Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Archiving

Our old talk page, now Archive 3 (I also updated the archive table to standards), was a whopping 167 KB, so I archived it. Feel free to add anything else we need. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing of DT channels in market boxes

Is listing stuff like "(NBC Weather Plus/The Tube/The CW/MyNetworkTV/etc. on DT2/3/4)" really necessary? I think it clogs up the market boxes, and if necessary, we can add something like the local cable channels, e.g. on {{Tampa Bay TV}}, if it's a CW/MNTV affil. Something like " "My Madison TV" (WISC-TV [DT2]) (MNTV). --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's heavy and stretches it. In one case (Template:Imperial Valley TV) it's redundant. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not see any issues with that one. {{Richmond TV}} has some issues with that though. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of logo galleries

Just thought the community should know about this: administrator A Man In Black (talk · contribs) has been removing logo galleries containing (what he sites as) fair-use images from several station articles.

A list of station articles he's already handled: WCGV-TV, WDCW, KREN-TV, KTVN, WLMT, KICU-TV, KAME-TV, KTRK-TV, KSAZ-TV, KMPH, WFLA-TV, KRON-TV, WJLA-TV, WSET-TV, KCRA-TV, WWJ-TV, KEYE-TV, WLVI-TV, WBRZ-TV, KRIV-TV, and KPRC-TV. Rollosmokes 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit - Also handled: KUHT, KPXB, KTXH, KHCW, WNBC, KNWS-TV, KTVI, KMOV, WVIT, WNYW, WHPX, KPLR-TV, KCAU-TV, WTVH, KMID, WDAF-TV, KXVO, WLQP-LP, KCNS, WEWS-TV, WBQD-LP, WOI-TV, WCTX, WFXT, WHDH-TV, and KMSP-TV. Some Person 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) )

(Edit - I have archived the removed content here. Some Person 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) )

And they do need to stay gone. These images are fair-use images (as opposed to free images, which are images released under a license compatible with Wikipedia's or images that are in the public domain), and galleries of them are egregious violations of WP:FUC #1, as there's no commentary involved and only one logo is needed for identification.

I would appreicate help in further reducing the number of unnecessary fair-use images, especially in the case of galleries.

I do apologize for not bringing this issue up with this project, though; I wasn't even aware that it existed until Rollosmokes (talk · contribs) brought it to my attention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with A Man in Black. These galleries represent an addendum to the history of the station, in terms of their on-air branding, ownership, network affiliation, etc. Of course, no image is allowed here without citing its source and identifying it as a logo of a television station, so I don't see the violation here. I'm for keeping them.

Here's a comment from A Man in Black's talk page, in response to me:

It's not a vote. There's no commentary on these images, and indeed no possible commentary due to the lack of reliable sources. Now, if a historic logo is so iconic that there is the possibility of sourced commentary (the peacock for...shit, was it ABC? I forget) then yes, we should have an image, but galleries illustrating no prose need to go immediately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So, for example, the KTMA logo on the WUCW page could stay because of its exposure on numerous old copies of Season Zero Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, and that station management's relevance to the creation of said show? -EmiOfBrie 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No. It could only stay if the logo itself was a significant subject of commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For one person -- administrator or not -- to unilaterally decide the fate of work that several of us (myself included) spent hours creating, correcting, and enhancing, is completely unfair to me, guidelines or not. I believe it should be discussed before action is taken. Rollosmokes 23:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It is unfair. It sucks. Unfortunately, WP:FUC has long been poorly enforced, but word is coming down from Jimbo and the board that we need to start cracking down, and fair-use image galleries are the worst, most egregious violation.
I'm happy to explain why we shouldn't have these images, and what alternatives are available. The fact remains, however, that they need to be removed on sight, and further such images should not be uploaded or added to articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any violations that logo galleries have. Care to explain? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC #3 and #8, and longstanding precedent that galleries of fair-use images are not acceptable. (This has been a part of WP:NOT for a long time.) The amount of information being conveyed here is negligable, there's no commentary whatsoever, we only need one logo to identify the station, and gobs of copyrighted content makes it that much more difficult for this free encyclopedia to be freely redistributed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They do contribute to the article, however. They detail the station's history visually. Wikipedia has some extremely serious copyright paranoia issues. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
They detail the stations' LOGO's history visually, and the logo is not a significant subject of commentary in these articles.
As for the copyright paranoia issues, hey, I think it sucks, too, but it's the way it is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What about images that are re-creations? For example, there are logo re-creations on KMSP-TV, WHDH-TV, and WFXT-TV that I made in Photoshop specifically for Wikipedia. -EmiOfBrie 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't acceptable either; you don't get a new copyright by making a derivative work of a copyrighted work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with this, mainly because I've worked on most of the Eastern Wisconsin station logos, which I've spent hours screencapping and Waybacking to find. These illustrate the visual history of television stations that is very neglected in the "this is us, this is now" aspect of TV station websites (I'm still ired that WTMJ-TV pulled their great station history page three years ago). I don't think most stations have a problem with this, the station logos are properly licensed and credited, and there are many, many editors who have worked tirelessly going through old VHS tapes and other sources looking to document a station's logo history. This is a research tool first and foremost, and to deny the ability to go back and see that 'ah, that's how channel 21 looked back in the 80's' is something that kills curiosity and learning. Before now, you'd have to look on Google Images or drudge through the TV Guide collection at the library to find these, but now they're in one place. I think if stations have problems showing off their old logos, fine, we'll pull them. But if they really aren't using them at all now, who is it hurting? If we need a new policy for this, then I'm willing to back it. Nate 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the one place. We don't do galleries of images for the sake of galleries of images, that's in WP:NOT. Additionally, they violate Wikipedia's rules on how we deal with fair-use images. If someone else had such galleries, we could link them, but this isn't something we can do on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:FUC, and I'll reiterate my original stance: I DISAGREE with the administrator's opinion on this matter. I believe the images in the galleries completely fall under the guideline set in point no. 8, as they DO CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY to the main theme of the article(s) and do not exist for purely decorative purposes. Areas that can be considered shaky ground would be found in points 1 and 3, though as long as we continue to properly credit sources and keep redundancy to a minimum (i.e. the same logo appearing more than a few times with just background changes, etc.), that should be acceptable.

