Talk:WLS-TV

Photos
The following photo gallery was recently inserted into this article without any context (hence why it has been moved here). If someone can figure out a better way to integrate these pictures into the article (or nominate these images for deletion) go ahead. PentawingTalk 06:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * gallery deleted


 * Basicaly it the how many screen caps can we take from TvArk and put into an article, ie logos. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All images tagged as orphaned fair use as they are not used anywhere but in this talk page and they have been here waiting for some use for more then 6 months.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

New Logo?
There used to be a logo in the article that said it will be a new logo for WLS-TV in September. It looked similar to the KABC logo in Los Angees. What happened to it?

Fair use rationale for Image:Wls weather.JPG
Image:Wls weather.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 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 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Car crashes into ABC 7 Studios
Yeah.. I am half on wikipedia and half watching ABC 7 and uh.. this car just ran ito the studios DURING the broadcast! It was a big crash and the Anchor went WHOA!! Trying to find a pictuere of it. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5852858 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A local news event, that might be worth reporting on Wikinews. On a Wikipedia scale, it's trivia, and to say anything more than that it happened is potentially giving the story undue weight.  90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WLSTVABC7.png
Image:WLSTVABC7.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 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) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Minivan
The entire section isn't even encyclopedic. This is not WikiNews.

Furthermore, there are questions about copyright violations and WP:BLP. Before any of that material gets re-added, I would ask editors to review WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP/WP:HARM. Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem I suggest you take it to the BLP noticeboard. It is the most notable and noted event in the history of the station, and we are not sensored. You can quote as many random policies as you like but the 100 words we have now are fine and a firmly oppose the censoring of the man's name, which is public free information. HARM is nice, but it is nothing more than an essay, it has been rejected as a policy b/c out first priority is facts, freedom, and openness. Not that this does any harm since his name is all over the place now. It just makes wikipedia look lame. Lobojo (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Squawk all you want, Lobojo, but BLP says you can't damage someone just for kicks. This is non-notable and potentially damaging to a private citizen. If you disagree, take it up with Jimbo. Jeffpw (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect others might argue about that being the most noted event of the station. Nonetheless, it's not encyclopedic - it's trivial news. What makes Wikipedia look lame is when people try to put sensational tabloid news into an encyclopedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that people seem to be under the mistaken impression that information being available in a reliable source is the only criterion for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. The "incident" might deserve a few words under Trivia, but it most certainly is not a sufficiently major event for the large section that is included here. That's undue weight if ever I saw it. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For an article of the current length, it might be undue weight. However, if the article was expanded to a WP:GA length, breadth and depth, the current section would be appropriate.  Thus, I would say just keep it up to date with concise recaps of the evolution of the story.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP discussion
The below discussion was moved here from a User talk page for clarification of the BLP issue
 * I would note there appears to be nothing on the Talk page about any contention. Wjhonson (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries have been very clear that the material was removed due to BLP violations. Lobojo chooses to reinsert it with the contention that WP is not censored, which is immaterial to the BLP issue. BLP violations may be deleted on sight, without discussion, per jimbo. Jeffpw (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And he reverted again. This is why I no longer discuss with him. If I had to discuss every time he violated BLP (one time it was serious enough the article had to be deleted) I would never get any work done at all. I am reverting it one last time today, that will make 2 times. I won't edit war, but it is not only a BLP violation but supremely tacky to add that info (with no encyclopedic value), merely because he thinks it's funny. Jeffpw (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Without Talk page discussion, none of us know this is happening or why. That is why talk page discussion is useful for the history of the situation and why the revert-wars are occurring.  Many people do not necessarily pay close attention to edit summaries, they are much more ephemeral than archived discussions. As far as BLP violations, I'm not sure naming a person is any kind of violation.  His name does appears in published sources doesn't it?  It may be undue weight to include it on this page.  All of these issues are why we discuss. Wjhonson (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way "per Jimbo" isn't really a great argument ;) Have a super day Wjhonson (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the relevant policies on BLP before weighing in. You have a great day yourself. Jeffpw (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So now BLP says "don't include names reported in reliable sources" ? I missed that part, can you direct me to where you read that on BLP exactly? Thanks JeffWjhonson (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

