Talk:WCCO-TV

Splitting WCCO -Radio and WCCO-TV

Would it be better if WCCO Radio and WCCO-TV were split into 2 separate articles? - Hinto 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably. While they started with a common history, WCCO-TV and WCCO-Radio are really two very different programming entities. -- Kaszeta 13:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm bringing up the matter again, and I have added a split template atop the page. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Beaten to it... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of newscast schedules?

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)

Rectangle logo

Though they still seem to be using the CBS eye logo for their watermark, all new WCCO segments and the set seem to bear a newer rectangular logo. See here for example. I don't think it should be the primary logo yet at least, but are there any objections to adding it the logo mini-gallery? Sean Hayford O'Leary 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:712big.jpg

I found Image:712big.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:712big.jpg

Image:712big.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kcco old.gif

Image:Kcco old.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wccoblue4.jpg

Image:Wccoblue4.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

contribs) 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Approved fair use rationale has been added. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice Mike Max has been doing weekends for over a month at least and not just filling in not sure if he is now the weekend sports or if Bob is on long term vacation or what. Just though i would point that out.

July 15th 2008 WCCO in press release that Chris Shaffer will now become the prime weather anchor during there evening news 5pm, 6pm, 10pm Mondays - Fridays. So i changed it in the main section that he is now the evening weather anchor. I think for now Ron Trenda will do mornings now until they hire someone to do the morning news and Mike Fairborne will go back to weekends i am guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminnesota (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

References

I added the

template. There are almost no references in the whole article.TjoeC (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Newswatch 4 internal contradiction

The article states that the Newswatch 4 moniker was used a couple times, and then also states Newswatch 4 was never used by WCCO. Obviously mutually exclusive. So which is it?TjoeC (talk) 00:55, 12 January 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: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. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 03:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 03:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Big huge deletion by IP (69...)

So, there's obviously been disagreement about whether or not the removals by 69.235.231.211 are legitimate. First, in a technical sense, 69...is within policy to delete everything xe did. None of that material was sourced, and, as such, may be removed at any time if any editor questions its accuracy. WP:V requires verification for all non-obvious facts, and detailed station history, personnel, etc. are clearly non-obvious facts.

Of course, I can understand why another IP and Milonica reverted the removals--usually, when someone strips out half of an article, it looks like vandalism. The question is, knowing now that the edits are not vandalism, do Milonica or anyone else have a justification for why so much unsourced info should stay in the article? I haven't reverted either way yet, but I would, more than anything, like to just see the back-and forth reversions stop. 69... is close to approaching edit warring, even though I think xe is probably correct in this case; in any event, even if one is "right", the correct next step is to discuss on talk, rather than just reverting one another. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian has wisely described the situation here. I take no joy in policing but the rules are the rules. Thanks for recognizing that the edits are not vandalism and should never have been characterized as such. --69.235.231.211 (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, while the IP did remove 'some' of the unsourced material, I am also afraid that some of the sourced material may have fell to the deletion too. For example, the channel that the station broadcasts on is widely known via FCC records (digital channel 32, via PSIP displays 4). The edit also removed several other details from the infobox... power, haat, and other technical details that are ALL available on the FCC query at the bottom of the page. These technical details are on all other television articles on wikipedia and are all sourced via the FCC. Now I agree with removing some of the sections regarding affiliation and stuff like that but the technical side of the article is well sourced (by third parties as well as the FCC) so I would argue for that to be re-included, and I will re-include that because it is sourced and conforms will all other television station articles in this encyclopedia. WCCO is not special, WCCO does not need to hide its technical details for some reason or the other. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 13:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. None of the removed data was annotated and I neglected to notice that the tech data is verified by the external links. Call it strict interpretation of the rules. Having said that, the edit reversal(s) could have been limited to the data which remained unsourced and uncited. (It is silly to suggest an intention to "hide" data; the issue before us is clear: following the rules of Wiki.) 69.235.231.211 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree about following the rules, but removing a significant chunk of the article without a good reason or notice (stated on the talk page) stated prompted me to revert the edits, as did Cluebot which follows the same rules I and you should too. You have to understand, when I see that big of a removal of content, especially by an IP address, the first thing that pops into my mind is vandalism. Further, seeing what was deleted included sourced information which I knew for a fact was real and true, lead me to warning you. There is a brief explanation of why I did what I did. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like we got this all sorted out, right? Do we all agree that the info currently in the article is sourced, and that everything sourced has been restored? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's resolved. Note to milonica: the edits were explained in the edit summary, a normal, acceptable and proper location for such notice. It is my opinion that your initial reaction to a large portion of material being excised was rational but to then go a step further and reverse the edits without additional consideration and review was a hasty and kneejerk reaction, especially when it was done more than once.69.235.231.211 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)