We should be able to keep the galleries, and A Man in Black should not be imposing his will (a way of possibly abusing his administrative powers) upon us without first giving us an opportunity to speak our opinion. Rollosmokes 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't contribute significantly to the article; most of the articles don't once mention even the current logo, let alone any historic ones. The images themselves need to illustrate a subject described in the article, and we only need - and can only have - one image to illustrate the subject of the station as a whole. If you want any other images, you need significant, sourced commentary on each and every image past the first, and it's going to have to be such that you can't simply describe the image with prose. It would have to be on par with the NBC peacock.
Frankly, I think it'd be great if the rules were different so that we could have these images, but this is a freely-reusable encyclopedia, and adding extra copyrighted content, especially many dubiously-sourced copyrighted images, doesn't work with that. I'm laying down the law with my admin hat on, instead of merely discussing this and coming to consensus, because this is a copyright issue, and one that has to go forward even if it's unpopular unless certain unlikely circumstances are met. (The unlikely circumstances are that certain images turn out to be free, a particular image is particularly iconic, and suchlike.) I don't like it any more than you do; it sucks to have someone come in and say "We're deleting your hard work and there's nothing to be done about it." Unfortunately, unless someone comes up with some way to get these released under a free license or comes up with some heavy-duty sourced commentary on each of these images individually, these images need to be deleted. :/
Lastly, I'm watching this discussion here, and will field any questions, concerns, gripes, etc. here. There's no need to write essentially identical comments both here and on my talk page, and comments made here can be replied to, expanded upon, and so on by other users. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to back up AMIB, here, the galleries of logos violate Wikipedia's Fair Use policies concerning logos, which is why I requested user:RaccoonFox remove the logos he added on the List_of_United_States_over-the-air_television_networks a few weeks back. Galleries of copyright-protected logos are expressly forbidden unless it is "an article discussing the visual style of the creator of the logo or its history and evolution", (so the Circle 7 logo article is fine, as far as I can tell. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Even then, you'd need to be speaking about each variation of the image in detail. If you were simply describing the NBC peacock, for example, that wouldn't be enough to have five different variations of the peacock logo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The circle 7 logo article is an in-depth discussion of the logo and how it has evolved through the years. Check it out. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
...that article has a gallery of over a hundred and fifty fair-use images. I'm speechless. That's...that's not okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
150 images?! Sorry, I apparently mis-remembered the gallery being much, much smaller. I'll shut my mouth now. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use in galleries is pretty much never justifiable. ed g2s • talk 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly will not help in removing the "fair-use" logos, as I believe that all of the logos should stay. Sure, there are "dubiously-sourced" logos, but most of the ones that I have uploaded have complete information on them, including the correct fair use tag of {{Tv-logo}}. Frankly all of the images are low-resolution and those that do not comply are always deleted. This issue deserves to be put up for a consensus vote, and should be immediately. Clearly, there is a discrepency in the interpretation of the criteria, and we all know the criteria reasonably well. Thistheman 19:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I wasn't exactly thrilled with the edit summary You're being told, right now, that it's not okay. At least I could have been given a reason on my talk page or something. Thistheman 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I also have to disagree with A Man in Black. It's called television history and that's what the articles' purpose is: to describe the history of any television station both in text and in visuals. Oh well. -- M (speak/spoken) 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement by Mattderojas!!! I see it as a full, graphic preservation of television history... I see it as a need to satisfy one' curiosity as to what logos did a station used throughout its time.

P.S. All in favor of keeping logo galleries in TV articles say "I"!!! Don't forget to identify yourself and your reason(s) as to why. --WIKISCRIPPS 07 FRI OCT 13 2006 8:47 PM EDT

I realize that Wikipedia has to "play by the rules", and I agree that some of the larger galleries have to go. But most of the logos, in my mind, are used validly. Here's my interpretation of the key points:

3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.

  • Each logo would presumably be low-resolution, and not repeated multiple times within an article or within articles than are only tangentally related - for instance, for Circle 7 logo, including every local ABC O&O's version may be overkill, and there's no reason to include every image campaign for a station when the logo itself has essentially stayed the same. However, each logo for a particular station would stand on its own as a historical identifier of that station. I'll use WJLA-TV as an example - if I was a Washington-area resident, I would expect to see the now-retired circle-lined-7. But using every "7 On Your Side" ident - each using essentially the same logo - is/was overkill.

8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

  • All logos would identify the subject of the article at different points during that channel's existence. All would contribute significantly since few if any could be adequately described within the text of the article, and it would be at best awkward to attempt to discuss branding changes within a "history" section. Television is a visual medium, and given the fluctuations of programming over a station's history, most of which exists independent of the station itself and is properly dealt with in separate articles, in reality many stations often have little meaningful history outside of their own changing on-air identities.

— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with stickguy 100 percent. But we now have one more user against us: EmiOfBrie is now reiterating that the galleries must go.
I can only speak for myself when I say that I WILL NOT TAKE PART in this -- in PROTEST. In the meantime, I'd ask everyone in the Wikipedia television community to right-click those images, and let's put our cyberheads together and think of an alternative to this unreasonable "decision". Rollosmokes 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm actually on your side in this, since I contributed a lot of work myself (and notice I'm only reverting gallery re-insertion on articles that had already had their galleries deleted, I'm not going and deleting them from untouched articles), but by default we should go by official word. If official word changes again, the galleries' Wiki code will still be in the article histories. As a compromise, I propose in light of this that any deletion of pix orphaned by this be put on moratorium. Admins? Any thoughts? -EmiOfBrie 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Try RfC or something in the dispute resolution process. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree; we need to develop a consensus on whether these images should stay, rather getting into pointless edit wars about them. If RfC dosen't work, mediation may be a better alternative. —Whomp (myedits) 16:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Another thing I wanted to mention. Interpertation on most of the fair use policies are purely opinion, especially #8 (The material must contribute significantly to the article). Despite the fact that it was a list (and not a group of articles with image galleries), List of Lost episodes went through almost the same ordeal when screenshots from each episode were removed. I think the problem here is interpertation of a policy that is flawed in many ways. I might as well say that I think the images should stay. —Whomp (myedits) 16:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the points mentioned since I last edited. I've been putting logos back, but they have been removed again, of course. I really would like to see what A Man In Black has to say about a compromise; if such a thing does not work out, I say we go to a consensus vote. This is an issue that must be resolved in a real consensus; I'd rather not have this go into a "userbox policy poll" and WP:GUS type issue. Thistheman 22:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
A warning: Wikipedia administration will not compromise on galleries of Fair Use images. Users have been blocked for replacing galleries after being warned. It sucks, but it's the policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, this isn't up for a vote; copyright issues trump WP:CON. There are certain ways certain specific images can be made to be usable, but this is something that needs to happen whether or not it's popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure my opinion will lie in the minority here. I'll admit that I was more than a little ticked off when I first saw MIB starting to yank images. But now, I've had an opportunity to examine the policy, and the reasons for it, and I have to agree with them as a whole. Now, on the other hand, there are some instances (Circle 7 logo immediately comes to mind), where some displays are necessary (though the large-scale display of each and every image of every station who ever had a circle logo is truly overkill). Someone above pointed to the classic WJLA double-lined logo, and I have to agree; that particular logo has historical significance when it comes to that station, but in comparison, the old logos of WGN-TV, or say KCBS-TV, while nice for nostalgic purposes, does not add to the historic nature of the articles themselves. I think there can be a compromise here, but one that leans more toward what MIB has started doing than not. IMO, the only "old" images in each article should be those that tie to historic significance, and to clarify, there are significantly fewer articles that meet that benchmark than are being noted here. --Mhking 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on several points. There is no need for 150 images on the Circle 7 logo article, but now there are only two images on the page. A gallery of 150 fair use images violates the policy, but adding several more examples when this article directly discusses the change of the logo over the years might be permitted. One other comment: WGN-TV has had some historically significant logos; for example, the ones which denote WB or DuMont affiliations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firsfron (talk • contribs)
And there's a prime example; the WGN-TV logos that note the WB or DuMont affiliations are of no more significance than their present logo. Given the present policy, I'd have to completely disagree with you. --Mhking 01:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUC 8. states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Since the article on WGN-TV contains two paragraphs about the station's affiliation with The WB, it is certainly possible to include the logo used at that time, to illustrate a relevant point that the station was affiliated with The WB for 11 years. I'm not sure what you completely disagree with, since such an image would help to illustrate a relevant section within the text, and this proviso is written right into the WP:FUC policy. Of course, the image should still not appear in a gallery. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, because the relationship is being discussed, not the image associated with that relationship. It's a move in the right direction, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I really think you're splitting hairs. The logo illustrates the point that the station was affiliated with The WB. This is not a minor point that is only just briefly touched upon; it is discussed in several paragraphs. The policy states the image must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text", and such an image certainly does so. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm splitting the hair; that example is right on the line. True, the logo illustrates the point that the station was affiliated with The WB, but that's an idea that can be illustrated using GFDL-licensed prose. The logo, in this case, isn't the change being discussed, merely a byproduct of the change being discussed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, however, let us not confuse the issue which was originally being discussed, which is galleries of Fair Use logos. There is no point in debating this; it's already been debated, and the policy is quite firm. However, there are over 5,000 WP:TVS pages, judging by transclusion of the {{tl:WP:TVS}} template, and to fix the pages will require several (or dozens of) individuals. Right now, several users are pretty upset livid; they've worked hard on these articles. I feel there is a lot that can be salvaged. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Corrected. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"Pretty upset"? I'm livid! --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) It's not very nice to see our own hard work go down the drain, especially with copyright "fair-use" policy that no one had a problem with just a week ago. Thistheman 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

People had a problem with it a week ago. People just didn't know these galleries existed a week ago. There are only a few admins interested in doing the ugly, unpopular work of breaking it to people that their hard work has to be deleted because of a fairly unpopular set of rules handed down from above, and there are so very many articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming very difficult to follow, and important points are being buried. Could I please ask that further statements of condemnation be tabled (or at least concentrated in a single thread), so that discussion of when additional logos can be used and issues of cleanup can be more easily discussed? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I started this huge debate, and I stand by my side. These galleries are fine to demonstrate the logo history of the TV network. I see no problem with them whatsoever. Some Person 05:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that users who revert galleries of fair-use images back into articles will be blocked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
All of this is absurd. You've removed galleries from many TV stations. If these galleries are wrong, why have they been on WP so long? Why hasn't this happened before? It makes no sense. I will stop reverting the galleries, but only because I know you'll block me. Also, your blackmailing me yesterday was not very good. Some Person 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Petition to Keep Logo Galleries as they previously were...