End of enquoted, moved discussion

Thanks Jeff, I found a relevant section of BLP concerned with privacy of names of people involved in essentially a single event.Wjhonson (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've verified that the second cited link (CBS news) does in fact name the driver in their article. The first cited link (ABC) does not name him. Wjhonson (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CBS news policies regarding the naming of people in minor events doesn't interest me, I'm afraid. The BLP policy does, which you have apparently now read and seen regarding naming private people involved in minor, isolated incidents. The potential harm outweighs the good. The policy seems very clear, to me. Jeffpw (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all really dubious stuff. There are not just these sources but at least 50, (actually there are more, but they are in the google news archive) that mention him by name as the person involved, see here. Not using this free relevant informtaion because of "BLP concerns" (completely bogus) is nothing more noble that censorship. And wikipedia in not censored, just like the 100s of sources who used his name. Also, not that it matters, wet ducks backs spring to mind as regards "protecting" this man, something that you are openly advocating we dispose of all of policies V RS and free and uncensored. Lobojo (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff for a courteous reply. Regarding our BLP policy, I've provided a link, for interested parties, directly to a sub-section of that policy (see my above link) that appears to address this:"'Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger."

"In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.'"
 * So in this particular case it would seem the most relevant part of this is that: A) the name has not been widely disseminated; B)they are living; C)not directly involved in the article's topic. Although the event made news briefly, it's likely most people, even directly associated with the topic will forget the name is say a week. So based on that reasoning, I can agree that the name should be removed. This discussion should be preserved for new readers to understand why. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * name has been as widely diseniated as possible, (over 250 times!!) thus all of this is moot. Lobojo (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) There was no attempt to cenceal this man's name - why would there be?


