From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


neutrally 23:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


This page has always had a dispute over WOIO's ratings. On one hand, they are indeed the lowest rated station and I feel it is necessary to report that (insteading of "dancing around" it with by saying things like "the 5 days most advertisers buy from, WOIO still had a significant lead). On the other hand, this should not be a place to bash WOIO (former text: all of WOIO's newscasts were dead last).

I agree.

Actually, the "5 days" sentence can be taken out because the onkly thing it adds is a biased view of the ratings situation. Nagaflas 18:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You want my opinion? Almost all the stuff that refers to ratings, positively or negatively, should be dumped. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for a blow-by-blow description of how good or bad WOIO's ratings are from time slot to time slot. This will also fix much of the NPOV stuff, too. MPWard 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, its all true. For that reason it should not be questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:22, 18 May 2006

Being true does not make it also NPOV. Facts can be twisted and selectively chosen to meet certain goals. Morgan Wick 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WOIO Weather[edit]

I would love to find out more information on, and see an actual picture of WOIO's FIRST ALERT Doppler, which was formerly known as Dominion Dual Doppler XL, then Dominion Dual Doppler.Also would like to know more about their ACTION NEWSChopper! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2007 (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 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. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WEWS-TV relevant discussion[edit]

Please see Talk:WEWS-TV#Staff for relevant discussion on how to handle information on past and present station personalities.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"nude photo shoot" reference[edit]

I removed the reference to "having an employee participate in a nude photo shoot in 2004" because there was no citation or detail offered. The only incident I can think of involving a WOIO employee is the Catherine Bosley situation, and that doesn't seem an appropriate reference in this article because it happened before Bosley was hired by WOIO -- she was working for a Youngstown station. Also, she wasn't "participating in a nude photo shoot." She was on vacation and took off her clothes during a wet T-shirt content. Someone in attendance happened to take pictures and post them on the internet. So, it wasn't really a "photo shoot" in that it wasn't planned, and it also had nothing to do with her TV station, which fired her over it. So if this is a reference to a separate incident, there should be some kind of detail if it's going to be included in this article. Acsenray (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gib Shanley[edit]

I included Gib Shanley in the notable alumni section.

WOIO began their newscasts in Feb. 1995. Since they already bought out WUAB, they merely just absorbed their news team to do the WOIO newscasts.

Shanley did the 10 O'Clock News on 43 until '96, but would occasionally pop up on 19 to do fill-in work and commentaries.

Long story short, since 19 absorbed 43's news staff, anybody working for 43 in Feb 1995 automatically became part of the WOIO news team, including Shanley.

Vjmlhds 14:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source to verify these claims. Levdr1lp (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