I have opened up a petition to save the logo galleries at my home page.(Please Sign Petition) --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 15 2006 9:04 PM EDT

Galleries of logos go against Wikipedia policy. No matter how many WP:TVS member signatures you get, it won't change the policy. If you really want to get the policy changed, I recommend going to one of the relevant image policy discussion pages, although it seems unlikely it would even happen there. I'm sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use logos - A proposal

As User:A Man In Black correctly notes, WP:CON doesn't matter if the consensus still violates copyright law. I am not a legal expert nor can I claim to be. That said, the fair use policy appears to be open for interpretation, as shown in the varying positions above. Here's my proposal for the main criteria for inclusion.

  1. The station/channel's current logo should be included. If two substantially different logos can be equally described as "current" (for instance, KRON-TV currently has a "news" logo and a "station" (MNTV) logo), include both.
  2. A past logo that is substantially different from the current logo and/or other past logos may be included. "Substantial" does not refer to changes in station IDs, newscast opens, etc. if the station logo itself is unchanged, or if the logo design itself has only changed slightly (e.g. a minor font change, color change, or addition/removal of a small network logo as in WGN-TV). At the same time, some stations may have used a wide variety of "substantially" different logos (I believe someone referenced KCBS-TV above); space and formatting may dictate that some, and likely most, of these be excluded, absent some sort of inherent notability.
  3. Logos should be integrated into the main "history" section of the article. They should be discussed within the text of the article to the extent possible, although the absence of accompanying text should not by itself be used as grounds for removal, because additional information may simply not be available. Galleries are strongly discouraged. However, there are some situations (e.g. CBC) where there are too many notable logos to use otherwise, without playing havoc with formatting.
  4. The same logo should not be repeated multiple times within one article.
  5. Network and station logos should never be used outside of the main article of the entity in question (this does not apply to network logos contained within a station logo).
  6. Screenshots should not be used unless the logo is not available in another form, or the screenshot in question is integral to a section of the article. More specifically, screenshots of current/historical station IDs (if the logo is already included elsewhere), news opens, news graphics, etc. are not acceptable on their own (without explanatory text) or in galleries.

— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

#1 is fine; one image for identification is okay. #4 is inane but not a copyright issue; WP:FUC doesn't limit using the same logo four times in an article, but good sense does. #5 is excellent practice and you should be doing it already. #6 is a style thing; you guys can handle that.
#2 and #3 are extremely problematic. You should only ever include a historic logo if there is significant commentary on the logo itself in the article. The logo must be removed if there isn't any commentary on it: "the absence of accompanying text should not by itself be used as grounds for removal, because additional information may simply not be available" is dangerously false. If there isn't accompanying commentary, there shouldn't be any image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should a historic logo only be included if there is significant commentary on the logo itself? WP:Logo doesn't say anything like that. In fact, it indicates only that the caption should indicate it is not the current logo. Wikipedia's Fair use criteria also doesn't say anything about the logo itself having to be the subject of commentary. Please direct us to the policy which states a historic logo may only be included if there is significant commentary on the logo itself. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUC, the policy that that says all fair-use images should be used if and only if they are needed for identification (one image does that) or if they're subjects of significant commentary in the article itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUC #8 doesn't say that. It says "8 The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The image itself does not have to be the subject of significant commentary. The word "identification" does not even appear on that page. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to split hairs, but "identify" does appear on that page; it appears in the quote you quoted. In practice, a single image is the best satisfaction of #3 while also satisfying #8; #8 allows fair-use images to identify the subject, #3 counsels the fewest possible images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I said "identification", not "identify". "Identification", the word you used, does not appear on that page. Again, neither policy states a fair use image can be used "if and only if" they are needed for identification or if they're subjects of significant commentary in the article itself. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This is essentially the gist of how WP:FUC deals with fair-use images in articles. If it's not for identification, it fails #8. If it's not the subject of significant commentary, it fails #3 and #8's exception for an identifying image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, according to #8, if the image not for identification, it may still be used to illustrate relevant points in the text. Thus, it still may pass #8. #3 states fair use images should be used as little as possible. That is completely open to interpretation. We certainly do not need galleries of logos, but including a second logo to illustrate a point in the text does not necessarily mean it fails requisite #3. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, hm. I think we're debating two different wordings when we mean the same thing. I just don't want to see galleries moved to inline images; that doesn't solve the problem. I don't think the current wording solves that problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all points. This should be the solution to the problem. Rollosmokes 05:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Most of the points are valid, but I think that the best thing to do is adopt the same guidelines for other corporate enities for TV stations. It also brings up the question of the use of video captures in general and the guidelines for their usage. The WNBC article for example is littered with video captures. Something also needs to be hashed out about this. TV Newser Tipline 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
TV Newser brings up another good point...having retro logos on pages is one thing, but having so many screenshots (of newscasts especially) is another, as some pages reek of over-saturation and ultimately, redundancy in the use of screenshots. Pages like WTXF-TV Anchors are the ones that should be dealt with, not to mention they are full of cruft from their outset. Rollosmokes 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say keep it limited to two or three screen captures. Ntropolis 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Try not to use screen captures; frankly, if there is such a variability on wording and interpretation of the points, it should default to keeping the logos (since apparently, consensus can't be reached). Thistheman 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Galleries of logos cannot be kept. AMIB is right on the issue of galleries of logos. Consensus does not trump official policy. It is unfortunate, but that is the policy: it states we are to use as few Fair Use images as possible. A gallery of such images certainly violates the policy. There is no debating that. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Which screen captures should be deleted? Let's not delete the ones that have text to support the captures, for example on WVEC's article. Ntropolis 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you do about all the Circle 7's?

