Talk:WGN-TV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television Stations (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television stations 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Baseball / Cubs (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chicago Cubs.
 

Untitled[edit]

Is this level of disambiguation necessary? -- Zoe

I guess there is no reason to write down that its motto used to be "Chicago's very own channel 9"? 68.63.79.72 04:45, 13 December 2005

  • Too late. It's in the InfoBox. :) Wahkeenah 04:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Logos[edit]

Awesome collection of logos. Now if someone could find the logo from the early 60s showing the Prudential Building (assuming I'm remembering the correct station), that would be something. Then there was the one from the early 80s or so which showed WGN "orbiting" around the big 9, accompanied by, of all things, the opening instrumental notes from Roger Whittaker's "The Last Farewell"... Wahkeenah 12:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the logo you state from the 1960's - The station lost most of it's old video because of re-use of video tape until about the 1980's. It was a money saving move, but so much great video is lost forever because of it.

The 1980's orbiting logo I don't recall - I have video tapes back to 1982, (this is how WGN got most of their old video, from collectors, they had to be wealthy to have video recorders prior to 1980.)

1980 News had a logo of a similar to what you state, but believe it was just a white star like dot, unless my TV reception was that bad back then. WGN used to come in quite good though. The logo was shared with the Independent News (from New York's WPIX Tribune station) though not the same as the WGN version. Kidsheaven 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:A Man In Black, the logos have been deleted from Wikipedia, claiming that they violate policy. I notice that he violated policy himself by immediately deleting the images and not waiting the 7 days and notifying the uploader as required by WP:CSD. Please see discussion on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries to help determine how to resolve the general issue. DHowell 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"turner time?"[edit]

No mention of their former practice of starting programs at :05 and :35 rather than on the hour; Do they still do this? when did they start & stop?

  • You must be thinking of TBS Superstation. There, Turner Time was used from 1983-1997, and still used on a semi-regular basis (specifically when re-running SATC.

Be on the lookout...[edit]

A editor using the IP address "75.3.82.7" has been poorly editing this article by making various stylistic errors. I have re-reverted back to previous (stylistically correct) versions but this user continues to flip back to their version, which can be considered as vandalism. Rollosmokes 07:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding...[edit]

Didn't realize "Rollosmokes" was assigned as the sole editor of this page. If so, he should consider confirming his claims before posting. Contacting WGN-TV would be a good start. He'll find the corrections that were made by "75.3.82.7" were actually corrections and not "vandalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.82.7 (talkcontribs) 10:29, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

The problem that I'm having is with the many changes in style that this unknown editor has been making in their effort to "correct" this article. They are as follows:

  • there is no -AM suffix attached to WGN radio officially, so it does not belong here.
  • Single-digit numbers, in most cases, should be written in word form and not numerically.
  • The word channel should have a lower-case "c" and not an upper-case "C" when not starting a sentence (this is basic grammar).
  • Your additions are full of redundancy, such as your repeated mentions of "WGN-TV Channel 9 and WGN-DT Channel 9.1", and your insistence to add "WGN-DT" in other places.

In a nutshell, you (whomever you claim to be) are a poor editor with no idea on how to write an article, what to change and what not to change. You don't even have the bravery to take accountability for your "work" by registering with Wikipedia and getting a screenname. But it doesn't matter, because you can still be blocked. And I will continue to revert this article as long as I continue to see your vandalism. Rollosmokes 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism so Rollosmokes and 75.3.82.7 becareful about WP:3RR rule. 75.3.82.7 please see WP:MOS before you revert further. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to last posting by "Rollosmokes":

  • Since he identified WGN Radio's channel position as "720", I added that it was on the "AM" dial.
  • Single-digit numbers, in most cases, should be written in word form and not numerically. But television channel positions, whether they're single-digit or not, in most cases, are written numerically and not word form.
  • The word channel should have an upper-case "C" and not a lower-case "c" when identifying a television channel position (this is journalistic grammar).
  • "WGN-TV Channel 9" and "WGN-DT Channel 9.1" are separate.

