Talk:WPVI-TV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Philadelphia
Philadelphia Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Television Stations This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

WPVI-TV is part of WikiProject Delaware, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Delaware.
Delaware Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Should there be something about the Nintendo Ds controversy?

WPVI broadcasted an extremly inaccurate story about the Nintendo Ds and Pictochat. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=special_coverage&id=3905371


I hate this station, bring down nintendo...


  • I have heard nothing about any controversy with regard to this story. It is not notable! Kramden4700 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The WFIL-TV spilt proposal

I disagree with the splitting of the WFIL-TV section, as it is the same station as WPVI-TV is now. It makes no sense to make a split. Kramden4700 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If WKBS and WGTW are split, then WFIL and WPVI should be split. CoolKatt number 99999 17:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Kramden4700 is right, it's an absolutely stupid idea...WPVI and WFIL-TV are the exact station, they just had different call letters due to changes in ownership. There have been many stations across the country (I would estimate a good 70-75 percent of them) that have changed calls for various reasons. If you have to do split articles for Philadelphia's Channel 6, then you might as well do one for every other station that have changed calls. In the case of WKBS/WGTW, I can somewhat understand the splitting of different articles, only because they have had different operating histories, and the Channel 48 frequency was dormat for nearly a decade--between the last sign-off of WKBS and the first days of WGTW. However, I do believe that the WKBS/WGTW articles should be combined, mainly it does talk the histories of the Channel 48 frequency in the Philadelphia market. I've seen plenty of TV station articles on here that the exact same kind of broadcasting history that Channel 48 has had, in other words...stations that have went off the air for certain amount of years only to reappear later on down the line...see Los Angeles' Channel 30, Atlanta's Channel 36, a couple of Dallas-Fort Worth stations, and others.--ShawnHill 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone agrees with me on the WKBS/WGTW merge finally. CoolKatt number 99999 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't exactly agree with you, CoolKatt, but my main point here is if we are going to do these pages, there has to be some form of consistency...either it all should be done one way or not done at all. I've seen some of the pages that CoolKatt has edited, while I guess his intentions are somewhat well and good, but I can agree that some of trivia information is a bit much, and are irrelevant to the subject at hand.--ShawnHill 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WKBS and WGTW are two different stations which had two different owners and two different licenses. WFIL and WPVI are the same station the only thing was the call letters changed. What are you thinking CoolKatt number 99999? WKBS and WGTW should be have seperate articles as they are not the same station. Would you merge WHYY into the WYBE article since they were orignally on channel 35? Kramden4700 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems that the proposer of the splitting seems to have plans to do the same needless splitting for other TV stations in the Philadelphia market. See: User:CoolKatt_number_99999/Sandbox_5. It is not needed, since they are stations that just changed ownership and call letter and that's it and should be covered in the article of the station's current calls history section. These situations are unlike WKBS amd WTTG which are two totally different stations that just happen to operate on the same frequency. The history of WFIL-TV is the history of WPVI-TV because they are the same station! A redirect of WFIL-TV to WPVI-TV would be the best course of action. Otherwise it is like seperating two halves of a book - something foolish and needless! Kramden4700 06:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Being different stations on the same channel does NOT merit split. CoolKatt number 99999 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So two different stations on the same channel should not be split, but one station on one channel with two (or more) sets of call letters should? You are confusing us! You also be the only one who seems to think that this is a good idea. Can you explain clearly why? Kramden4700 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No, if the stations broadcast on the same channel, they should be in one article. In other words, if WKBS and WGTW are split, then split WFIL and WPVI. If WKBS and WGTW are merged, then WFIL and WPVI are too. CoolKatt number 99999 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Stop acting like you own the articles, please see: WP:OWN. There was no gap between WFIL-TV changing to WPVI-TV, it was something that just happened with only very minor changes occurring. The WKBS and WGTW situation is not the same - different calls and a gap of years. Mention WKBS in the WGTW article and vice versa, but there is no need to merge the two different stations. Let me make this somewhat clear splitting WFIL-TV and WPVI-TV would be like splitting the WCAU article into different articles based on the ownership of the station breaking it up into WCAU-TV (The Bulletin), WCAU-TV (CBS) and WCAU-TV (NBC) – something that would make absolutely no sense! Kramden4700 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Splitting seems really stupid since it is the same station. All that happened is they changed the call letters. Wrath of Roth 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, oppose per the above. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was the person who split off the WKBS and WGTW articles, so I have to weigh in here. It seemed the only reason there was one article for WGTW was because there was a dispute over whether it was legally the same station as WKBS. But WGTW is a completely different license, having been issued in 1988. There is nada, zip, zero comparison with channels 3 and 6--unless we all missed something, they both operate under their original licenses. Unless only a short period elapsed from the change of one license to another (as is the case with WHDH-TV and WCVB-TV in Boston), different licenses should mean different articles. I hate to say it, but any attempt to make separate articles would be utter nonsense on CoolKatt's part. Blueboy96 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlicensed images

This article currently contains 22 images that are tagged as copyrighted and unlicensed for use on Wikipedia. The third item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy states, "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." Something needs to be done. A few unlicensed images might be acceptable under a claim of fair use, but 22 is clearly too many. —Bkell (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Thomas-Laury

Shouln't we note something about Lisa Thomas-Laury on the page? She's not even in the Reorters section. Lisa was one of PVI's main faces until 2002 when she was diagnosed with a nerve disease. I belive she may have had some sort of accident on set because of this, but I can't verify. She has now recovered and is easing back into Action News, doing feature stories. Proof of this is on the 6ABC website in the videos section: 6abc.com --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Articles

What happened to the articles for some of the on-air personalities, such as Monica Malpass? --ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wfil57.jpg

Image:Wfil57.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) 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wpvi2003.jpg

Image:Wpvi2003.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) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wpvi70s.jpg

Image:Wpvi70s.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) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)