WAVY 10 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for TV logos

Since apparently, we need to type up a rationale to appease the paranoid people, I've invented a quick template to satisfy the need

{{TV Rationale}} should satisfy the rationale guidelines to stop images from being rampantly deleted.

To place it, just copy this {{TV Rationale|CALLS}} and just put the station's callsign where the CALLS text is. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ack, don't use that. It's just copy-pasted boilerplace from {{Logo}}. A fair-use rationale needs to explain why the image satisfies the conditions of WP:FUC, and the rationale is going to be different for the infobox logo and logos used in the body of the article (for example). Fair-use rationale templates usually don't work very well, because they need to be adjusted for how the image is being used.

Here's a sample rationale for an infobox logo:

I, A Man In Black (talk · contribs), believe this image should be categorized under fair use in [[ARTICLE]] because:

  1. It serves to identify the station in question visually in a way prose cannot.
  2. It is widely distributed by the copyright holder for that purpose.
  3. As the value of the image is in the particular unique appearance which is copyrighted, no free alternative can be made.
  4. It is low resolution.
  5. The image is only being used for informational purposes.

If the image isn't being used for the infobox, you'll need to adjust #1 and #2 accordingly, as though you were making the case why we need a fair-use image in that particular part of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's such a PITA to type that stupid thing up every time. I don't think it takes a genius what the image is used for. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not make a template that you subst and adjust, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
How about something like {{tvlogo}}? Some Person 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From fair use to neglected templates

The newly-rechristened Template:MyTV Oklahoma had been stuck with UPN on it for a month. I gave it the update it desperately needed. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of logo galleries redux

I disagree with the removal of the logo galleries entirely. Nothing in WP:FUC nor WP:LOGOS prohibits the use of image galleries--the word "gallery" doesn't even appear in either of those policies. Wikipedia:Galleries says fair use galleries "may be on shaky ground" but still doesn't prohibit them outright. A visual history of a television station has encyclopedic value. These galleries do not violate FUC #3 because they serve to illustrate the history of the television station and do not serve a purely decorative purpose. They do not violate FUC #8 because (usually) as few images are used as needed to illustrate the history of the station's identification. They do not violate copyright law because they are being fairly used for educational purposes and do not detract from the marketable value of such logos. To simply declare "copyright law and fair use policy is the way it is and is not subject to consensus" misses the point, as it is the interpretation of that copyright law and policy that is being debated here, not the law or policy itself. Does "Avoid Copyright Paranoia" mean anything anymore? DHowell 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They fail #3 because they illustrate only the ways in which the logo have changed, which is not a significant subject of commentary in the vast, vast majority of these articles. As for avoiding copyright paranoia, en.wiki is one of the very few Wikipedias that allows fair-use images at all. Discouraging abuse (which has pretty much come down from the Board) is the best way to keep the use of fair-use images available to en.wikipedia's users. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Commentary" is only one of the purposes that fair use allows. Other purposes include criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research; I believe the last three cover this use quite adequately. DHowell 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about fair-use law, but Wikipedia's fair-use policy, where images are only allowed for identification of subjects of significant commentary, and in that case as few images as possible. We only need one image to identify a station; any other image needs to be identifying something specific, not a vague "illustrating the history." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in the policy that says "images are only allowed for identification of subjects of significant commentary". The actual wording of FUC #8 is "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." (emphasis added) The historical logos do contribute significantly to the article, as a logo's history is part of the station's history. They do not serve a purely decorative purpose, as documenting the history of a subject is a legitimate encyclopedic use. They identify the subject, at various instances in time, when the subject was branded differently than today. "Illustrating the history" is not a vague justification, it is the primary purpose of including these logos. There is simply no other reasonable way to document the history of a station's logo with fewer images than using one for each unique design of that logo, thus FUC #3 is not violated either. DHowell 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A gallery of images on its own isn't illustrating relevant points within the text practically by definition, because the images are on their own. Documenting the history of superficial changes in a promotional logo is not a purpose for which these images get to slide through on a legalistic reading of WP:FUC; it would be an exceedingly questionable use of free images, let alone images that impair this project's free nature. If a particular historic logo is a significant subject, sure, add an image to the section that discusses the historic logo, but this is not carte blanche to include every single logo ever used for every station ever. The vast majority of these images do not add significantly to the vast majority of these articles, and the .01% exception needs to be incorporated into the text anyway.
In short: the only information lost when removing an old logo is the the appearance of the old logo. If what the logo used to look like isn't important enough to mention in the article, then it isn't significant enough to have a fair-use image to illustrate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that the old logo on, for example, the Sprint Nextel page should go too? Ntropolis 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. I'd have to look. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that I emphasized the word "or" in FUC #8. I don't claim that the logos necessarily illustrate relevant points within the text, but that they identify the subject of the article, as "or" means it can do either (or both!). When a subject has gone through several significant transformations throughout its lifetime, there are several identities for the subject of the article. As Ntropolis points out, this is not limited to TV station articles, but all articles about companies or products which have a rich history of logos and identities. You claim that fair use images are only allowed if the article talks about the image itself, but I claim that a logo is a special case of fair-use image because it is primarily a means of identification and not a marketable work in and of itself. Thats why logos are generally protected by trademark law and are rarely the subject of copyright law. And as long as Wikipedia is using logos to identify the appropriate subjects, there should not be any problems. DHowell 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you run afoul of #3, which requires you to use as few images as possible for the causes allowed in #8. The fewest number of images needed to identify a station is one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the fewest number of images needed to identify a station depends on the number of identities the station had throughout its lifetime. DHowell 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Then use the logo with the accompanying text that establishes its relevance and importance. Again, not a reason for galleries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We need logo galleries in these articles -- another reason is because if a certain website closes, we may not be able to access the site to see the logos again... This is important while "Net neutrality" is being voted on... --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED OCT 25 2006 5:56 PM EDT

I like seeing the old logos, but some of those sections badly needed to be cleaned up (remember how WAVY's looked about a month ago). WAVY 10 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator help, please?

