Talk:WRGB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television Stations  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Capital District (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capital District, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Capital District 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I removed the statement "WRGB does not mention this additional way of coverage." They do mention 87.7 FM reception, especially as a way to receive severe weather coverage. n2xjk 12:55, 30 August 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. — Moe ε 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible typo[edit]

Under history the article states 'The station also broadcasted on the frequency of 379.5 MHz'. I think this frequency is incorrect and 37.9MHz might have been intended, but as there are no references cited I can't check. John a s (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"WRGB's analog signal audio can be heard on 87.7 FM in most areas the video signal can be received (and some that it cannot). This is because of the electromagnetic field effect which puts the audio signal of channel 6 at the location of 87.75 MHz with tuners getting the signal at 87.7 FM." seems like gobbledygook. Yes, TV audio is frequency modulated and the sound carrier for NTSC channel 6 is 87.75 MHz, but there is no special "electromagnetic field effect" at work here that isn't applicable everywhere else. The channel 6 frequency allocation is directly below the 88-108MHz broadcast FM band and NTSC TV audio uses medium-bandwidth FM, so evidently an FM radio tuned to 87.75 will pick up audio. No magic required. ;) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC) I removed the statement quoted above. I agree that it is gobbledygook and it did not contribute to what is otherwise an interesting article on the history of this historic television station.1archie99 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible typo[edit]

On February 17, 2009 WRGB's digital signal on channel 39 will no longer be in transmission,it will move to digital channel 39 to channel 6. During WRGB's joint sales agreement (JSA) with WNYA, that station was offered on WRGB-DT2 (6.2). This was done because WNYA does not have a digital signal of its own. Current television listings continue to show that this arrangement still exists, even though the JSA expired in February of 2007.

Correction Request of sentence that does not make sense[edit]

Will someone please correct the following sentence under WGRB-DT.

On February 17, 2009 WRGB's digital signal on channel 39 will no longer be in transmission,it will move to digital channel 39 to channel 6.1archie99 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction made about 6 being the only low-band channel to remain there[edit]

I removed this sentence: "All other stations on the low-VHF have chosen to abandon (or will be removed from) their frequencies at the end of digital transition."

This sentence is incorrect. Nationwide, there are 25 channels in low-band that are staying on their current channel, 6 channels that are moving from one low-band channel to another low-band channel, and 9 channels moving into low-band slots. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc2idf (talkcontribs) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in the article. Not including this type of material in articles abides by current consensus and 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). thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)