 * So the name has been widely diseminated, it wasn't concealed by anyone in any context, and the removal of the name DOES result is a significant loss of context. I asked Jeffpw to take this to the BLP board if he has a problem, but he ignored the request. I hope he will reconsider. Lobojo (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the name is said aloud is moot - none of this incident is encyclopedic. It has as much to do with WLS as what kind of toothpaste Ravi Baichwal used this morning. Unless anyone can provide some reason for this WP:BLP1E to be here, I'm taking it out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A news story with up to about 500 references is not trivial, it wasn't trivial to the station or its viewers. It wasn't trivial to the 500 reports, it wasnt trivial to the people who narrowly escaped death that night standing behind that window. It wasn't trivial in the eyes of the court who bailed him on a whopping 120k$. This is just wikilawyering. Lose the arguement on BLP, so work your way down the food chain of policy. Lobojo (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Lobojo, was this argument taken to BLP? If so can you provide a link to that sub-section? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was not taken to the BLP noticeboard. Do you really think we should waste even more people's time discussing this obvious violation? Having been through this twice before with this editor, I prefer to just nip this in the bud right here. Jeffpw (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be helpful to the project yes. This is not an obvious violation as I've stated above.  I have quoted exactly the relevant BLP area and there is not the pointedness of language there that you are using here.  I don't share your history with this user, so you'll forgive me that I raise the point that the editor might have a reasonable argument.  When you are in a conflict over BLP the BLP Noticeboard is certainly the place to take it in my humble opinion.  The people who monitor that board do not feel that it is a waste of their time to respond.  Regardless, the choice is up to either of you, I'm not going to initiate it. Wjhonson (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lobojo, I see these as two separate issues. I'm not sure about the BLPness of mentioning the guy's name in the article, and would favor getting more opinions on whether BLP1E applies here.
 * In my mind, though, that's immaterial to the fact that the entire incident is news not encyclopedic. As such, it is important to the people it happened to.  It's not important to the rest of the world. IMNSHO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, and it is fine such as it is. Your opinion does not determine policy on wikipedia, and this is clearly the most notable event in the history of this notable TV station. Unless someone can give a valid rationale as to whyh we should self-censor info that has been published by over 300 printed sources and reveaeld on all the news networks many times, from a wikipedia policy arguement I don't see why it does not belong. Lobojo (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. Perhaps someday it may seen as that but as they are a news station it's likely that a perspective will see this as one of the more ironic examples of reporters becoming part of the news. And yes, it will all be forgotten as the next interesting video comes along. Where I see mentioning the driver's name as a possibility is if a second and third chapter in this story develop - like of the trial is a big deal, does he get pulled over again pulling a similar stunt, etc. Otherwise i don't see it as being that notable. When it doubt I look at two criteria, reported in a few RS's - probably; widely known - probably not. Unless something big and dramatic happens his name will likely be forgotten. Benjiboi 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I would agree with you, if not for the hundereds of sources. Reported all over the world, shown on TV all over the world. Named all over the world. Lobojo (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would be spot-on IF we were a news agency, I'm willing to be the driver's name as with most of those who work on camera will all be fading memories but those who work at the station can be mention because their job there is notable enough for mention. You might also consider that some folks, for whatever reason, are looking for fame and, sadly, consider doing things like running a car through a live report - let's not help them if this is their aim. Benjiboi 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert Warring
Does anyone find a regular revert-war to be helpful to the project? I would suggest one of you bring this to the BLP noticeboard, or create an RfC. That is the standard process. Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wbkb60s.jpg
Image:Wbkb60s.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 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) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ABC 7 News (WLS-TV)
I feel that we should split sections "news operations" and "news personnel" into their own article called ABC 7 News (WLS-TV). The reason "(WLS-TV)" would be included in the article title is because KGO-TV is also known as "ABC 7 News" during newscasts. Mythdon (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Digital Channel Information
Is all the information accurate in the article? A friend just tested 44.1 as Telemundo, and 44.41 as an ABC station. And AFAIK, there is no more ABC News Now on digital subchannels. MMetro (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Headings
The Wikipedia Manual of Style on heading (WP:HEAD) says that:
 * headings within articles should not contain wikilinks -- the links should be included in the text of the section instead;
 * the Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,


 * Important things to know about this subject

not:
 * Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
 * capitalize the first word,
 * capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
 * begin all other words with lower case letters

In addition, I have changed the heading "On-Air Talent" to "On-air staff". "Talent" is industry jargon. It does not describe the position or the work. It is meaningless to readers unfamiliar with American broadcast industry jargon, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. "Staff" indicates that these people are being listed because they work for the station. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As long as its ok with you, I am going to restore the material that was deleted on the Chicago stations and will also tag the section as unreferenced. This gives me and other editors a chance to locate sources and make some editorial decisions rather than having almost the entire list deleted as unreferenced and apparently non-notable. Thanks NoSuchThing85 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSuchThing85 (talk • contribs)

news team
Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of names in articles. This type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in policies and guidelines. this list of names fall into:


 * 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.

the whole section was unsourced and was unnecessarily long, risking the article being difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend.Bobjim45 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On-air staff list
I have removed the full staff due to what was posted above and per Talk:WGN-TV. List like these needs to establish notability. Being that the station's own website is a primary source, thus does NOT count towards demonstrating a person's notability. Bobjim45 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

On-air staff list
I have removed the full staff due to what was posted above and per Talk:WGN-TV. List like these needs to establish notability. Being that the station's own website is a primary source, thus does NOT count towards demonstrating a person's notability. Bobjim45 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Rock On Chicago
This should probably get a mention, but I can't find decent refs; the closest I've found is an article in the Billboard July 20, 1985 issue (starting on page 35) but as thorough as it is it has incomplete information with regard to the history of the program. Mapsax (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonexistent Translator
The info box claims that there is a VHF Channel 7 Translator Application, with no further citation. I have now added a citation needed box to it, but this is to dispute removal of the text. Techy95 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)