Talk:WUPV

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I have merged whatever WAWB content into the WUPV page. It is unnecessary to have a tribute article detailing every single little thing and I ask that the former WAWB article not return. Scrabbleship 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WAWB-TV 65 page has been, it appears, been revived by the original author. Discussion is there. -- Robster2001 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said this on the other page, but it should be said here as this page will be the one to survive. There are two sections of WP:NC#Broadcasting that I would like to point you all to. The first is Radio and television stations in countries where call signs are customarily used, such as North America, should always be titled with the official call sign as assigned by that country's regulatory authority. The page currently at WAWB-TV 65 should have never been named that, and if it stays at that title, it goes against wikipedia policy. Second is Where a station has changed call signs, please put the station's entire history in its current call sign, as the old call signs may subsequently be reassigned to new stations. I appreciate the work you have done on WAWB-TV 65 user:Time1, but if you wish to be an editor on wikipedia, you do need to follow rules and convention. I vote that the articles be merged. —A 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Time1 please do NOT remove the merge tags while the topic is still under consideration. It is very unproductive, and considered vandalism. If you continue to make edits like this I will ask that an administrator take action against you. I have restored these tags. —A 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The galleries in this article[edit]

Much of this article's galleries still seem like a violation of Wikipedia is not a webspace provider (whereas the rest of the article is a harmless encyclopedia article), specifically the ones on WB65. This should be dealt with, and most of the images in question should be taken to IfD. (I'm not saying we should do away with all the images, I'm only talking about the stationcrufty images.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CW Richmond.PNG[edit]

Image:CW Richmond.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 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) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about content in the Programming section[edit]

The consensus is that the "Programming" section should not contain a list of past syndicated programs.
Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should the Programming section contain a list of past syndicated programs? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support - Summoned by bot. If reliably source, I see no reason not to include. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose unless it's standard practice for all such station articles. The problem I see with it is that it could be a lit of hundreds of items. Stations tend to pick up entire "networks" (whatever that really means today) as packages, including all or at least most of their shows. They can also switch affiliation later. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The closest I can find regarding a policy on this would be WP:NTV which states Syndicated programs on an individual station's schedule should be limited to around five to six programs with a wide following (for instance, a mention of a station carrying Judge Judy or Jeopardy! is appropriate, while generally detailed information about a low-profile program such as Made in Hollywood or other non-prime programming on the station is best avoided). The programs listed are referenced and notable non-local programs, so I don't see a problem (beyond the limitation, but given they are separated from the 'currently syndicated' shows, I'm OK with it) -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The situation would also have the problem of finding reliable WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability. The example here being that it is only the local paper being used. MarnetteD|Talk 05:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. If the list was comprehensive it would lead to list bloat, if not, notability of included programs would need to be established. I personally don't see much value in it. Jschnur (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose(Summoned by bot) I'm the worst person to be asked since I don't edit on US TV networks, but unless it is usual practice, it seems indiscriminate info. As SMcCandlish says, such a list would either be horrendously long - or would be making subjective judgements about which progs were 'significant'. It sounds as an idea a bit like 'films that have been shown at Cinema X'. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Summoned by bot) Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. Strikerforce^Talk 13:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

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.