Talk:WNEM-DT2/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Wnem dt2 mntv.PNG
The image Image:Wnem dt2 mntv.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Wnem weather.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Why eliminate cleanup or refimprove tags on an article with as divisive talk as this one has? Those tags are there to alert other contributors who may have access to sources and non-original research to improve this article. Its redundant and has no sourcing and requires housekeeping to justify its credibility on Wikipedia. Please don't make edits only to justify a position these tags are to help keep Wikipedia credible. BTW how unfortunate to see one of the five pilars of Wikipedia almost ignored in that archived talk right from the start with that Make up your mind comment. Good Grief173.121.255.204 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I only removed the "cleanup" tag, not the refimprove tag, so not sure what you are getting at there. As an editor, I see no reason for cleanup on this page.  As for the "Make up your mind" comment, the editor had a point, you were kinda all over the board there.  Since the above is closed, this isn't the place to rehash it.


 * A note, all discussions are added to the bottom of the page...not the top and between template and archive code. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion and merge with WNEM-TV
This article should be deleted and its information added as a subcatagory to the WNEM-TV page. This is not a seperate entity from WNEM-TV and the subject does not posses any relevance to merit its own seperate page. It has the same physical address, broadcasts at the same frequency, the same owner and has the same personnel as WNEM-TV. This is not like WNEM AM which is a different medium, broadcasting on a diffrent frequency with its own seperate license and history. This article is also written without a single citation, unverifiable and contains non-encyclopedic language. -Wxyzdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.98.10.49 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind, do you want to delete it or do you want to merge it? TomCat4680 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As said above... This article should be deleted and its information added as a subcatagory to the WNEM-TV page. Its the same entity not something seperate. The reason for deletion should fall under the Wikipedia guideline as a redundant or useless templet. Nearly all of the information on this page is redundent to the WNEM-TV page. The text about WNEM's programming on 5.2 and its cable coverage should be included on the WNEM-TV article. This article also does not site any sources to its information.
 * Sounds more like a merger proposal to me, as the information in this article will still exist, just as a section of WNEM-TV instead of its own page. Deleting it means it would no longer exist anywhere. Anyways, I Oppose the move. They're not the same station, they're virtually 2 separate TV stations. TV 5 doesn't air MyNetworkTV shows and My 5 doesn't air CBS shows. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support This is dumb, this is the same TV station. None of the other stations on here have seperate pages for there subchannels. This should be deleted. There'd be tons of extra articles out there if we had one for every subchannel. 70.8.99.167 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose They're 2 different entities of WNEM its like merging the chevrolet page into the general motors page!Aikidockd--(talk) 20:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * support per WP:BROADCAST subcarrier standard which the subchannel is. Aikidockd, it is more like a car dealer that sells Chevrolet and Buick/GMCs. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not, I agree with Aikidockd. Chevrolet is a subsidiary of GM, just like Buick and GMC are; all 4 companies have their own articles. CBS and MyNetworkTV are unrelated and unaffiliated. MyNetworkTV is owned by Fox, CBS isn't. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you put forth is that when WNEM had secondary affiliate under the analog broadcast era that there should have been articles: WNEM-CBS, WNEM-UPN, WNEM-WB?  No, you just indicate they affiliations and wikilink to those articles.  For a grocery store chain doesn't have other articles on each product they have (ie. A&P Coca Cola, A&P hot dogs, etc.). A Car dealership is a single entity no matter how many car brands they sell. For example, ABC Auto Mall, that sells Chevrolets, Fords, Buick and Toyota does not have articles: ABC Auto Mall-Chevrolet, ABC Auto Mall-Ford and ABC Auto Mall-Toyota. Some time subsidaries have enough notability to stand on their own like Chevrolet, Buick, MyNetworkTV.  It is meaningless to bring up the ownership of MyNetworkTV, Fox and CBS.  WNEM is one licensed entity they not sold WNEM-DT2 to any one else. WNEM-DT2 is not a subsidary of WNEM; it is a part of WNEM like the news programming is not consider fully seperate from the entertainment programming of the station to warrant a seperate article. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then why does NBC New York Nonstop have its own article then, it's just a subchannel of WNBC? Why does HLN have its own article, it's just a spinoff of CNN? Shouldn't all of the Fox Sports Net and Comcast SportsNet affiliates be in one huge article too, they're all owned by the same company? What about the Discovery Networks, the ESPN's, and Disney Channel's, Viacom's, the other Turner Broadcasting/Time Warner's, or any other media conglomerates? Under your reasoning, any channels whose owner is the same should all be in one giant article. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong and Speedy Oppose: - Technically it is in the right place. WNEM-TV is a CBS affiliate, while WNEM-DT2 (it's actual callsign) is a MyNetworkTV affiliate. They are two seperate stations, but operating on the same station via digital subchannels. This is the MOS and WP:TVS way of doing things. So, they should not be merged. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer, You have failed to read WP:BROADCAST's subcarrier/subchannel section. These never get seperate articles. Don't need this discussion except to prevent edit warring.  Policy follower should vote Strong and Speedy Support.
