Wikipedia

Talk:WBAL-TV

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 166.205.153.37 in topic I would like to speak to someone about old murder investigation involved police officers and officer Eric Banks please contact me at hovingtoneric846@gmail.com
Learn more about this page

Ron Kershaw

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The inline Google books citation is handy, but seems kind of low budget. Is there a way to get a real reference here about Kershaw? If he transformed local news as much as is implied, there should be more and better references. --Knulclunk 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the Action News paragraph was fine, if it can be sourced. Perhaps Rollosmokes can explain himself a little better? --Knulclunk 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Most of what he did happened in the '70s. No internet then, If he'd done it last year there would be plenty.Marylandstater 22:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

BetacommandBot 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Action news 1981.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Action news 1981.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 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removing "Where Are They Now?"

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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.

Per the discussion at WT:TVS#Personalities - Where are they now Information, I am proposing the removal of the details here as to the current jobs of past personalities, as they are mostly unsourced and extraneous to the article. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Strongest Oppose - Discussion isn't near over on WP:TVS and you would need to remove the information from every station from WABC-TV (market 1) to KXGN-TV (market 210) and every station in between....and two "votes" to the yes ain't gonna let that happen. Consensus first. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've set aside enough time to remove material that is incorrect, uncited, promotional, original research, or off-topic from all the articles mentioned. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2009 (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.

RfC: "Where Are They Now?"

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

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.

The conclusion was that consensus is against the proposed change. No action taken. Vicenarian (T · C) 07:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is the current career information in the "Former personalities" section (AKA "Where Are They Now?") off-topic for the article? Vicenarian (T · C) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Previous discussion related to this topic can be seen at Wikipedia talk:TVS#Personalities - Where are they now Information) Vicenarian (T · C) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. Because the topic of this article is the station, discussion of the current jobs of former employees is off-topic. (This is by definition - if they are former employees, that presupposes their current jobs aren't at the station.) Notable former employees should have their own articles, and such information should be included there - properly linked so interested readers can go to those articles and find the information. Non-notable former employees should not have biographical information included at all, beyond their history with the station. Respectfully, Vicenarian (T · C) 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • No...please see the talk discussion on WT:TVS for more. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • No. Notable station alumni are a part of a station's history and if important to the station's character, deserve to be included. There are many sections on Wikipedia where accuracy cannot be 100% verified; however that is not the issue at hand. I'd like to use an example: let's say I live in a small market, and remember an anchor by name. Maybe I am curious as to where that person's ended up. Perhaps that person has since slipped away from the spotlight, or changed their name as with Kym Kobasko, alum of WTOV-TV. Unless I know she's now "Kim Gable," a Google search wouldn't turn up results unless there's some way to connect the two-- Wikipedia. An alumni section on WTOV-TV's Wikipedia entry could serve that purpose, or step by step, I could Google WTOV, end up at Wikipedia-WTOV#alumni, locate "Kym Kobasko, n/k/a Kim Gable" and follow that to a probable article on her, her current station, or similar. If the personality in question is not notable enough to have an entry, I'd still have a way to research the information. The same goes for a "where are they now" section-- it is simply more user friendly. I am strongly against the removal of this material as it is a vital part of many research processes, should you be researching station personalities. There is an argument above that states " A "Former personalities" section with a list of names is fine as long as it doesn't go into extraneous detail." I wouldn't consider "Now at KXXX-TV" extraneous data. If you don't think a station's talent is notable enough to go into an article, consider the fact that newspaper TV and entertainment editors constantly answer viewer letters such as "Where is X? I haven't seen him or her on WXXX lately," or "Any idea where X has turned up?" (Google "rob owen vacation anchor" if you care to.) Certainly the station's viewers find it important and I think it's important that Wikipedia support a central location for this information when it is available. Most of this information can be cited with a simple reference to that personality's biography at whichever station happens to be their current home. 24.3.223.164 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Irrelevant. Every person who creates an Internet article presumably thinks it's worth their time to write it down. Wikipedia is concerned with being encyclopedic, and staying on topic. Wikipedia is not a charity for the purpose of hosting "lost causes". The fact that the information is not available elsewhere has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should have it.
Also, as I have pointed out, even a very casual check of the information listed in "notables" is largely wrong. I.e., practically every entry I checked was wrong. This isn't a contribution to knowledge. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Saying that someone who takes their time to check and double check this information, which is done daily by myself and others is a "contribution to ignorance" is beyond bad faith and an insult it isn't funny. You sir have just taken your comments into the very ignorance you called anyone in WP:TVS on. Turn in your username, I think you are done here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
You are posturing, and lashing out at anyone who questions your opinion as you dignify it as a part of WP:TVS. Practically every cross-linked entry I checked in a couple articles was in some respect wrong. I iterated them, and what their problems were. (Bill Kamal, Sam Donaldson, Frank Herzog, Rudy Miller). You didn't answer a single one of those cases. It's apparent that they were not carefully checked. Then we could move on to the original issue that started this: you reverting entire edits I made, where I detailed my reasoning, you saying only that several types of edits were "vandalism" [1], [2], [3], [4]. I cite issues, I give reasons; you don't respond to issues, but instead suggest editors should simply ignore guidelines and agree with you because you've put a lot of work into it. You have, but that's not an excuse for your behavior. Nor does it mean that issues with the work of members of WP:TVS are not subject editorial review. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Reverting all these obviously good faith edits as "vandalism" is inappropriate. Twinkle allows you to revert WP:AGF edits with an additional statement as to why you disagree with the edit. Please use that except in obvious cases of vandalism. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • No - Discussion isn't near over on WP:TVS and you would need to remove the information from every station from WABC-TV (market 1) to KXGN-TV (market 210) and every station in between....and two "votes" to the yes ain't gonna let that happen. Consensus first. Plus per everything said by the anon and CFIF above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would just like to point out, for the record, that neither of those station articles you cited contain the type of content I'm concerned about. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
It was an example. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • No - the information about former employees of a tv station is similar to the information that most colleges and universities have about their notable alumni. Every major university in the United States has an alumni section on wikipedia, and it is no more than a description of "where they are now". In most cases the alumni have moved on but there is always an interest as to what school they attended. People researching in the television area often look to see where reporter "x" got his/her training before coming to station "y". I think the information about where they are now should remain, I do agree that most of the entries under that section need initial or additional reference verifications--Triple3D 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triple3D (talk • contribs) 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.

