Talk:WJW (TV)

Untitled
I removed this old info-box and replaced it with the template version. I'm putting this here as some information was lost in the transition. --Andy Janata 4 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated some of the lost information into the main body text. - 203.218.136.143, July 5, 2005

Edit History
When GusGus moved the page to WJW-TV, and Hinto reverted that, we lost the edit history on WJW -- it is still attached to WJW-TV. Could we perhaps delete WJW and move WJW-TV back as to have easy access to the edit history again? --Andy Janata 19:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm new to the moving process. I supposed I should've RfD'd WJW myself first. - Hinto 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Jim Hale
Anybody know whatever happened to Jim Hale? I've seen him in some Youtube clips from the 70s.

Mjlarochelle (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images
Galleries of purely decorative non-free images are removed from articles where there is no critical commentary on the images themselves, which in this case there is not. The relevant policies are;


 * WP:NFCC - "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
 * WP:NFCC - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"
 * WP:LOGOS - "Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)."


 *  BKNFCC  07:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your contention that the images are purely decorative. They are not; they are intended to represent the evolution of the television station's brand over the years.
 * RE:WP:NFCC - It is not possible to use only one item if the purpose is to display historical evolution of the station's brand over the years, which is exactly the purpose of the gallery. One item does not suffice.
 * RE:WP:NFCC - This point is under dispute, as it is so subjective, it can be taken in any way any editor sees fit. In fact, one of the stated abuses in the discussion is that it was being used as a pretext to remove all non-free images from Wikipedia. The sticking point, naturally, is the word "significantly". Still, it looks as if one consensus is that images are not to be used if its use damages in any way the copyright owner's ability to benefit from the image. These are historical images no longer in use; there is no danger to the original copyright holder that his ability to profit from the image would be damaged by its use here.
 * RE:WP:LOGOS - This quotation is taken out of context. The full context of the guideline is: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." The guideline cited was put in place to avoid promotional use. The use of the questioned logos in this article are not for such purpose.
 * Finally, to be clear, you are citing guidelines, not policy, and one of the hallmarks of the guideline is that there is room for a common-sense interpretation. Given the purpose of the logo galleries, I believe that common sense allows for them. As such, I am restoring the images.  dhett (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am removing them again, pointing out that WP:NFCC is policy, not a guideline. You are possibly confusing it with WP:NFC.  Even without NFCC, the logos aren't even discussed in the text (all the article says is "WXEL/WJW-TV (WJKW-TV) has used many logos throughout its history") which means they're clearly decorative.  BKNFCC  22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of these fonts are also HISTORY, and they have a STORY. They should be look at on a case-by-case basis, not deleted wholesale. In my opinion, if you had your way, there wouldn't be ang graphics AT ALL, not only on Wikipedia, but also on the internet as a whole, In fact, you would probably think that only one font should be used, and that the internet woul be limited to post-graduate topics. Sorry, but I am being BOLD by saying what I think. And as Dhett mentioned here, Wikipedia is a consensus "society", not a totalitarian regime. -- azumanga (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It also has rules, which we call policies. And you are not being bold, you are being incivil as well.  BKNFCC  06:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These historical logos do not violate policy (which I mistakenly referred to as guidelines before). There is no policy limiting the number of non-free images that an article can use. There is no policy governing the use of historical logos, which do not endanger the benefits of copyright protection. I am in the process of adding commentary to the logos. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there is technically no limit to non-free images - but the policy is quite clear that it must be minimal use. However, you are incorrect about the logos not violating policy as the article originally stood - they were clearly decorative because there was no critical commentary. Whether the logos are historical are not is a moot point; if they're copyrighted, they're non-free. Nevertheless, your addition of commentary to them may fix that problem for some of the logos, so thank you.  BKNFCC  09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WEWS-TV relevant discussion
Please see Talk:WEWS-TV for relevant discussion on how to handle information on past and present station personalities. Levdr1 lp ( talk ) 22:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable on-air staff and titles/slogans
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:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_10
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 9

A current discussion is taking place here.

Thanks,  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  00:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning schedules
As discussed elsewhere (for example Talk:WZTV), unless reliable sources can be provided that show that a schedule or list of times and programming has relevance to the encyclopedic coverage of the station, they do not belong on the article. If reliable sources do not make note of the importance of such things, the article should not either. Sources mentioning in passing that news comes on at a certain time does not show that it is relevant. - Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between putting out a full blown schedule/listing, and merely mentioning (with a reference) that WJW airs 70+ plus hours of news per week, and that it's more than any other station in town. It's important to the article as WJW quite obviously revolves around their newscasts and puts them front and center above all else...it's what makes them them. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing there that legitimately violates WP:NOTDIR, all it does is mention two (sourced) facts about WJW's news operation that are important to the article as to explain why WJW stands out...more newscasts than anybody else, and only news chopper. There's no breakdown of time of newscasts (i.e. "WJW airs news at 4a, 5a, 6a" etc), or news anchors, or reporters or anything else.  Just most newscasts in town and only news chopper...that's it, and that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you believe that schedules must be "full blown" schedules in order to be inappropriate, but editors have been indefinitely blocked for continuously reinserting that same exact type of content, so you are mistaken in that. Further, you claim that "it's important" (everyone who wants content in an article makes this claim), but that means nothing if reliable sources don't reflect this assertion. Further, if you're going to accuse someone of edit warring, it helps if you don't immediately follow up by continuing to edit war to reinsert inappropriate material afterwards. Despite your edit warring, the content will not stay in the article short of a consensus that says otherwise. Content is not placed into an article by persistently edit warring until it stays, it is placed in an article by consensus and discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the controversial content not only from this article, but also all Cleveland stations as well. However, I feel the need to say that in my opinion, the arguments against this particular content were at best nitpicky.  And I also don't appreciate being threatened with a block (be it overt or implied) for something that really isn't a legitimate offense.  Nevertheless, the content has been (albeit reluctantly) removed to avoid a bigger ruckus down the road. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on WJW (TV). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207032724/http://www.fox8.com:80/about/dtv/ to http://www.fox8.com/about/dtv/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140621011754/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOXYzglk_14 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOXYzglk_14

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on WJW (TV). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111007055330/http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-dick-goddard-way-dedication-ceremony-txt,0,3222108.story to http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-dick-goddard-way-dedication-ceremony-txt,0,3222108.story

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Alumnus status for Dick Goddard
With Dick Goddard continuing his animal segments, even if pre-taped, doesn't that mean that he's still part of the station, regardless of his retirement from meterological duties? Mapsax (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on WJW (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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228101139/http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?p=6470 to http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?p=6470
 * Added tag to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)