Jump to content

Talk:WTXF-TV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fox" or "FOX"?

[edit]

I noticed some revert wars regarding the Fox branding on several articles on Fox-owned stations. The official name of the network is not all uppercase, but that is how the company prefers it.

So, do we call it "Fox" or "FOX"? You decide. CoolKatt number 99999 02:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Talk:WNYW. Rollosmokes 07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTXF and TV-Ark

[edit]

TV-Ark uses a strange code. The main page URL is always displayed in the address bar, but the actual pages are at different URLs.

http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/ is what will be displayed at the WTXF page, but... http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/international/us_fox_wtxf.html is the actual page.

The edit I did improved the accessibility. In short, in spite of a wacky code, I pointed the TV-Ark page to the actual page. -Tracker 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of WTXF-TV Personalities

[edit]

I came across WTXF-TV Personalities during new page patrol. It seems like listcruft to have it alone like that, so I'm proposing it be merged into this article. This is in line with the relevant wikiproject's standards for TV personalities. --Chaser T 04:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge tags.--Chaser T 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Mallet

[edit]

Um... the links direct to a Carribean politician. I've removed the ones I see. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screengrab is incorrect

[edit]

The screengrab for the 5pm news is not from the WTXF launch... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.145.244.194 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fox29.jpg

[edit]

Image:Fox29.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in this article. Not including this type of material in articles abides by current consensus and 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: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.

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). thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Huddleston

[edit]

When I entered "Dave Huddleston" into the search bar, Wikipedia directed me to this article. Mr. Huddleston is now the Sunday night 11 PM anchor at KYW-TV in Philadelphia and the weekday 10 PM anchor at KYW's sister station, WPSG-TV for their Eyewitness News on CW57 show. He joined CBS Philadelphia in November 2008. [1] Shouldn't the search bar redirect me to that station's article instead? Bill S. (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ CBS Philly bio of Dave Huddleston Retrieved 2011-09-20
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WTXF-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cutler

[edit]

The new voiceover of WTXF-TV Fox Channel 29 in Philly.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WTXF-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MGM/UA Premiere Network

[edit]

If you want proof that Fox 29 used to air MGM/UA movies, watch this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vd5mKB2mpY. RevinCBHatol (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WTXF-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose satisfies GA standards.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No issues.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. I reviewed the matches over 10% found using Earwig's Copyvio detector. No concerns - matches are attributed quotes, titles, and phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED such as "former Fox executive Preston Padden". No issues found during spot checks.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Appears from the article's structure and content that the main aspects are covered; I have no basis to doubt this.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Level of detail seems appropriate for a GA.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues found.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There were a few reverted edits several months ago. No evidence of edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Original link to the Kaufman image is dead, but no reason not to assume good faith on it being PD. Building image is CC. The logo is marked as PD on the basis that it "consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection" which seems reasonable.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant. I think it's pretty obvious who Kaufman is in the picture, so am not suggesting that the caption give more details (like "seated right"). It's unfortunate that we probably don't have a source to identify the presenters.
7. Overall assessment.

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Everything handled. Found a second ref to bolster the late 1970s financial claims. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Second tranche done. Notables need to have an article—and usually doing articles like this produces one or two AfDs of linked pages. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really didn't have much to add during this review. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm pasing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Great to have so many linked sources for readers (and reviewers!)
  • I see from WP:RSP that there is no consensus on whether The Daily Beast is a reliable source. If other sources can be found to support that info then great, but I don't see the use of the source in this article as a blocker to GA status.

Spot checks

  • WIP returned the permit in May 1954, finding that building and operating the proposed station would be economically infeasible. - no issues. "economically infeasible" appears in one source but I think is acceptable per WP:LIMITED.
  • Its attempts to pick up a similarly unaired NBC show were rejected because the station could not broadcast it in color - no issues. You could maybe mention and link I'll Bet, although that article is unreferenced.
  • WTAF-TV continued to lose money in its first years under Taft, but it slowly improved its ratings and financial position over the decade - I think this is a bit of an extrapolation for what I see on pages 42-43; unless there is another part of the article I've overlooked.
  • most of channel 48's former program inventory was purchased by WPHL-TV - I didn't see this supported in the cited sources.
  • Paramount strongly criticized Fox's plans to pull its affiliation. It warned, "All affiliates of Fox should take note of the level of loyalty and commitment Fox has exhibited. Apparently Fox's loyalty only recognizes the partnership nature of a network affiliate's relationship when it is convenient to Fox's own economic interest." - no issues.
  • Mediaweek reported that another station executive found Fox lacking "its customary vigor" in trying to close the WGBS-TV deal - no issues.
  • The FCC approved the deal in August 1995, as well as a waiver for Fox to own WTXF-TV and WNYW in New York City simultaneously - no issues.
  • In July 2023, at WTXF-TV's routine eight-year license renewal, the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition ... Padden wrote, "...Fox has undermined our democracy and has radicalized a segment of our population by presenting knowingly false narratives about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. In my opinion, this type of reporting was a significant contributing factor to the riots in the Capitol on January 6, 2021." - no issues.
  • the program's audience doubled in its first year on air - no issues.
  • In 1999, Good Day Philadelphia was described by Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News as "chronically underperforming" in the ratings - no issues.
  • In November 2008, after a trial between WCAU and WTXF, Fox Television Stations and NBC Local Media entered into an agreement to test a system that would allow stations owned by Fox and NBC to pool news resources ranging from sharing field video to sharing aerial helicopter footage, in an attempt to reduce costs - no issues.
  • Previously, in 2020, an article in Philadelphia magazine spotlighted a conservative turn in senior management in news philosophy; the article, based on interviews with 10 current and former WTXF-TV staffers, described a newsroom that was "toxic", "racially offensive", and "socially intimidating" - no issues.

History

  • Could add an nbsp in $200 million (i.e. $200 million)
  • it was announced that the Phillies would move to channel 29 beginning in 1984 - feels to me like there should be an addition to specify that it was the coverage of the Phillies that would move, but if the current wording is usual in US English then no change required.
  • the entire run of M*A*S*H, - I think M*A*S*H will probably be well-enough known by readers not to to need an intro, but I wonder if it might be worth including the point from the source that it was "a top syndicated show"?
  • was hit with a contraction - maybe just "contracted"?
  • what's the criteria for the list of Notable current on-air staff/Notable former on-air staff?
  • The inclusion of later co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend seems a bit inconsistent with the other listed staff, but that may not be a problem.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 13:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 679 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Lol. Checks out all criteria, and I love that first hook. Skyshiftertalk 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:WTXF-TV&oldid=1220798427"