Significant trimming of Former Staff section

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page or have a reference to establish their notability. This is the current consensus procedure, based on discussions at WP:WikiProject Television Stations and at the Village Pump. The rationales are as follows:

  1. Most importantly, per WP:NOT, 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. Secondarily, per WP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I'm not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
  3. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages 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 info, 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).

Some specific notes:

  • Vince Bagli had a reference showing he used to work at WBAL, but that reference didn't assert that Bagli was notable in any way.
  • Rhea Feiken had a reference, but it's actually from an obituary about Rolf Hertsgaard (who I kept in, as the subject of that obit), just quoting her; this again only establishes that she worked there, not that she was notable.
  • Jay Grayson has a reference that I can't access; given the brief description, which if true seems to assert notability, I'll err on the side of keeping it in.
  • Brent Gunts's refernece asserts that he was "a legend in Baltimore," which is an assertion of notability, so I left his in.
  • Al Herndonis described in his reference as "pioneering," which is at least an assertion of notability, so I left his in.
  • Rudy Miller's reference is just to a corporate page saying he works there now, which is not a reliable source, and wouldn't establish notability even it it were.

The others that I removed had no citation and no wikipage, so no evidence of notability or that they worked at WBAL. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Logo notice

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To whoever uploaded File:WBAL Logo 2013.png, this is to explain why the logo was removed from Wikipedia with my upload. I am not jealous of the upload, nor do I believe that it is superlative (as it is a scalable vector graphic image). However, I removed it due to two reasons related to fair use (WP:NFCC) as it was not uploaded to Wikipedia directly, but rather to Wikimedia Commons:

  • The logo is glossy and features use of gradients to make it 3D. Aren't 3D logos usually copyrighted? Copyrighted content is not allowed in Commons.
  • The license (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported) is impossible for logos. You do not own a TV station's logo; the station does.

I regret having to remove this logo but will do all that it takes to ensure that properly licensed logos are used. If you happen to re-upload this logo but properly marked as fair use, I shall be satisfied with the deletion of mine's.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WBAL-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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WBAL-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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would like to speak to someone about old murder investigation involved police officers and officer Eric Banks please contact me at hovingtoneric846@gmail.com

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please any info will help 166.205.153.37 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WBAL-TV&oldid=1210535773"