As for the remaining corrections "Rollosmokes" didn't refer to here, I also stand by them. I've never been in a pissing match with anyone on Wikipedia before. Apparently, I'm not the first that has with "Rollosmokes." Instead of stooping to name-calling, threats and false accusations as he has, and since he obviously has much more free time on his hands than I, I'm going to walk away from this and let him post whatever he chooses. I only suggest, again, that he not only researches but confirms his claims before he permanently posts them. Thanks.

Trivia[edit]

How is The Weatherman's station based off of wgn? It's definitely not clear to me.

The station let the producers of the film use their studios for the weather segments, and gave clearance to them for a modified logo/channel to fit their movie. The same thing was done between Life or Something Like It and Seattle's KOMO-TV. Nate 03:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't show you any link to it, but it was actually filmed at the Bradley Place Studio of WGN-News. They had promotional (news) segments added around the release of that film and Tom Skilling did participate and is listed it the credits of the movie. That he would want to be associated with the film is sort of questionable to me, however for over $1,000,000 a year he will do almost anything. He did work with a puppet in Milwaukee at Channel-6 before coming to the Chicago market. Tom stated "the puppet used to receive more fan mail than he did". Reference Source WGN-TV segment on station history and WTTW- Chicago Tonight. Kidsheaven 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link on Tom Skilling getting out of Jury Duty: [1] Kidsheaven 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FCC RULES-Subject to comment[edit]

I don't know if the person posting personal comment about being sad that the Tribune Company might be split-up. IF you read this it is not what is allowed by rules for the NPOV rules on the Wiki article page. *** The place where you placed the comment was after the text of the FCC seeking comment on such cross ownership rules that allow the TRIBUNE company to own a TV-Radio-Newspaper combo in Chicago and TV-Newspaper in New York and temporary rule for such markets as L.A., and others. Don't feel it is any insult to your comment. I have similar opinion, but only on the discussion page can it be placed other than mentioning comments that are published in other forums- I.E.> use source reference to Editorial by Joe Q. Publisher in the website, newspaper, book, TV, or other reference.

You can however send your comments to the FCC at the link or to a newspaper owned by the Tribune company kidsheaven 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FCC Comments Link [1]'FCC current rules - subject to comment at present' Sorry if anyone looking in the edit section or reference thought this was to put comments on the WGN-TV article section. kidsheaven 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Florida[edit]

This station is broadcast as one of the basic cable channels in Florida and has been for 15-20 years now. I grew up watching the Bulls and Cubs game on it. This isn't mentioned I'll insert it by next weekend if it's not put in by then. Quadzilla99 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah I was thinking of Superstation WGN I see. Quadzilla99 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria[edit]

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them.—Κaiba 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization dispute[edit]

TV9 and Rollosmokes, please. Either try and give discussion another go or move to the other steps in the dispute resolution process. Morgan Wick 19:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried discussion, and it didn't work. "TV9" seems to be very stubborn on getting his way, despite the possible WP:COI problems that may exist. Dispute resolution is very likely for this "very minor, but major" problem. Rollosmokes 05:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Call Stations[edit]

I'm curious, how many channels in the country have a three letter call sign? CBS in my city is WBBM, NBC is WMAQ, although, ABC in chicago is WLS, but there aren't many more that i know of. Anyone know of any more? i don't think there are a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavasthma91 (talkcontribs) 21:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wgn2001 a.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Wgn2001 a.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...[edit]

Recent edits made to this article on February 21, 2008, have proven one thing: no matter who attempts to make as much as a single solitary change here of any kind, be trusted that TV9 will do everything make sure no one else edits the article unless it is done in a manner which (s)he approves. Some of us are guilty of that once and a while, but there has to be a level of reason. TV9 has no reason, and I'm tired of being singled out by him/her.

