Talk:WEWS-TV

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

Untitled (July 2005)[edit]

I removed this info box and replaced it with the template version. I'm posting it here since there was a loss of information. --Andy Janata 4 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

WEWS-TV (ABC)
Slogan: On Your Side
Cleveland, Ohio
Channel 5
Digital channel 15
Owner E. W. Spripps Company
Founded December 17, 1947
Signal Radius Cleveland, Ohio
Callsign Meaning E. W. Scripps
Former Callsigns none
Address 3001 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio, 44115
Website: www.newsnet5.com

Fair use rationale for Image:WEWSLiveOnFiveDebut.jpg[edit]

Image:WEWSLiveOnFiveDebut.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 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 04:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wews52004.PNG[edit]

Image:Wews52004.PNG 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 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 04:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Promo[edit]

SouthernMedia-NMSA has a reference when you play the "WEWS 1990 News Theme" mentioning that while they dropped the Eyewitness News moniker in favor of NewsChannel, they occasionally would play old Catch 5/Hello Cleveland promos that WEWS used during the '70s and '80s under the branding of "Classic Promo" (apparently, that's where the TV Ark "Catch 5" promo came from). WAVY 10 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staff listings[edit]

Notable alumni[edit]

Hi there. The "notable alumni" section is pretty out of hand.

I trimmed it down to include only the people who have their own pages and can therefore verifiably meet WP:GNG. These changes were reverted without explanation by an IP, so I restored them. Now a registered user has reverted them as well, so I'd like to check in here to see what the problem is, as there was still no edit summary or other information provided.

If anyone else has any thoughts on how to trim this list so it isn't a subjective list of personalities who WP editors happen to think are notable, I'd love to get more opinions.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staff[edit]

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I don't believe we should list all staff. We should limit it only to those that are most important--that is, full-time anchors, and any employees notable enough for their own Wikipedia page (that will mean they've been discussed by independent sources in details); of course, all such employees would need to be verified by the station's website. Unless someone can come up with a reason to keep them (note that their being in other articles isn't legit, as it falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the eventual plan is to try to make the same rule at other articles), then I'm going to remove them again. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support. These lists are completely out of control.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again...who are we to decide who's notable and who isn't.

It's just like the roster of a baseball team, or the cast of a movie.

Just because they don't have a wiki article doesn't mean they're not notable.

You want to list them in prose form, then that's fine.

But the on air personalities of a TV news room is perfectly legitimate information to include in the article.

Vjmlhds 14:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New format for on air talent.[edit]

I have adjusted the on-air talent section for all four Cleveland TV newsrooms into prose form.

This should be a happy medium for all involved. It contains all the information, but in a tighter, cleaner format.

Vjmlhds 15:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the format better, but I still consider the amount of information to be excessive. Why do we need to know, for example, who the "basketball analyst" is? Isn't that bordering on Trivial? But I'm not really sure that I care enough to argue about it... :) Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's no different than listing the roster of a baseball team. They're all part of the "team". Vjmlhds 13:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The format is improved, but the content is still overly detailed and excessive. Major daily personalities are worthy of inclusion (i.e., daily news anchor, daily weather person, daily sports anchor, etc.). But Owyrxian is right to question the notability of the more infrequent personalities (guests).  Levdr1lp  (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2011 (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 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) 22:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WYTV[edit]

Is there any particular reason why WYTV is even mentioned? WYTV has always been in its own separate television market, so why would it compete against WEWS? WEWS and WAKR were the ones competing against each other because they are in the same television market. - Joski1624 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still considered a secondary affiliate that people in the Cleveland market can pick up. And the way WEWS has been known for programming controversies over the years, I would think people would want to know about the Cleveland market having an alternative if WEWS decides to screw up there again. You might also consider WSYX in Columbus and WTRF 7.2 in Wheeling, WV, as other possible secondary ABC affiliates on the outskirts of the market area. 73.174.72.143 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferriera's departure.[edit]

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, here's Christine Ferriera's Facebook page and twitter page, both verifying that she's gone from WEWS. Vjmlhds 19:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a specific tweet from Christine that today was her last day. Vjmlhds 02:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WEWS News Set 1995-1998[edit]

There are 2 version of the 1995 set. Both have newsdesks with Larry King Live like deviders. The main desk has big chunk of 2x4 covering an aura of light which I have no idea what it is. The other has the WEWS Circle 5 logo(slanted version)rendered in white on a greyish blue background. Both have skylines of Cleveland. The main one is supposed to have Cleveland at night. It doesn't it shows Cleveland's city lights on in broad daylight. Divided by a yellow wall with a tv The weather center was simply yellow with 2 eggcrate scrollers. Version 1.5 had blue walls in the weather center. Version 2 used BOTH before AND after WEWS ditched their old Circle 5 had the main desk area with purple walls. 173.123.61.58 (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the on air staff and WP:LISTPEOPLE[edit]

Each name in a list of people must meet the very basic criteria of WP:LISTPEOPLE. This is reinforced by the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations. Putting a list into a different format doesn't make it exempt from that; it's a list of people whether each name is on the same line, or each name is on a different line, that is irrelevant and each name must meet WP:LISTPEOPLE or each name that does not should be removed per Wikipedia consensus, and should not be reinserted until the criteria is met. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Browns[edit]

Just so there's no confusion, here's the NFL official league calender.

