Talk:WXTV-DT

Fair use rationale for Image:WXTV.PNG

Image:WXTV.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 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 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wxtv.jpg

Image:Wxtv.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 (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2007 (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) 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey,why are there dots in the Channel 37?

Why are there dots in the Channel 37? Title. Danubeball (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see here for an explanation. BlueboyLINY (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:WXTV-DT/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: X750 (talk · contribs) 08:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor things that are really up to the whim of the nominee to correct, not particularly imperative

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Amazing job on the alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other

• WXTV-DT is owned and operated by TelevisaUnivision alongside Newark-licensed UniMás outlet WFUT-DT (channel 68) and Smithtown, New York–licensed True Crime Network affiliate WFTY-DT (channel 67) I'd consider putting a comma right after "TelevisaUnivision", I think it would be just a nice break there. Won't fail because of that I just think it'd read better.
• focused on filmed programs from Mexico and Puerto Rico at the outset, though it aired local news. change though to although, or change to though it would still air local news.
• The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 40. Don't think this should need a source, since anyone reading the preceding sentence will know.

These are pretty trivial, solid pass X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 08:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a radio astronomy facility in Illinois objected to the establishment of a TV station in New Jersey? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1963/04/14/archives/scientists-fight-tv-group-for-channel-controversy-building-up.html
  • ALT1: ... that a TV station in New Jersey told viewers, "The Port Authority is killing your TV reception ... and doesn't give a damn!"? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/84798054/
  • ALT2: ... that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and collapse of the World Trade Center, a Spanish-language TV station in New York City reported in English, as five others had been taken off air? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/84801283/most-area-tv-stations-got-knocked-off-th/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bhadun

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 17:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie and Epicgenius: would I be correct in saying that the Port Authority's hemming and hawing, preventing WXTV-DT to the World Trade Center, saved the transmitter from being destroyed with every other station? If so, I think that'd make a much hookier hook: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that one New Jersey TV station was not affected by the collapse of the World Trade Center, as the Port Authority repeatedly spurned requests to move the transmitter there?
  • ALT3a: ... that the Port Authority prevented one New Jersey TV station from being taken offline by the collapse of the World Trade Center?
    • @Theleekycauldron: No. Looks like WXTV moved back in 1992 based on an application filed in 1989 and approved in 1990. This has been added. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, I gotcha. ALT1 and ALT2 have some issue of their own, so we'll go with ALT0 for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)