First, let's go to the logo pictures. RingtailedFox added logos (s)he found off some website (the name of which escapes me right now) on October 26, 2007. ([2]) No one touched the logo pictures from that point until today, when I modified the look of the gallery by importing a format similar to ones I've see elsewhere on Wikipedia (and plugged into the WJW-TV article). I also eliminated some redundant pictures that feature the same logo only with different backgrounds. (The fact that RingtailedFox uploads every single logo associated with the station -- even the same logos with different backgrounds -- is something I wish (s)he would pay more attention to, but I'm digressing.)

The article has been edited 61 times between now and then. TV9 edited the article only three times in that time span. Since (s)he is suspected of being a sockpuppet, it's quite possible the same user may have edited other times using unregistered IP addresses. But TV9 never touched any of the pictures until after I modified the logo gallery. The WGN corporate logos were used on-air by channel 9; these two clips ([3], [4]) show the WGN "Globe" in use, and the 1967 logo included the main WGN logo, so their inclusion in the gallery is valid. This is an accurate edit that was changed unnecessarily, in my opinion, out of spite against me.

Secondly, on the ongoing "The" vs. "the" issue. TV9 accused me of vandalism for changing the words in a comment he made on Azumanga1's talk page recently. It is simply a correction of grammar, and TV9 still doesn't seem to understand that. I made other minor changes to the article at that time and the were all reverted to TV9's preferred version. No matter what he or anyone else says, The should not be capitalised when it appears within a sentence. All writing style guides will tell you the same thing (man, I sound like a broken record here). And, this may comes to a shock to TV9, but not everyone refers to the CW as "The CW". The Penguin Handbook advises writers to "captalize the initial letters of proper nouns." The word the is used as a "function word", a preposition, or an adjective, but it is not a proper noun, and nothing is said there (or in any other style guide) that it should be capitalised within a sentence.

As writers, we all should be aware of proper usage of style and grammar, regardless of anything else -- PERIOD. The sooner we all understand this, the better off we all will be. TV9 needs to stop nitpicking and stop trying to claim the article as his/her own. Rollosmokes (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, recent as well as past edits to this and other articles edited by Rollosmokes have proven that no matter who attempts to make as much as a single solitary change to any article that he treats as his own, be trusted that he will do everything to make sure no one else edits those articles unless it is done in a manner which he approves.
Rollosmokes has been repeatedly instructed by Wikipedia editors to cease reverting "The CW" and "The WB" to "the CW" and "the WB" since "The" is part of the name of each network, regardless of his incorrect claims that "the" should never be capitalized within a sentence even if it is a name or title. "The CW" and "The WB" are even capitalized within the sentences of their own respective Wikipedia articles. Instead, Rollosmokes has again chosen to disregard the editors' instructions and resumed edit warring on February 13, 2008.
As for your complaint about my deletion of the two logos, I did so because those were not exclusive WGN-TV logos. Those logos were for "WGN Continental Broadcasting Company", which included WGN Radio. I did not do so to spite you. In fact, I will compromise and not delete those logos.
As for your "sock puppet" remark, I've never pretended to be someone else. As I've previously stated, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I did not sign in every time I went on or edited on Wikipedia until a few months ago when I was instructed by Azumanga1 that it was always a requirement before editing.
As for my recent abscence from editing on Wikipedia, I don't spend a lot of time on the website but when I do notice an error, I will correct it. TV9 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that TV9 is a WGN employee or something, but the changes he's been making look legitimate. The logos themselves, which Rollosmokes has been defending elsewhere, say "The WB" and "The CW" in them. Other nitpicky stuff, such as (Which...) vs. (which...) - the second one would seem to be correct. I don't see where any of TV9's changes have any connection to any alleged "conflict of interest". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've been saying here time and time again, it's proper grammar: the function word The should never be capitalized within a sentence. Heck, the use of the isn't even mandatory in titles. Every major writing style guide will tell you that. If we want Wikipedia to be all it can be -- and be taken seriously by more outsiders -- small stuff like this needs to be taken care of.
And, TV9 has outed him/herself as an employee of Tribune Company -- this user first edited using a Tribune-registered IP address, so there is a conflict of interest here. For the sake of proper writing style, I'm reverting back. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No matter who his employer is, he has the right to make grammatical corrections. I don't see that any of his changes have any connection to any alleged conflict of interest. And as far as I know, a title that begins with "The" is supposed to be capitalized. An example would be The Sporting News (which now calls itself Sporting News). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"The CW", when used by itself, is a valid title and begins with a capital "T", as indicated on its own page. When talking about it in a sentence, "the CW Network" seems OK. That's like The Chicago Tribune as a standalone title, vs. "the Tribune". Likewise "Channel 9" (in the context of comparing with another station's call letters) is a title and gets a capital "C" (earlier, when simply referring to which channel WGN-TV was assigned to, it's properly lower case). I put Frazier in parentheses for consistency. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ordinarily, Rollo, you're correct about the word "the" in a sentence. However, in the case of "The CW Television Network", "The CW", "The WB Television Network" and "The WB", the word "the" is a part of the title, and specifically the first word of the title, so in this case, it should be capitalized. dhett (talk contribs) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain specifically, for each item, what your problem is with the edits, and how those edits in any way reflect an alleged "conflict of interest". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone loses their carrots...[edit]