The issue here is the wording and content of this article's lead. I was satisfied with the version in place before today, because, well, I wrote it. I thought it fairly and adequately summarized the more defining aspects of this station in a concise, readable way. However, at least one other editor has demonstrated a concern w/ the lead as it was written, so I would appreciate it if he and other editors would help reach a consensus on what exactly should be in it, and how exactly it should be worded. Levdr1lp / talk 02:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All I tried to do was streamline things to make it shorter and more concise. Basically, why say in 20 words what can be said in 10? I referred to it as trying to make things "less clunky"...what that means is just getting from point A to point B in more of a straight line. And I also tried to adjust my original edit to satisfy any concerns that were pointed out to me. I wasn't trying to get into an edit war, just trying to fix my edit to where everybody was happy. It wasn't just a straight up back and forth/tit-for-tat, It was more of a case of trying to figure out a way to make the article better, while still respecting concerns of others. And I maybe reading too much into it, but it just has a feeling to me that there's a little WP:Ownership issue going on here, because nothing I tried to do was good enough, and the first editor just went back to his version, no matter how many ways I tried address any concerns. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Vjmlhds- personally I think it's a little ridiculous to accuse me of ownership when both you and I came right to the edge of violating WP:3RR. Now that we're discussing the matter, let's try to avoid such accusations and focus on content specifics, okay? Regarding the lead, I noticed that there is barely any difference between my version and the current version as edited by Vjmlhds (the "call letters' meaning" field in the infobox was never an issue). The conflict seems to center around placement of the station's channel numbers -- both the digital number (which, since the digital transition, corresponds to the frequency the station actually uses for transmission) and the virtual number (which corresponds to the frequency formerly used for transmission). I don't necessarily have a problem w/ placing these two numbers in parentheses after the boldface "WOIO", but I feel there must be some additional clarification that the station: a) broadcasts a digital signal; b) identifies by a different ("virtual") channel number; and c) that the station also broadcasts in high definition. Simply listing these numbers without some kind of context does readers a disservice. Removing any references to VHF and PSIP is just as problematic. All of these are crucial to one's understanding of this subject. Levdr1lp / talk 04:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I only brought up WP:Ownership because your first sentence had a vibe of "I wrote the heading, I liked it, he edited it, how dare he?!" It's not ridiculous to have an opinion of how something looks. As far as the virtual/digital thing goes, I just think that here we are over 4 years after the digital transition, that a long drawn out explanation in the heading explaining PSIP and all the rest of it isn't necessary. Providing wikilinks to virtual channel and digital channel is sufficient enough for people to find out what they mean..."What's a digital channel? Oh here's the link." Also, the "Cleveland/Akron" thing was something I did to convey that these stations serve both cities, as Akron is the 2nd biggest part of the Cleveland TV market. Radio wise, the 2 cities are separate markets, but for TV they are considered in the same market, which is why I think "Cleveland/Akron" (or "Akron/Cleveland" when a station is licensed to Akron) works here. And on another point of contention, it's easier to say station "Wxxx is located in and licensed to Cleveland", rather than needing two or three sentences to convey the same thing. One sentence - short and sweet. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to fault someone for doing essentially the same thing you yourself are doing. But whatever. Again, let's stick to the content in the lead. A brief sentence stating (not "explaining") that there is a digital channel which the station actually transmits over is essential to one's understanding of this or any other non-LP local TV station. The fact these stations universally identify by their former channel numbers only reinforces the need to communicate this to readers. WOIO has only ever existed because the FCC has allowed it to broadcast over a specific frequency corresponding to a specific channel number. Recently the FCC changed the station's channel assignment. Don't you think knowing that little fact is important to readers? That WOIO has a digital channel, and that WOIO actually broadcasts over this digital channel? No one is arguing for a "drawn out explanation", but there must be a simple acknowledgment of this fact. Listing the digital and virtual channels side by side without clarification will only confuse readers; only one of the two is the actual RF signal assigned by the FCC, and readers need to know the difference. As for the coverage area, the station identifies itself w/ Cleveland, not Akron. Moreover, Akron is not the only other area (metro or otherwise) served by WOIO. "Greater Cleveland" and "surrounding parts of Northeast Ohio" more accurately describes the station's viewing area; "Cleveland/Akron" is, for lack of a better word, a clunky (and incomplete) description. Lastly, my version never said the station was "in Cleveland"; rather, that version said the station is "licensed to Cleveland", and that the WOIO studios (not WOIO itself -- the WOIO studios) are located in "Downtown Cleveland". The station and its studios are two different things, so obviously they cannot be the same subject. Levdr1lp / talk 05:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
White flag waving.svg At the end of the day, it's not that big of an issue to fight over...I'll drop it if you drop it, and I'll let your version stand. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I would rather reach a compromise. I will try to incorporate your changes in a new, slightly modified version. Levdr1lp / talk 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
My biggest thing was that the heading wasn't the place for all the technical jargon about PSIP and the difference in virtual and physical channel. That stuff can be explained in the body of the article, especially when going over the digital transition. I was always under the impression that the main philosophy on the headings is that they should be a quick and basic summary of the subject, with all the details saved for the meat of the article. As I stated earlier, this isn't something I wanted to have a big ta-doo about, all I was after was a nice, clean heading, that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the "technical jargon" and any explanation of the digital/virtual channel differences. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Levdr1lp / talk 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI-- the general format is based on the leads to KTLA and WCBS-TV. Levdr1lp / talk 19:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Syndicated shows[edit]

I am in the process of removing syndicated shows for this and other televison station websites. This is considered fan cruft and not notable. Please see my talk page for more information. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@ACMEWikiNet: Be that as it may, I have not come across anything to indicate that sourced factual information, such as the syndicated programming a broadcast station airs, is necessarily WP:CRUFT. As for your talk page, I see that you've been blocked more than once for edit warring (once on this very subject). Clearly the established consensus on this talk page, as well as other Cleveland market TV station articles, is that syndicated programming is acceptable content. Until you can link to a policy, guideline, or relevant discussion stating otherwise, please follow WP:BRD, and wait for a new consensus to emerge rather than acting unilaterally. Levdr1lp / talk 02:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
[[1]]Here is some proof. I learned this from one other user who started to revert that article. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talkcontribs) 17:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@ACMEWikiNet: Setting aside the fact that the wording of this edit summary from WTAE-TV is very similar to your own edit summary from this article, a single edit from an anon IP a couple weeks ago is not nearly enough evidence to "prove" that syndicated programming is necessarily WP:CRUFT. (Incidentally, I see from your talk page that you have edited through different anon IP's while blocked.) Levdr1lp / talk 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The person who reverted the WTAE IP is not by me. Ellen is a talk show or a sitcom? What station in Cleveland has carried Oprah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talkcontribs) 03:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can suggest a four show limit and limit the shows to just first run syndication, and not off network syndicated reruns. Like the uncensored versions of Family Guy, and Family Feud. Move them to the Programming section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talkcontribs) 03:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@ACMEWikiNet: Please sign and indent your comments. All syndicated programs in the lead currently air on the station, and all are first-run. Limiting the number of shows to four is arbitrary and unnecessary (there are currently only five listed). Levdr1lp / talk 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:MeTV WOIO.png[edit]

The file File:MeTV WOIO.png, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:MeTV WOIO.png. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WOIO. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)