 * First off answer my questions, TomCat4680. Secondly pointing to the NBC New York Nonstop article is meaningless as it just means that editors have not discover that error (the article is also under a possible merger discuss).  That one might be an except to the rule as it being broadcasted by two seperate stations -- a mini-network if you will  -- thus the information doesn't need to be duplicated.  Network standards are seperate from station standards so CNN/HLN example doesn't match the situation  and that is still similar to chevy, Ford, etc. versus ABC Automall example.   No, you fail to understand my reasoning,  it is that the station is one entity, one license broadcast bandwidth.  What they do with that bandwidth is cover within that article.  Using part of that bandwidth to broadcast MNT does not catapult it to the status of MNT or CNN, etc.

Spshu (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well none of the channels or companies you mention exist any more and your analogies are terrible, so I don't think I can answer them. I'm not changing my vote either so you're wasting your time. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't find a MOS for TV Stations, Neutralhomer, nor any mention of a "WP:TVS way" of doing things. Spshu (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Spshu: First, don't change my !vote; my !vote stands as Strong and Speedy Oppose. Second, nice job on cherry-picking the WP:BROADCAST rule, the full rule is that subchannels "generally do not merit separate articles".  There is absolutely nothing in there that says they "never get seperate articles".  That does not mean there can be seperate articles, especially for stations creating their own content (ie: programs, news, etc.) and not just a rebroadcast of a network (like Trinity Broadcast Network stations).  I'm sorry, but you don't know as much about television stations and naming conventions as you think you do and the snarky attitude isn't going to get you what you want. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose deletion While the broadcast notability essay does say "television subchannels generally do not merit separate articles and should be covered in the station's main article" that is far from the nominator's claim that they should "never" get separate articles. This is a separately programming station with unique local programming, not merely a repeater for one of the national programming services. (Also, WP:BROADCAST is merely an essay, not a guideline.) That said, the article is unreferenced, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion, since it's apparent that sources are available. An interested editor should add some of them to this article. - Dravecky (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TomCat4680, some are examples are parallels of your own and you can't defend them?!?!?!  Since your examples have been dismattled, you have no defensible position (thus a basic meaningless vote).   "Guiding Light, a now-defunct CBS soap opera dropped by the main feed in 1996, returned to the market on "My 5"." Missing your earlier claim that My 5 never broadcast a CBS show, well the previous line from the article (as it stands) states otherwise.
 * I have defended my positions, and several people have agreed with me, more people than those who agree with you. If you would come up with some analogies that make sense and are relevant to this discussion, I'd understand your point. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm wrong. Anyways, this discussion has been open for over a month and I think it's time to close it as no consensus. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you are saying but I have repeately shown parallel examples to yours that make sense while possibly not seem relevant to broadcast is is relevant to your logic showing that you logic doesn't not apply. When you don't know what you are saying since you can seem to defend the parallel examples to the conclusion that you have drawn then yes, it means you are wrong. Just because you don't understand that does make you are right. --Spshu (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell did you say there? I read it 5 times and it reads like a bunch of nonsense.  You want to try again and this time in comprehensible English. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer, So it is a non vote (!vote = in logics means a not vote), so noted. Nor did I change your vote Neutralhomer.  I find it very poor of you to accuse me of tampering with your vote when I did not change it!!  Secondly, your side has not show why it merits a seperate article under the WP:BROADCAST rule that is why it applies.  I am not there for "cherry-picking"; the chery picking is on your side.  WNEM-DT2 just rebroadcasts NMT and WNEM-DT1's news programs. So it fits under your TBN example of not need a seperate article.  What is the great original programming beyond that on DT2?  I did request you to show your knowledge of MOS and "WP:TVS way" of doing things. Since you fail to respond, it show that you don't have a grasp either about television stations and naming conventions. :A "Strong and Speedy Oppose" vote is contary to "generally do not merit separate articles".   An oppose is alright but a "Strong and Speedy Oppose" for this article? No source. Not meeting notability.  Spshu (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have check for notability article on mlive.com, website of The Flint Journal, Saginaw News, Bay City Times and ourMidland.com, the Midland Daily newspaper's site. I have not found any articles specifically about WNEM-DT2 or My5 and found none.  Spshu (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why this is even still open. The article is notable by consensus and policy, it stays, now move on.  Oh and I failed to respond because I honestly didn't think it would still be discussed after showing you the policy.  Don't question my knowledge of TV stations as you have very little.  On top of that, you don't get to choose what !vote counts and what !vote doesn't, that is for the closing admin.  Let me find one of those. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Needing clarification of the notability of television station subchannels discussion has shown that Neutralhomer has misinterpreted WP:BROADCAST and the notability rule. Spshu (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)