My reasons for deleting the information on the LATV subchannel are discussed in Talk:WPIX. But I'll copy my comment from there:

I removed the information for one main reason -- the subchannel is scheduled to begin carrying LATV later in 2008. None of these articles ([5], [6]) mention when LATV will begin on the subchannel, and I can't verify that it's on the air myself, as I don't have access to any DTV signals at home. When LATV puts (affected Tribune station) on its affiliate list ([7]), or when (affected Tribune station) plugs LATV on its website, then those official sources should be credited. But, if it isn't officially launched yet, let's not be presumtive.

It's a digital subchannel, and it's not a major network affiliation, so it should not be treated as a big deal. Once the Tribune stations announce a date for launching LATV, then fine. Get dates and then put the info back up. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your continual "grammatical" reversions of "The WB" and such. That is proper usage. There is no grammatical issue with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh (munching on a carrot), read this, Doc. You missed it, it's in the above section:
"The should not be capitalised when it appears within a sentence. All writing style guides will tell you the same thing (man, I sound like a broken record here)...Not everyone refers to the CW as "The CW". The Penguin Handbook advises writers to "captalize the initial letters of proper nouns." The word the is used as a "function word", a preposition, or an adjective, but it is not a proper noun, and nothing is said there (or in any other style guide) that it should be capitalised within a sentence. As writers, we all should be aware of proper usage of style and grammar, regardless of anything else -- PERIOD. The sooner we all understand this, the better off we all will be."
That's my reasoning, and I'm sticking to it. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As several of have told you "The WB" is a title, and should be capitalized. And I don't care that "not everyone" calls it "The WB". The company calls itself that, and that's what counts. And you know it calls itself that from the contents of the logos you keep defending. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And you all are still missing the point: Regardless of whether or not it refers to a title, it's still incorrect use of grammar. When leading off a sentence, it's "The CW", but when it's not leading off, it's "the CW" -- no capital T. Read the style guides, then come back and re-argue your point. And, should you revert back, Doc, do not remove the very valid digital television section. Rollosmokes (talk)
And I say you're wrong. But in any case, stop changing it in the infobox. Its use there is a standalone, and "The CW" is absolutely correct there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And also, "The WB". Ironically, if you had let the deletionists have their way, you would be in better position to make your argument. The logos say "The CW", therefore that's what it is. It doesn't matter that "not everyone" calls it "The CW". That's what they call it, and it is they who define their corporate name, not someone else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And its placement in the infobox is not a sentence, it's strictly a title. And you also have yet to explain where the alleged "conflict of interest" by that one user figures into it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate - those networks called themselves "The CW" and "The WB". That is their title, not "CW" and "WB". They choose what their title is, not you or anyone else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this is sort of old news now, but uh... Has anyone brought up proper capitalization for, let's say, The Wind in the Willows? It would be improper for me to say, "Man, I really liked the movie version of the Wind in the Willows when I was a kid," as would it be if I said, "I wonder if, as an adult, I would appreciate the book version of the Wind in the Willows." This is not rocket science. Rollosmokes can find CW's decision to brand themselves as The CW to be pretentious and retarded (as do I), but Wikipedia doesn't get to decide on that. (Now, If I Were King(TM), I would change that right away! heh...) So... yeah, does anybody agree with Rollosmokes?! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You are 100 percent correct on all counts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Former On-Air Talent Dates[edit]