It shows March 10, 2015 (at 4 p.m. if you really want to be officially official) as the recognized start of the new NFL business year.

I bring this up only to preemptively put to bed any confusion of when to officially recognize WEWS as the new TV home of the Browns.

So basically, until March 10, we're still in the 2014 NFL season.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Sorry, but that's clearly WP:OR. The station itself -- in its own press release on its own website -- has said the partnership w/ the Browns begins "...with the 2015 season." Nothing more. No mention about the "recognized start" of the "new NFL business year" or how that in any way relates to the start of the team's 2015 season. Absent a source which directly supports your claim about March 10, you'll simply have to wait until the station starts airing *official* Browns programming. Certainly no later than the first preseason game, and possibly even before that, but for now there is no specified start date. Levdr1lp / talk 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: Here we go...according to Zap 2 It, TV 5 will begin their Browns programming on Sunday March 8 with Inside the Cleveland Browns and The Cleveland Browns Report. So that's when it looks like the new deal officially kicks off. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: There shouldn't be a problem so long as you verify -- w/ a reliable source -- that the specified programming is official Browns content that pertains to the new broadcast partnership (i.e., not some specialty WEWS-TV programming on the Browns produced outside of the new partnership, such as WOIO's Tailgate 19).
@Levdr1lp: This should work - according to this little nugget from the PD, WKYC's GM said that his station could still do Browns-centric shows, but can't use the Browns name in the title (a la Tailgate 19). Since both of channel 5's shows have "Cleveland Browns" front and center, that should clearly indicate that those are official team produced/sanctioned shows that are part of the new WEWS/Browns partnership. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: Not quite. First, the Cleveland.com link quotes the WKYC GM who specifies they can't use the name "in an official capacity". It's not clear what exactly "in an official capacity" means. Second, even if we assume stations other than WEWS-TV cannot use the name, that doesn't mean every WEWS-TV Browns program w/ "Browns" in the name is necessarily official team programming. We don't know if WEWS-TV can use the name in other programming or not. So, again, more WP:OR. Levdr1lp / talk 00:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: You're grasping at straws. Three things confirmed in my sources - 1. Browns moving to WEWS. 2. Year-round shows are part of the deal (and football programming in March certainly qualifies). 3. Non partner stations can't use the Browns name, thus if it's on 5, it's Browns produced/or at minimum endorsed (for the record, Inside the Cleveland Browns is a Browns produced show, thus only their partner could air it). So I've brought 4 sources verifying my claims...you've brought nothing but flimsy WP:OR claims. I swear... there could be a foot of snow on the ground, and you would question if it in fact snowed. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I have never questioned whether the Browns are moving to WEWS-TV. I have questioned when the Browns are moving to WEWS-TV. Now that you have verified that Inside the Cleveland Browns is an official Browns program (thank you), I think we can safely assume that the new Browns/WEWS-TV partnership begins when this official Browns program begins airing on WEWS-TV -- but not before. For now, we simply cannot verify -- based on available reliable coverage -- that this new partnership exists yet. Likewise, if we cannot verify that the new Browns/WEWS-TV deal has begun (yet), then we cannot assume and/or verify that the old Browns/WKYC deal has ended (yet). Not unless we find a reliable source which explicitly states the old deal is over. Levdr1lp / talk 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: If you noticed, I never put WEWS in as the official TV network of the Browns, in fact I took the initiative of saying wait until March 10 as that was the official beginning of the 2015 NFL season (verified by the NFL calendar). Now we know it's March 8. Any link to WKYC ended when they stopped airing their Browns related programming, so to continue to list channel 3 as a partner is erroneous. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I appreciate that you have waited to identify WEWS-TV as the Browns official local broadcast TV partner (really), but from Wikipedia's perspective -- which merely reflects available reliable coverage -- there is no source (yet) which verifies that WKYC's affiliation w/ the Browns has ended. I realize this may seem a rather technical distinction, but the fact still remains -- there is no reliable source which verifies that the Browns' affiliation w/ WKYC has ended *yet*. Just be patient. Assuming the official Browns programming airs on March 8th as expected, you don't have very long to wait. Levdr1lp / talk 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: By your own admission, you are the most stubborn person I deal with around here...I appreciate the consistency. But if we don't know "for sure" if the WKYC deal is "officially" over...wouldn't it make more sense to just leave it blank until March 8? Because if we don't know "for sure", it would be more prudent to not list anything than to ASS-U-ME something. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: "Do no harm", my friend. There is no available reliable source which states that WKYC's affiliation had ended as-of-yet. Better to wait for actual confirmation of WEWS-TV's new partnership (presumably, the first airing of the show you have referenced), than change content w/o any reliable sources to back up that change. Also, I wouldn't read too much into my "admission" that I'm the most stubborn person I know. It was said in an attempt to assuage any hard feelings that may have resulted from the SPI investigation I opened on you. I meant what I said in that specific context, but I wouldn't take it completely literally now that we've moved beyond that unfortunate episode. Levdr1lp / talk 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: Let's clear some things up - 1. I posted the original note way back in November to head off anybody that thought about changing all the (then) current notes about WKYC because the 2014 season was still going. 2. I used the NFL calendar as a point of reference to show when the official NFL season begins, for nothing else than to keep itchy trigger fingers at bay for awhile. 3. I get WP:OR thrown at me when I'm bending over backwards finding sources to back me up at every turn. Now when something arises where I'm possibly in error/fault (like an issue with an image I uploaded), I'll take the image down rather than get in to a ta-doo about it, because I never claim to be perfect, and will clean up my own mess. But to beat me over the head with the minute of minute details (especially after taking great pains to NOT put in the info before it's time), just comes off as trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, and that's when I say "Enough!" That's what I mean about being stubborn...clinging on to that last microfiber of thread (when "officially" the WKYC deal ends) even after the shirt has been clearly moth-ridden and filled with holes beyond repair. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I'm not quite sure what you mean about "posting a note in November". You opened this thread in January. I haven't edited w/ any regularity since December and I'm only now catching up. I'm not "throwing WP:OR" at you. I'm not "beating you over the head". I'm providing input into a discussion you opened, and as far as I can tell there's no expiration date on talk page discussions. Years can go by before an editor weighs in on any one particular topic. There's not much I can do if you happen to disagree w/ my views or you grow frustrated at times w/ this site's policies & guidelines (or my "stubborn" insistence on upholding them). Levdr1lp / talk 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Levdr1lp: I have no issues with Wiki policies...I follow them, respect them, and glad that they're there. People that think they're the ultimate arbiter of what the policies mean and throw themselves into righteous indignation about how their interpretations of the policies aren't being followed...different story. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: No one is debating the topic of this thread any longer. Let it go. WP:DEADHORSE Levdr1lp / talk 21:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable with that info about the Browns preseason games being on WEWS in the 50s/60s in the article. I've found nothing to verify those claims (and I've dug), and also remember this...back in those days home games weren't televised, period (sellout or not...it was an NFL rule). Plus it would have been a chore to do road games given the financial and technology limitations at the time for a local station (there were no satellite trucks or anything like that back then to do live broadcasts). My feeling is, if something is sketchy, I'd rather not include it until I can back it up. Because those citation templates give off the impression that something isn't up to snuff, I'd rather not put anything in there that requires them, because they bring down both the appearance and quality of the article. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with logo of Channel 5[edit]