Courtesy blanked. Daniel (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

KUNP-LP nominated for deletion

KUNP-LP, a LPTV station has been nominated for deletion based on a poorly-written article with out-of-date information. I've presented a case for keeping it, but could use some additional commentary. Thanks in advance. dhett 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed the article up. Please vote to keep so my hard work is not deleted! DHowell 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if I read the rules correctly, an AfD is good for five days, then a decision needs to be made about whether or not to delete. That five-day period was up last weekend. Thanks for fixing up the article, DHowell - I was going to wait for a resolution to the AfD, but your efforts were definitely welcome. I know Sandstein doesn't agree with the outcome; perhaps we need to revisit our notability standards, as the standards he wanted to apply just don't seem to fit broadcast entities, in my opinion. dhett 08:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MY ANSWER TO ADMINISTRATORS

Rollo writes: There is a potential editing war brewing over WWOR-TV, WPSG, and WTXX involving myself and Marckd, who insists in adding redundant,

marckd: this information is not redundant. In all three articles I stated information once.

rollo: unverifiable

marckd: I have TV Guides and artciles that verify my statements. Any statement I cannot prove I formally took back. See WPSG edit and revisions

rollo: unnecessary information (clutter) to these articles.

marckd: A matter of opinion and very arbitrary. The content I added was in the same league as much of the article.

Here is my take on it

WPSG

The statement in question was the order in which NBC got Channel 10 and Fox got Channel 29. This took place in 1995 at a time when stations were selling and swapping right and left. It was tough to even keep track of dates because of dozens of sales every week. So I could not verify my statements for sure. It would take hours of research to do this and I have no time to spend on this project. So I took back my statements on this and will leave WPSG alone unless innacurate information gets posted which I believe is UNLIKELY. I give Rollosmokes this one.

WWOR

For months Rollosmokes insisted WWOR-TV added loads of evening sitcoms in the 1987 overhaul when they actually did not do this until 1988. After months of bickering back and forth my statement finally stuck. My Joe Franklin and Noon News statements were stated in past newscasts section and local productions sections. Those statements were redundant and therefore mentioned already. My statement on the 70's WOR-TV format eventually stuck as well. Rollosmokes insisted game shows and drama shows were redundant mentions but had a change of heart back in September.

Still he insists that WWOR kept religion past the fall of 1987 and only added cartoons to weekdays. I have listings that prove otherwise. But he insists I am wrong. He even stated I am wrong. WWOR in September 1987 dropped all their religious shows except for Mass and World Tomorrow. In October World Tomorrow was also gone. Still on my talk page Rollosmokes insists WWOR was still running Oral Roberts and Day Of Discovery and Jimmy Swaggart. Iw ent through TV Guide with a fine tooth comb and did not find any religion on WWOR after the first week in October. He continues to question my accuracy. That is what is angering me so much.

WTXX

Rollosmokes insists that WTXX had only a part-time LMA with WVIT from 1993 to 1996. That is true. BUT he insists it only included the 10 PM to 1 AM time slots. He implies that WTXX either ran sitcoms that they retained from Renaissance a few hours or ran HSN programming all day long. His writing leaves a typical reader wondering.

The 1993-1996 LMA with WTXX and WVIT included 7 to 10 AM 7 days a week. It also included 10 PM to 1 AM 7 days a week. But it also included a weekday block from 3 to 7 PM. During all the daytime blocks WTXX only ran cartoons and childrens shows. These were barter shows that had contracts that demanded they be run and not rested. Therefore WTXX ran ad-time and programming from WVIT from 7 to 10 AM as well as 3 to 7 PM and 10 PM to 1 AM. His writing though implies otherwise. I am willing to state it was syndicated shows rather than state they were cartoons. But I insist on acknowledging that the LMA included time slots besides a 10 Pm newscast and late night programs.

Rollosmokes also made an innacurate statement that WTXX reacquired stronger shows in the fall of 1995. That too is innacurate. WTXX still ran mostly cartoons and shop at home programs until March of 1996 when the contract with HSN expired. They did run UPN programming, but UPN only aired 2 or 3 nights a week. On non UPN nights HSN shows still aired. They also continued to air HSN during the day 11 AM to 3 PM. It was late in March in 1996 when stronger shows would appear on WTXX. They were not reacquired however. The syndicated shows WTXX began to air for the most part never aired prior to 1993. At that point the LMA with Viacom became full-time. All I have done was make this correction. Rollosmokes keeps insitsing I am wrong. I do have TV listings to verify my claim. I also stated that WTXX and WTIC TV now share facilities and began to do so in 1999. I can verify that they share facilities but cannot yet verify a date they began to do this. I will have to eventually make a few phone calls to verify an accurate date. So I am not pushing that issue yet.