If anyone has the dates all of the former on-ar talent were with the station please feel free to add them in. That seems to be the only important thing missing form this article. I feel it would really add to the article if those dates could be added in . Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFAN24 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the WGN website might cover that info, or at least some of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Headings[edit]

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.

Also, I have removed some gratuitous use of boldfacing per WP:BOLDFACE. Ground Zero | t 11:20, 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 (talkcontribs)

News team[edit]

This list of names seems to fall squarely into WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The section was largely unsourced and knowing the names of everyone that does or ever has worked for WGN-TV is not necessary for improving a reader's knowledge of the article's subject. Further, having this section makes the article unnecessarily long, risking the article being difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend, as that one section alone was over 8KB of information that does not further the understanding of the article's subject. - SudoGhost 19:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this opinion b/c Chicago is a very big market and a lot of people would like to know of all of the personalities associated with WGN especially b/c it is a superstation. We just removed the list of all the former personalities. I think the list of all the current personalites deserves to be there and should be there. Also, every other station includes all of the current on air staff and it shouldn't be excluded until a consensus is reached. TVFAN24 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no basis for "a lot of people would like to know of all of the personalities associated with WGN especially b/c it is a superstation." and such a list is exactly the kind of pointless over-detail covered in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm sure there are "a lot of people" that would like to know things such as a company's phone number, but those also don't belong on Wikipedia. There's also the fact that aside from (I believe) two names, the entire section was unsourced. The fact that people "would like to know it" does not make it eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, and it adds absolutely no value to the article. It in no way furthers the understanding of the article's subject, and does not belong in the article. If there is some other basis for inclusion I would welcome it, but the fact that someone might like to know it is not a reason to include it, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - SudoGhost 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think it should be left as is until more opinions are expressed on this talk page. Are other news stations personalities going to be removed as well??? TVFAN24 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has experienced this situation many times before, I am of the same opinion of SudoGhost. I know Chicago is a big market, heck I've been there, I have family there. I have a hard time thinking a lot of people would want to know or even care about all of the personalities associated with WGN, regardless of it is a super station or not. I would just stick with notable personalities only, and not list every single person who has ever walked through the doors of the station. My point is, is it notable? Did the person contribute a history making deal to the station? If not, I don't see importance. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sudoghost, do you think that cast lists on television shows, movies, broadway plays, etc., fall under WP:NOTEVERYTHING? Because I think that's the logic on including current on-air personalities--they're basically the "cast" of the news programs. Since its really impossible to tease apart the notability of a station and its local news program, custom has always been to list those on the same page. Furthermore, as far as I know, every TV station page contains a list of current on-air personalities. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, but if the practice is universal, that implies wide-scale acceptance. Now, I can actually see the logic of trying to make a project-wide agreement to limit the list, possibly only to main news anchors, but that would be a touchy issue and one best covered on a larger basis than one article--for instance, in some markets, the weather anchor may actually get nearly as much airtime as the main anchors.
However, the unsourced issue is different. For current staff, we should presumably be able to provide a single link to the TV station web page that lists or indirectly connects to all of the current on-air staff (TVFAN24, if you could check for that, it would be helpful). For former staff, the standing rule, based on discussion at WT:WikiProject Television Stations, WP:NLIST, and WP:V, is that all people on such lists need verification that they are important and actually worked at the station. It's fine if the verification is on their target page (which is why unsourced redlinks or non-links are always removed), but it wouldn't hurt to move it here. If the target page does not verify (with a reliable source) that the person worked at WGN-TV, the name is supposed to be removed. Simply having a wikipage is already an indication of importance (in that the person has been deemed or presumed notable), but technically WP:NLIST has a stricter requirement--that people must be important enough to be described in prose in this article. That is, they're supposed to be "important" to WGN, not just generally notable. Dealing with that issue would be so difficult and painful that I've personally never tried to get into it, and have just gone after the low-hanging fruit (removing those w/o wikipages or refs).
