This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
O’Reilly material in lead belongs on his article only[edit]
I started this conversation already with Bilorv when the article was in draft space. The materials that Bilorv added in the lead about Bill O’Reilly (“who was fired from Fox News Channel in 2017 after The New York Times published details of six sexual misconduct lawsuits O'Reilly had settled” ) are definitely a WP:COATRACK. This is an encyclopedic article about The First and detailed information that belongs on O’Reilly’s page is irrelevant to the purpose of this specific article. The materials are about one person’s career and past and belong on the individual’s Wikipedia article, and not on an encyclopedic article for a network. D00dadays (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting this discussion. The "purpose of this specific article" are to describe all facets of the article which reliable secondary sources deem relevant. Let's see how the specific sources that you chose (which we'd expect to be biased in favor of the channel based on your conflict of interest, if anything) cover the topic: "Bill O'Reilly's show...", "O'Reilly's 'No Spin News' to air", "Former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly gets new show", "ViacomCBS employees pressure Pluto TV to stop streaming new Bill O'Reilly show", "ViacomCBS Put 'I Can't Breathe' on Its Networks, Still Gives New Bill O'Reilly Show a Platform", "Bill O'Reilly Returns To TV As 'No Spin News' On OTT's The First". The few other secondary sources are less significant than most of the sources with these headlines. Thus, we see that the "purpose of this article" is mainly to cover Bill O'Reilly's relation to the network, since the topic wouldn't be notable otherwise. What was it that caused O'Reilly to begin this line of work? He was fired from Fox News in 2017. This isn't my opinion—this is a direct link drawn by most of the sources in the article. And thus that's the most major information to present. To quote myself at another discussion, if I can have a moment of such ego:
You must understand that you can't have it both ways in aiming to use sources with headlines "ViacomCBS employees pressure Pluto TV to stop streaming new Bill O'Reilly show" and "ViacomCBS Put 'I Can't Breathe' on Its Networks, Still Gives New Bill O'Reilly Show a Platform" as evidence of notability and also exclude the majority of those sources' information.
If anything, we're hardly giving enough weight to O'Reilly and these sexual harassment settlements as the content should be elaborated on in more detail under "Hosts". — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The First TV network was not built around O'Reilly, but started before bringing him on (and included other well known individuals like Dana Loesch and Buck Sexton before O'Reilly). The focus of this article is on the network and not about every host and their backgrounds. Yes, some of the sources focus on both O'Reilly and The First but the focus of this article is on The First and should only discuss O'Reilly to inform the reader about The First. I look forward to getting input from other uninvolved editors . D00dadays (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest the addition of an infobox to this article. Springee, if this looks alright to you, would you mind adding it? Thanks! D00dadays (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@D00dadays: you can make an edit request using {{Edit request}} rather than pinging particular edits (best practice as it avoids the appearance of you picking editors for a particular reason). Is the logo really non-free? It seems to me that it's simple enough to fall under Wikimedia Commons' "public domain logo" category but you'll have to evaluate the copyright yourself (I'm not a lawyer). Nonetheless I've commented out the logo for the time being as we cannot use images with fair use rationales on talk pages (if copying across to the article we obviously would use the logo proper). Additionally, note WP:ELMINOFFICIAL's Normally, only one official link is included so you'll either need to pick just one link (am I right that www.thefirsttv.com would be the most canonical?) or establish a consensus that this falls into one of the rare exceptional cases descriebd by the guideline. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Thanks for the tip about edit requests. Regarding the logo, I don't know if it meets the threshold of originality or not, so I decided a non-free license was safer in this case. But other editors who understand these rules better are free to decide otherwise. As for the external links, I followed the instructions at Template:Infobox television channel, which allows for one external link for the "website" parameter and up to five additional external "Watch live" links in the "Streaming media" section. See the infobox at Sky One for the specific example I used as a model. The particulars aside, I appreciate your effort to help improve this article and, of course, you're welcome to add the infobox to the article if you feel it makes the article better. D00dadays (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@D00dadays: notice that WP:NFCCP#1, "No free equivalent", means that a non-free license is not acceptable if the threshold of originality is not met. The infobox design or its usage at another article does not take precedent over WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, as guidelines are determined by the wider community with a lot of input but specialised infoboxes and individual articles are not always so (Sky One looks like a very low-quality article and is only rated Start-class at present). Notice also that the infobox design does not necessitate the usage of multiple links but could, for instance, just be there to allow it in the exceptional cases described in ELMINOFFICIAL (which I don't see how this article would meet). — Bilorv (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Thanks for your thoughts here. I've revised the infobox, with a logo uploaded through Wikicommons and without the availability links. Feel free to add the infobox to the article if you feel that it makes the article better. Thank you! D00dadays (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
