Talk:WFOR-TV

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Wfor weeknight anchors.JPG[edit]

Image:Wfor weeknight anchors.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 19:49, 3 December 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 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) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable on-air staff and titles/slogans[edit]

Hello, I have removed the staff and former staff that is/was not notable. In order for lists of people be included, they must meet the criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. This isn't the first station article this has been discussed on, and articles have been protected to prevent these additions, or the editors in question blocked when they persistently continue to reinsert inappropriate material. If a name is included in the article in this way, it has to show that it's relevant to the subject by meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Just because a station lists its employees doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to as well, and other station articles needing similar cleanup doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be cleaned up, because whenever it's actually discussed on a station article, the end result is the same; the names that don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE are removed. Wikipedia is also not a directory. A list of previous discussions are listed below:

Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 12:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WFOR-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WFOR-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) 05:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 21:11, 12 February 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:WFOR-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 02:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! Good work on this article! I'll be reviewing this article, I will provide feedback and suggest improvements to the article if necessary. This is also my first GA review, so please bear with me. :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Nothing concerning according to Earwig's Copyright Detector, pass!
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No recent edit warring, passes this criteria.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Good work on this article! I have a few comments here:

  • I spotchecked 17 random sources, all but one is not concerning. The one concern is under WFOR-TV#Move to channel 4, "Fox's announcement that it would affiliate with twelve TV stations owned by New World Communications in May 1994 touched off two and a half years of affiliation switches in markets across the United States, much like the one that had affected the Miami and West Palm Beach markets in 1989." I know this is covered in 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment, but I feel like it should be covered in a reliable source there...
Fair point. I added the Bill Carter New York Times source after "...in May 1994" given it is not market-specific (as Miami was initially not affected).
  • In WFOR-TV#WFOR-TV: "2017 brought an expansion of WFOR's morning newscast with a new 4:30 a.m. half-hour as well as a 7 p.m. newscast..." I feel like this could be re-worded to "WFOR's morning newscast was expanded in 2017 with a new 4:30 a.m. half-hour as well as a 7 p.m. newscast...".
Because they were in different dayparts, I opted for "WFOR's newscasts were expanded in 2017 with a new 4:30 a.m. morning half-hour and a newscast at 7 p.m.; both additions occurred alongside the arrival of Hurricane Irma."
  • In WFOR-TV#Channel 6 in Miami: "The station then took the call sign WCIX-TV." – why not add the specific date for it?
  • In WFOR-TV#Move to channel 4: "The move was an upgrade for CBS and a downgrade for NBC, as channel 6 alone could not adequately reach 15 to 25 percent of the market; WCIX had a reputation of being one of the lowest-rated CBS affiliates for large events, such as the Super Bowl and television miniseries."
I feel like this sentence should be split and slightly re-worded into "The move was an upgrade for CBS and a downgrade for NBC, as channel 6 alone did not adequately reach 15 to 25 percent of the market. Additionally, WCIX had a reputation of being one of the lowest-rated CBS affiliates for large events, such as the Super Bowl and television miniseries."
Done. :)
  • I have no other concerns; images check out, no copyright violations, and it is verifiable other than the one concern I have above! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! @Tails Wx: and also a courtesy ping to @Sammi Brie: Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the call sign being assigned is not on the cards because it was the first call sign selected, @Tails Wx. I did add it from the newspaper clippings. This should reconcile the remaining issues. Thank you for taking on this mammoth as your first GA review; I hope that this helps you as you start reviewing more articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm satisfied with my suggestions addressed above. Therefore, I'm comfortable to promote this to a GA. Congratulations, Sammi Brie and Nathan Obral, and excellent work on this article! (And no problem, Sammi Brie! This GA review will definitely help me in reviewing more articles in the future. :)) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 21:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bruxton talk 22:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk) and Nathan Obral (talk). Nominated by Sammi Brie (talk) at 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WFOR-TV; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[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: Good job as always! Meets all DYK criteria. Both hooks are interesting — leaving the final choice to the promoter. Skyshiftertalk 02:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WFOR-TV&oldid=1212457486"