So, Sudoghost, will you accept inclusion of the current staff if we can get a source of the TV station webpage to verify it? Or do you still think it needs to be limited? And to Sudoghost & TVFAN24, where do you stand on the "importance" issue of former staff? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding stubborn, I think it would be better to use a third-party source for that information. Using your example of movies and Broadway plays, those are (to the best of my knowledge) all verified by reliable, third-party sources, not sources directly affiliated with the article's subject. That way only the notable cast members are listed, and not the entire cast and crew, which can be hundreds of people. Concerning this section, I think if a person is not notable enough to have a reliable, third-party source, then it isn't notable enough for the article. That way it avoids falling into WP:NOTEVERYTHING and gives appropriate weight to notable individuals , as each entry would be shown to be notable in regards to WGN-TV. If each name was backed up by a reliable, third-party source, I would have absolutely no objection to the names being listed, but as it stands it just seems like a list that doesn't really belong, because merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. - SudoGhost 00:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed your question about the former staff. If there is a reliable-third party source that verifies that the individual was a member of the staff and that the individual's time there was notable, then it should be listed, without a doubt. Otherwise, I don't really think it belongs. A primary source from the website on this issue would probably not work, because if it does verify the person working there, of course they're going to say good things about the person and how important they were to WGN-TV, I doubt there will be a reference from WGN-TV saying "That guy wasn't important and we're glad he's gone." It's going to say something along the lines of "Person X was a valuable member of the team and so important..." and so on. For that reason I think a primary source in this regard would not be appropriate for establishing the notability/importance of a individual that was formerly part of the staff. My issue with both sections can be summed up as an issue of notability, not merely verification. I don't doubt that people work there, but are all of those people notable enough to be listed? This is why I'm of the opinion that the list as it stands falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Important people should be listed, but if they are important enough to be listed, then finding a reliable, third-party source will not be an issue. Using the film example, sure, the major cast will be listed in an article because they are notable, but I can't recall seeing a best boy grip in any film article. Listing important people in a film is useful knowledge, because they are notable people (typically). Listing a best boy grip is not useful information, it's just a random name, with no weight behind it. That's why I removed the sections, because I felt the list was not useful, but merely a list of random names, with no rhyme or reason as to why the names were on the article, other than the fact that it can presumably be proven that these people exist. - SudoGhost 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel the former staff is of importance. I still feel that all of the former staff should be listed but b/c of opposing views on that subject, I guess the way it stands now with just the notablees can stay as is. TVFAN24 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree about third party sources. That is for me at least, one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia is being able to source it by multiple 3rd party sources, not first hand from WGN's website. If there is a list of all those names that is not found on the WGN website, then fine, add them in. If its copy-paste off of WGN's website, then I have problems. It borders on a BLP issue, which I know you've run into before TVFAN. As it stands, it is my opinion that the WGN-TV article needs to be split into smaller sections because its frankly a mile long, especially with the personalities. I don't care who a general manager or the janitor is, we shouldn't list all the people who work for WGN on Wikipedia to begin with. There are other standards on Wikipedia that explain what I'm trying to say better. An example in your case TVFAN would be WP:LIKE. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 01:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Cast lists on TV shows and movies are never verified by any source, as far as I know. This is a case where WP:SPS definitely says that the source is fine. If a TV show has the name of an actor in the credits, or on the DVD box set, or on its webpage, there is no question that this is a reliable source to prove that that actor was in that show as that character. WGN's website is completely reliable with respect to who works for their company. It's not reliable for their importance, or the rating of their news program, or their operating budget, but it is reliable for their on air staff. Again, I hate to raise OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm pretty sure that listing on air staff is standard at every single TV station page, and I have a lot of them on my watchlist (due to ongoing vandalism and insertion of unsourced former staff). I really feel that we would need a centralized discussion to remove them. I just ran an RfC on the Wikiproject page, and I couldn't even get agreement to remove news station slogans that are decades old and essentially unverifiable (unless someone has access to the old recordings in the studio's vault somewhere). I guess what I'm saying is that since what defines a local television stations in many cases is its news reporting (since very few other programs are produced locally nowadays), and since the "performers" on the news shows are a large portion of what differentiates news programs, the identities of on air news staff is integral to what makes WGN, or any TV station, notable and different from its competitors. Would you like me to start an RfC on this, and, if so, where would you like me to do it (here? Wikiproject TV Stations? Somewhere else?)? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect, the fact that many articles are done a certain way is not a reason for all articles to be done that way, especially as that seems to be the only reason to keep this unsightly list. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument as used does not provide a sufficient reason to keep this list, and unless I've overlooked something, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to be the only argument for keeping it. If this list doesn't fall under WP:NOTEVERYTHING, nothing does. Individuals that have reliable, third-party sources backing them can help inform the user about the article's subject, but an overly long list of random names cannot possibly accomplish the goal of informing the reader of the article's subject. The only thing this list does is inform the reader that people (that just happen to have names) work at the station, which is a given. It also has the added benefit of making the article unnecessarily long, increasing the likelihood of a reader losing interest due to scrolling through all of these random names. - SudoGhost 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I tagged it as such. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and that article is by far one of the longest TV station articles I have ever seen. While it is true, almost everyone knows what WGN is, not everyone is going to want to scroll through that many names. I say this with absolutely no connection to SudoGhost. I am merely an outsider looking in, and this popped up on my watch list, so I wanted to add my 2 cents. Hope this helps. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 02:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, SudoGhost, did you read my explanation of why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has to be applied carefully here? I'm not saying "Hey, look at articles X, Y, and Z--see, they do it too!" I'm saying that literally every other US broadcast television station article has a list of their on-air staff. In other words, it's a standard across the entire topic. Now, I don't approve of walled gardens (that a narrow project can define special rules for itself), but, I am arguing that knowledge of the on air staff is integral to the identity of a tv station. If a movie were deemed notable for whatever reason, but one or more of its principal staff (actors, directors, etc.) were not, we would not leave them off of the list simply because they were not. Also, you are wrong to state that a third party source must be provided--nothing in WP:V requires third party sources--nothing at all. It does require a source, but a self-published source is perfectly acceptable as long as it meets WP:SPS. As such, I have added a citation to the company's list of newscasters. I undid your removal, but I only included those people that are listed in the reference (e.g., some of the reporters seem to not be regular staff members, so they're not on the WGN web-page, so I did not re-add them). At this point, if you are still convinced this meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING, please start an RfC or other centralized discussion (Village Pump? There's not really a WP:NOT noticeboard). Given that I don't know of any tv station that doesn't list on air staff, it seems that community consensus currently supports inclusion, so it's up to you to show that consensus is wrong/has changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't suggest that WP:V requires third-party sources, but rather that notability requires third-party sources, and that for that section verifiability doesn't seem to be enough. I can verify a great many things that don't belong on Wikipedia, but specifically listing every person that appears on a primary sources' website or that has ever worked on camera for a specific station appears to fall squarely into WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and if it was notable enough for mention on a Wikipedia article, than finding a third-party source would not be an issue.
I've looked, but as far as I can tell, the consensus at WikiProject Television Stations is that these sections belong, but that the personalities in the list generally need to have their own article/be notable in some meaningful way (awards, etc.), or they don't belong. However, what I was able to find[8][9][10] is more than a couple of years old, so if there is a newer consensus that says otherwise, please let me know, because I was unable to find anything newer. Especially concerning the former staff, the consensus seems to be even more strict in that regard, that if they aren't notable they don't belong. - SudoGhost 02:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that the consensus on former staff is to demand a wikipage and/or references to verify they worked there and that they are "important". Notability as a concept/guideline doesn't apply in any way to article sections--it's strictly a measurement for deciding on whether or not something can have its own article. There are a huge number of things covered in WP articles that aren't notable enough for a stand-alone article but that are, in fact, important enough for inclusion inside of an article. There are really three main policies that I can think of that apply here. One, as you've noted, is WP:NOT; it is possible to argue that the inclusion of a long list of current staff members is simply outside of what we should do as an "encyclopedia". The second is WP:NLIST, which is part of the WP:Notability (people) guideline. It says in part "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)." In other words, we shouldn't include anyone in any of these lists unless they're important enough to be described in prose. Finally, WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV, says we should make sure that no part of an article (no opinion, no section, no set of images, etc.) is being covered in too large an extent, in a way that overwhelms the rest of the article.
So, it is certainly the case that there are arguments for limiting the current staff lists. I have no problem with the current general practice that says that whatever is verified by the station's website is legit for inclusion. However, I would also personally be willing to accept a more limited idea. I don't think we should go so far as to require third party sources, as that's pushing farther than we normally require for info in articles. But I could agree with saying something like "Lists of current staff should include only current full-time news anchors (i.e., not "fill-ins", along with other personnel who are notable at least in part for their work at the current station." So, that would mean that we don't include every reporter, sportscaster, etc., but if a reporter has won a local Emmy (as verified on their wikipage), then they belong; similarly, if a weather forecaster is somehow widely known, they could also be included. Personally, I would prefer that such a decision be made on a wider scale than just the WGN article, but I understand that that could be difficult. So, Sudoghost & Milonica, what do you feel about that inclusion criteria? Or do you have another one to offer? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with that criteria completely. Personally if it was completely up to me, I'd go with something a bit more limited, but (fortunately) Wikipedia doesn't work off of what one person wants. I think that listing criteria is a good balance between having a list of everyone possible, and having nobody listed at all. - SudoGhost 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