So I am angry that I am being told that my statements are wrong. All I ask is that accuirate information be included and incorrect information be excluded.

sincerely Marckd

I will speak my piece with this comment I left on Marckd's talk page:
It is my belief that your additions to WWOR-TV, WTXX, and WPSG are filled with: 1) redundancies; and 2) needless, useless over-information that does not bring anything to the article.
Examples:
*WWOR-TV: you continue to insist on your rewriting the paragraph detailing the changes made to the station during 1987-88. The text as it was previously written keeps the details simple, and they do not need to be further explained. Also, the information is inaccurate -- WWOR retained other religious programs on Sundays other than the Catholic Mass. They still ran Oral Roberts, The Hour of Power, and (if I can correctly recall) Day of Discovery and/or The World Tomorrow for a while after the ownership change/programming overhaul.
*WTXX: at this point, it really isn't necessary to list ALL of the time periods when WTXX ran syndicated programming during its post-Renaissance days, during the HSN/WVIT LMA period. This information is unnecessary. Once again, the text as it is written keeps the details simple.
*WPSG: the lines about the NBC/New World pursuit of WCAU-TV DO NOT BELONG in this article, as it had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with WGBS-TV -- it was separate from Fox's attempt to buy the station. And the text was ripped verbatim from WCAU, which doesn't make it exactly original. All your other changed in regards to this paragraph were completely unnecessary.
My argument is simple: going ga-ga over details, and going over every little thing (as Marckd has explained in his above lenghty schedule post) can really be simplified with a few words. And, until he came along, NO ONE had any problems with the text at WWOR or WTXX other than, say, CoolKatt number 99999. There is no need for the addition of these small, trivial tidbits. Also, we should stay away from adding info that is not central to the main subject (i.e. WPSG). That's all. Rollosmokes 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I STand by my statements - Have listings to prove it

ON WWOR:

Rollosmokes writes: " Also, the information is inaccurate -- WWOR retained other religious programs on Sundays other than the Catholic Mass. They still ran Oral Roberts, The Hour of Power, and (if I can correctly recall) Day of Discovery and/or The World Tomorrow for a while after the ownership change/programming overhaul."

Marckd: NOT QUITE - The ownership change occurred April of 1987. At that point religious shows, syndicated shows, sports, movies, etc REMAINED THE SAME. The only change was the call letters to WWOR and a temporary logo replaced their long-time logo. There were VIRTUALLY no programming changes in April or May. That June the summer schedule changed as usual. It would have under RKO. There were only typical changes. Religious shows still remained.

The changes would occur in September. A new logo replaced the squarish one. This was when that overhaul occurred. At that point all religious shows all 7 days were dropped EXCEPT for Mass and World Tomorrow. In October World Tomorrow was gone as well. This overhaul occurred in several rounds. Round One dropped all but 2 religious shows, added cartoons, moved newscasts, added a few better shows. That happened in September. Round 2 overhauled prime time adding Morton Downey and dropping World Tomorrow. That happened in October. I have listings to back my claim up and am ready to furnish them. Also I ask moderators to check as well. Just find a library with New York Times and look up TV sections in September 1987, October 1987, and May 1987. My claims will be proven correct. These listings have about 97 % accuracy from what I am told. It also supports my claim that cartoons did occupy 7 mornings a week.

On WPSG - I concede that I cannot prove my statements 100 % accurate without consuming alot of time. Plus TV station sales were happening daily it seemed and it would be tough to prove chronology. So I have NOT TOUCHED THIS ARTICLE SINCE YESTERDAY. THIS IS NOW A DEAD ISSUE. I DROPPED THIS ISSUE SO LETS MOVE ON

On WTXX: Rollosmokes writes: "::*WTXX: at this point, it really isn't necessary to list ALL of the time periods when WTXX ran syndicated programming during its post-Renaissance days, during the HSN/WVIT LMA period.

Marckd: But he insists on including 10:30 PM to 1 AM. 3 to 7 PM is definately as much watched timeslot as 10 PM - 1 AM. And his writing puts people under the impression that WTXX ran shopping until 10 PM. Plus dates when format changed were mixed up as well. I have listings to prove that as well. I say either include all three time slots or include none and only mention the 10 PM newscast.

Rollosmokes: This information is unnecessary.

Marckd: Arbitrary opinion - Not fact - What some think is unnecessarily another may feel different.

Rollosmokes: Once again, the text as it is written keeps the details simple.

Marckd: The text as I had it was still quite simple. Sentences were not dramatically longer. My edits the last couple days were not exactly complex. My statements clarified information.

ON THE PAST:

Rollosmokes: My argument is simple: going ga-ga over details, and going over every little thing (as Marckd has explained in his above lenghty schedule post) can really be simplified with a few words.

Marckd: MY changes WERE ONLY A FEW WORDS...They were not long dissertations.

Rollosmokes: And, until he came along, NO ONE had any problems with the text at WWOR or WTXX other than, say, CoolKatt number 99999.

Marckd: Actually many of these articles did not exist prior to when I came along. In Fact I originated quite a few of these articles. I am unsure if I originated WTXX. I would have to look. Actually if WTXX was there back then, it was only a very brief paragraph. Also by the way much of WPSG's article was written by me. So most of the TV articles were eithe much shorter or nonexistant. Also Rollosmokes is the only one with major problems on my articles in terms of content. A couple others have had issues more on writing form. But most changes on my articles came from Rollosmokes. He is the big instigator on changes made in TV articles. Still he changes other writings as well.

