source is not good enough to be listed. TVFAN24 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing this immediately after the protection expired is not the best form. However, I have reverted NeutralHomer's revert, the change is clearly not vandalism. You need to discuss this content issue and get it worked out. Continued edit warring from all parties involved without discussion is not acceptable. --WGFinley (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Note, first, that I'm somewhat involved, as I do assist NH and DC on removing unreferenced/linked former employees from TV pages in general. I looked at the article in question. It's a weird issue, because WP:NLIST & WP:BLP (the two primary policies that justify the removal) obviously don't apply because the person is dead. However, it still seems correct to remove the person under WP:NOT, as I don't think it is appropriate that we list former high profile employees of companies unless they have some level of importance. Mind you, I think given the tone of the edit summaries, it feels like TFVAN24 is being pointy (note, TFVAN24, that we will never have a tit-for-tat trade--each piece of info must meet policy), the end action (to remove Hawks from the list) is appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: note that my comments here are not meant to imply any opinion about whether or not the block discussed on ANI was appropriate; I'm merely giving input on what the article itself should actually look like in the future. 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

news team

Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of names in articles. This type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in policies and guidelines. this list of names fall into:

1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

the whole section was unsourced and was unnecessarily long, risking the article being difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend. Bobjim45 (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Section is out of date

WMAQ-TV#Amy_Jacobson is out of date. CBS no longer has the video on their site, and it can't be found on Web Archive either. I believe the last part of the final sentence, "which has the entire six minute video on its website" should be changed, unless someone knows where the video can be found. 123.211.203.119 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)