Concerning the IP's recent additions, please see the above discussion for why the material was taken out, as anything I would say as to why the material was removed would simply be a duplication of the content above. If you would like to discuss this material, please feel free to discuss it here. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the conversation is quite long, so to give a short version, the consensus at WikiProject Television Stations is that these lists of individuals belong, but that the personalities in the list generally need to have their own article, or have to be notable in some meaningful way (awards, etc.), or they don't belong. Although not set in stone, the result of the conversation (thus far) seems to be summed up in Qwyrxian's comment: "Lists of current staff should include only current full-time news anchors (i.e., not "fill-ins", along with other personnel who are notable at least in part for their work at the current station." So, that would mean that we don't include every reporter, sportscaster, etc., but if a reporter has won a local Emmy (as verified on their wikipage), then they belong; similarly, if a weather forecaster is somehow widely known, they could also be included. - SudoGhost 03:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WGN Sports[edit]

Considering the issues with article length on the article WGN-TV, would it be possible to split the sports programming subsection under "Programming" into a separate article that backlinks to the main article? I only make this suggestion considering the fact that WGN-TV is undoubtedly known for its sports programming within the Chicago area and nationally due to its superstation feed WGN America. WGN-TV also probably has a more storied history with its sports programming than other local television stations, considering their carriage of Chicago Cubs and White Sox baseball, and Chicago Bulls basketball; along with carriage of other Chicago-area sports teams. In addition, to prevent the article from having solely a local perspective, given its national presence, information could also be provided given the carriage of sports programming on the superstation feed (such as a period during the mid-1990s when the superstation feed was not allowed to carry Bulls games outside of Chicago, which led to a court case (that was ruled in favor of WGN) to allow Bulls games to air nationally). There also would have to be additional information added, but to the extent that it doesn't sound like it was written as an advertisement. TVtonightOKC (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you be bold and make the split. Also, some of the content in the Max Headroom pirating incident could be removed to the separate article. Op47 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)