By the way I will give credit where due. Recently someone spread rumors that CBS might buy WPIX. Rollosmokes nipped this rumor quickly. In fact I agree with Rollosmokes. WPIX is not being sold to CBS or anyone else. I like the fact he dispells rumors and true innacuracy. But while I agree with him on many of his conclusions, in the WTXX and WWOR situations, I take serious issue still. If I had no information to back up my claims it would be one thing but I have listings in front of me.


There is no need for the addition of these small, trivial tidbits. Also, we should stay away from adding info that is not central to the main subject (i.e. WPSG). That's all. Rollosmokes 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC

Hear, hear....I hate to say this, but TV station articles in general seem to be among the most rambling, incoherent articles in Wikipedia. They're chock-full of cruft, speculation, overemphasis on minutiae such as graphics and news music, and information that is tangential at best to the topic at hand (seriously, does every US station on satellite in Canada need to have that fact mentioned in the opening paragraph?); and way too many editors seem to want to keep it that way. It's come to the point where I've been removing more info from articles than adding it. As I've said before, I think most articles in this project need a total, top-to-bottom overhaul. Kirjtc2 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Kirjtc2, some of these TV station profiles are a complete joke. A lot of the news schedule information posted on these pages is just too trival...WHO CARES! If anyones needs to know what time the particular station's news comes on, then just go to their website, simple as that. It's gotten to a point to where and why I even bother editing some of those pages, from grammatical errors to the most trivial information...it's a pain in the ass! Then, we have some of the most anal-renetive people here making unnecessary edits. Like I said, why even bother.ShawnHill 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am considering leaving

Over the past 3 months, events have occurred here at WP:TVS that are just very hot. First, it's CoolKatt and his edit wars, resulting in him leaving TVS for a year. Now, one of the key guys in CoolKatt, Rollosmokes, is warring again. I am considering leaving TVS until the entire project returns from 212 degrees Fahrenheit back to 70. TTV (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do what you must, but that would remove from WP:TVS a consistent voice of reason. Myself, I'd prefer that you remain an antidote to the madness. I don't like everything going on, either, but there's enough here to keep me busy without having to involve myself in the soap opera. I hope you reconsider. dhett 00:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Dhett. We need as many level-headed folks as we can to keep the inmates from taking over the asylum. Gosh knows I don't like to edit war (really, who does?) but those are the things we have to deal with. Fighting CoolKatt didn't break me, so don't let all these events discourage you from making positive contributions. Rollosmokes 04:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (and I'm not even part of WP:TVS)

Staff Issues

Over a few pages, I've noticed that, on some station articles, administrative staff (in one case, all the way down to the receptionist) has been listed. I've cleaned up several of these (as per WP:NOT/directory), but would like to propose that, essentially, on-air staff be included in Wiki articles, but that off-air staff not. I didn't see anything about the topic in the archive, although I could have missed it. Thoughts? Amnewsboy 09:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the news director/manager? TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Other than TrackerTV, it doesn't appear that anyone else wishes to share an opinion on this, so I'll share mine:
Current staff: General Manager, News Director, and on-air staff only.
Former staff: People who have been notable on a national level. Examples: current network on-air staff, significant network front office personnel, and politicians, either local or national.
dhett 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:TVS-cleanup

We were lacking a derivative of the cleanup template. I have created Template:TVS-cleanup to rectify this. I will be looking at articles that need cleanup, and the idea was based off problems with WEEK-TV. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. For anyone using this template, or any other cleanup template, please don't forget to put a comment on the talk page to let people know exactly what needs attention. In the case of WEEK-TV, I'm assuming the issue is the long, and in my opinion, unnecessary, list of current and former personalities at the station, most of which are missing links. dhett 01:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention {{fact}} being so predominant in the history section. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have changed the template. It now has a parameter for the month that adds it to the appropriate cat and places the month in a "This article has been tagged since x" sentence in the template. Template documented. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean logo redux

I have once again caught User:Strafidlo replacing clean images of logos with poorly-looking background-filled website versions, such as on WCVB-TV and WGGB-TV. (Not to mention his repeated additions of unencyclopedic cruft to articles like WNAC-TV, but that's beside the point...) Any thoughts? Kirjtc2 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strafidlo is a poor editor, one who doesn't listen to anyone's suggestions and keeps on doint the same things over and over again. He doesn't even return comments about his behavior on his talk page, so we're left only to clean up his mess. Something needs to be done about him and others like Marckd (who continues to violate WP:POINT with his insistence on making trivial changes to WWOR-TV and WTXX). Rollosmokes 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we at least try to leave a message on his talk page? (I don't think he'll reply to it, but he might actually listen.) RfC might be a little harsh, but if it needs to be done, then so be it. —Whomp (myedits) 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This was actually Donotsayno, but look at this: [1]. Wow. Just wow. Kirjtc2 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

UHF

In case you haven't already noticed, someone went in and changed the redirect target of UHF from Ultra high frequency to the UHF disambiguation page again. I'm not sure they fully appreciated the ramifications of such a change, but it's done, and it's probably for the best. However, this will affect many TV articles where the editor decided it was much easier to type [[UHF]] than to type [[Ultra high frequency|UHF]]. (Like I did - serves me right for being lazy and linking to a redirect.) Anyway, just a heads up that a lot of articles now have broken links. Someone started changing articles with a bot, but that had other consequences as well, not all of which I was crazy about. I've fixed the new article template and several articles that I had done, but if you encounter a [[UHF]] link, please consider fixing it. Or if you have the inclination, start going through the articles and fixing them, or use a bot. Yeah, it would be easier just changing the redirect back, but you know somebody's just going to change it back in the future, and we'll be here all over again. dhett 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I will try to fix these as I find them. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Television_stations_task_force/Archive_4&oldid=1088114225"