Talk:WBBM-TV

Channel 26

WBBM applied for channel 26 and it was dismissed by the FCC over a year ago. I sourced this and provided a link to the ACTUAL LETTER the FCC sent WBBM. It's online and on file.

This is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I am going to put back my information. Please DO NOT REMOVE THIS FACT. 99.184.223.190 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Bea Bryant

Removal of newscast schedules?

User:Amgine is conducting a systematic removal of all local programming information from the television station project. To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Newscast_schedules.2C_redux, where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Headings

The Wikipedia Manual of Style on heading (WP:HEAD) says that:

• the Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

Important things to know about this subject

not:

Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:

• capitalize the first word,
• capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
• begin all other words with lower case letters

In addition, I have changed the heading "On-Air Talent" to "On-air staff". "Talent" is industry jargon. It does not describe the position or the work. It is meaningless to readers unfamiliar with American broadcast industry jargon, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. "Staff" indicates that these people are being listed because they work for the station. Ground Zero | t 11:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Distant Networks

You may want to add the Dishnetwork distant network channel number (I think 241). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikenovic (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Personalities

Can this section be split into a new article or trimmed, it seems awfully long and is contributing to why the article itself is long. Just a thought. --milonica (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2011 (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:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

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) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

News team

this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in policies and guidelines. this list of names fall into:

1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

the whole section was unsourced and was unnecessarily long, risking the article being difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.118.169 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

ops, forgot to sign in above.Bobjim45 (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the statements above. We've already been here before. These people aren't notable, and we can't list every single employee that has ever worked at WBBM on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for that. It is not a repository of all information ever created. Not to mention, the previous editor is right, the additions were un-sourced. That right there tells me why the revert was done plain and simple. I urge you guys not to start an edit war and leave the content off. That is my 2 cents. Perhaps another editor would like to add their thoughts? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we keep feeling these names are necessary to this article. WBBM-TV is not special compared to other articles. The station is no more or no less notable than other stations. As you said Bobjim, adding those names also makes the article unnecessarily long. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)