Does anybody notice any similarities or differences between the logo used by British broadcaster Channel 5 between 2011 and 2016 and the new logo introduced by WEWS in September 2016? I do remember that those two logos are very similar to each other, and it looks like WEWS used a recolored version of Channel 5's 2011-2016 logo.

A similar situation existed when German television broadcaster RTL II launched in early 1993. The logo used by Cedar Rapids television station KGAN between late 1993 and early 2004 was a repurposed/modified/recolored version of the logo used by RTL II from its launch earlier that year up until the spring of 1996. Those logos coexisted with each other between late 1993 and the spring of 1996, after which RTL II adopted a new logo that they would use until the first version of their current logo was introduced in 1999. J4lambert (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source[edit]

Regarding this edit, please be aware that ohiomediawatch.com (formerly ohiomediawatch.wordpress.com and ohiomedia.blogspot.com) – otherwise known as "Ohio Media Watch" ("OMW") – is an anonymous blog with no apparent editorial oversight and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Relevant discussions include Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#Reliable_sources, User_talk:Levdr1lp/Archive_2#Ohio_Media_Watch, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135#Ohio_Media_Watch. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 21:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WEWS-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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WEWS "Channel 5" Sends Reporters to the House of a Rape Victim to get Interview[edit]

https://(youtube)/rpzPOzniliU

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2018/07/06/channel-5-fires-two-news-editors-after-newburgh-heights-police-chief-posts-body-cam-footage-of-reporters-at-rape-victims-house-seeking-interv

I also note that the call letters for WEWS is not being mentioned in any of the news reports that I can see, and I assume this is because the Media is censoring reports of this story in order to avoid the negative publicity that would normally be expected from something like this.2605:6000:6947:AB00:AD2E:C4D3:781E:7FE3 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute in subchannel table[edit]

@Vjmlhds: and @TheCatLife: are quarreling over whether to include Scripps News as a secondary affiliation in the subchannel table. Who's right? And what about other articles? Pinging @Sammi Brie: and @Nathan Obral:. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is no, @Mvcg66b3r. We wouldn't say this about, say, Fox's secondary stations airing a block of Fox Weather which many of them do. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh...Sammi is pretty level headed about stuff like this, and gets credit for bringing receipts (i.e. the Fox Weather example). So if Sammi says no, then I won't argue too much. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WEWS-TV&oldid=1206796638"