Talk:WGNO

Fair use rationale for Image:Wgno07SMALL.JPG

Image:Wgno07SMALL.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

error in time for week day newscast

even though the press release (Tribune.com) states starting September 29, 2008 WGNO was startng a thirty minute newscast at 11:30 AM. The newscast actually runs at 11:00 AM and started airing before the September 29th date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.50.113 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 68.105.50.113 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Major changes at WGNO/WNOL http://www.nola.com/tv/index.ssf/2010/06/wnol_drops_9_pm_newscast_tmz_m.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by James45nd (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

following statement should be removed

"WNOL is the senior partner in the duopoly because of its network affiliate history.[citation needed] In other Tribune duopolies, a Big Four affiliate is usually the senior partner.["

This statement does not seem to be supported by facts. Please note that in area of news all expansion of newscast occures on ABC26 not WNOL-TV. In fact ABC26 is producing the newscast for WNOL at 9:00PM each weeknight. 68.105.50.113 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. I'm the guy who put the "citation needed" tag on that statement to begin with. That tag has now been there close to 60 days with no citation forthcoming. It seemed nonsensical to me. From a business standpoint, they would appear to be "equal partners" -- two TV stations under the same ownership and sharing common business staff, engineering staff, control rooms, studios, and transmitter facilities. From an "on the air" standpoint, WGNO, if anything, would appear to be the "senior partner", as the news is branded "ABC26 News" on both channels, and WGNO is the one who gets to be in HD on their temporarily shared digital transmitter. Fish Man (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Had to remove the statement again as a regression to an earlier version caused it to come back. I believe this was an unintended side effect of the regression, the majority of which was well justified (the article was becoming cluttered with non-encyclopedic trivialities. Fish Man (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

error in Former On Air Staff

• Corrected Liz Reyes. She is not employed by WGSO, she now runs her own media website & that website produces a one hour show that airs on WGSO sat. James45nd
• Corrected Susan Rosgen was not renewed and no longer works for CNN as of August 1st, 2009 James45nd
• Corrected John Fairbanks - is on a new 24 hour news channel in Long Island NY (name escapes me) James45nd
• Corrected Brad Giffen - Now at CTV Toronto Canada James45nd

Your edits require citations to reliable sources. Can you provide them, please? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally talked to Liz Reyes and Susan Rosgen. Liz Reyes updated me on the others and I confirmed at WGNO website. Let me know what else you need and I will comply. Thanks James45nd

"Personally talked to..." does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. I'm not saying you didn't speak with these people, but you can't base article content on that kind of hearsay. Can you find it in print somewhere? I'll take a look at the WGNO website. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me....will send sources asap. The only source I might not be able to get is Susan at CNN as it has not been made public yet James45nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.61.159 (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been a report that Roesgen's contract at CNN won't be renewed, but there has been no indication as to when her present contract ends, or any other details. Until there is an actual announcement in a reliable source, we'll leave it unchanged. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

fair enough X....just keep your eyes and ears open for an official announcement, she is definately in transition as per my conversation with her.James45nd

• Removed CNN from Susan Roesgen - has not been at CNN for nearly a year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Roesgen James45nd —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

There has been a report that Roesgen's contract at CNN won't be renewed, but there has been no indication as to when her present contract ends, or any other details. Until there is an actual announcement in a reliable source, we'll leave it unchanged. Any word on where she is now? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

She was not renewed nearly a year ago, she has not been on air anywhere since, and last contact she was in Mexico for a rest while she looks for work. Here is another link. http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/cnns-susan-roesgen-loses-her-job/ James45nd —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

That's not "another link" - it is the same TV Newser source. As for "not been on air anywhere since", you'd have to supply a reliable source stating exactly that. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

error in News Staff

• Removed Maria Vallejo - She is not an employee she is a Freelancer James45nd
• Phil Waterman was let go April 8, 2010 ***Source local contact and confirmation from www.newsblues.com James45nd —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
• removed Larry Delia, he was not on air newstaff and there is no section for former management Some suggest they be placed in a rogues galleryJames45nd

Is transmitter coordinates correct?

Since WGNO and WNOL transmitters and attennas are located on the WDSU tower and in the WDSU transmitter building, shouldn't they all have the same cooridnates. As of June 20, 2009, Wikipedia show different locations for WGNO and WNOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.152.47 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The transmitter coordinates are correct. WNOL-DT, transmitting on UHF 15, shared transmitter sites with WDSU for a time. WGNO seriously considered sharing WDSU's site permanently, and even obtained permission from the FCC, in the form of a construction permit, to do so. However, ultimately WGNO and WNOL decided to return to their pre-Katrina transmitter site, and WGNO and WNOL have been transmitting from that site since June 12, 2009. The current coordinates given in the Wiki articles for WGNO and WNOL are correct. Fish Man (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fish Man. If both are now located at their pre-katrina antenna location then transmitter power and antenna height is incorrect. I believe antenna hiehgt is 309M and transmitter is 1000 Kw.

Curious. What is the source of you transmitter info as the FCC website is very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.152.47 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Former News Staff

Shouldn't this article be focused on the current WGNO news staff. The Former news-staff section is longer than half the article. Personally, I believe that only "notable" individuals worthy of their own article should be listed here. Right now, this section just seems like a person tracker that's honestly not relevant to the article. Samwisep86 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion no. In particular right now there is so much volitility in the industry people use this to track and follow collegues or former biz contacts. Then you also have to build criteria for who you keep on and who you do not. Perhaps if certain guidelines such as if the person is no longer in the industry, and then after a period of time you delete them, but how would you keep track of that?James45nd —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • I would determine it by the notability guidelines. If a person is notable enough that they can or do have an individual article on Wikipedia, then they should be included. Samwisep86 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the "Notable" section since someone has of the opinion that the Alumni section should be deleted. I think there should be some discussion on who should be deleted before they make a "wholesale" deletion based on thier opinion. I think that any person who served for a long period of time or has gone on to other stations should be included. I'm not so sure that there is anything wrong with former alumni, but I will leave that for the momentJames45nd (talk)

Hello, Wikipedia policy is very clear on the point that the onus is on the person who adds (or re-adds) material to an article to provide references to demonstrate things like notability and appropriateness for inclusion in the article; not the other way around. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

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) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)