Jump to content

Talk:WISN-TV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call Sign Meaning

[edit]

I've been adding WISconsiN as a call sign meaning for quite some time now only to have it deleted by another user who INSISTS that the only possible meaning for the calls is the defunct WISconsin News newspaper. As far as I know, there is no official documentation or credible source that states that the calls are a reference to the newpaper and the newspaper ALONE. So who's to say the calls weren't also chosen because it was an abbreviation of the state's name? There's plenty of examples of a station using calls with multiple meanings (such as WBBM-TV out of Chicago). But my main sticking point is that WISN has referenced the calls while advertising itself as "WISconsiN TV" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JFirQUXfc8) My theory is that the station chose to keep the calls after the newspaper folded because they referenced the state's name as well (the station had only been using the calls for a few years when the paper folded, so the "name recognition" argument is moot). But regardless of why they kept the calls, I think the fact that the station made a conscious decision to use them to brand itself as "Wisconsin TV" deserves mention. --Illwauk 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have been putting up your interpretation of the ID. It is conjecture and not a FACT. If you can verify that meaning, I won't revert it. Until then, I consider your opinion to be unverified. The next time I'm there (I'm writing a history of Milwaukee TV.), I'll verify with the station's management.Nitelinger 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion this morning at the station, I brought up the call letter meaning. they essentially told me that I had a better handle on the history than anyone there did. The ID you used to base your contention was from the 1980s apparently. I was told that it was not meant to imply that the calls mean "Wisconsin", and that you misinterpreted it to do so. Nitelinger 18:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "WISconsiN" is my interpretation... the id TOLD me to interpret it that way. I hardly see how the fact that it's from the 80's makes it irrelevant. Especially when Wisconsin News refers to a newspaper that went defunct in the 1950's. But for whatever reason, you've taken a ridiculously militant stance and have been acting as the gestapo of this article. I simply can't dedicate as many hours to wikipedia as you can, so I'm done with this. All I'm gonna say is that if you had better people skills, maybe you'd have better things to worry about than whether or not you get your way an online encyclopedia. --Illwauk 08:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you had better people skills, you would understand someone trying to get the facts correct. Which part of their management telling me that the ID was not meant to imply that the calls meant "WISConsin" was so hard to understand? If they had said that the calls meant that, I would have changed it here, as well as on my Milwaukee TV history website, where I originally compiled a list of all the stations' call letter meanings. Getting the facts right is important to me. Whereas being right seems to be important to you. Nitelinger 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tone down the personal attacks and stick with discussing the content. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

[edit]

Sorry about the mistaken revert. I accidentally clicked the button. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KOMO

[edit]

Should it be worth merit to list KOMO-TV to the article in terms of successful ABC affiliates, in addition to WISN? I vividly recall reading a book about the history of the ABC network that IIRC had a copyright date of 1990 and it mentioned KOMO as being one of their most successful affiliates as well. As soon as I can locate the book (and its title), I'll supply the page number where the mention occurs. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced or improperly referenced 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) 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WISN-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevelant info

[edit]

DaneGeld has added information to this article on how the station's website is geoblocked outside the U.S. I deleted the edit as irrevelant. [1] Now DaneGeld wants me to restore his edit, saying its "absolutely pertinent." [2] Should I? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice. You chose to delete it without even speaking to me about it. Dane|Geld 23:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why it's irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most stations/networks geoblock their sites outside their home country. The reader may have known this already. Otherwise, the section should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, it's not true. I'm in Canada and I see the front page. But even if it were true, it not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. That the the editor wrote them and didn't respond is not relevant either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe DaneGeld meant that you couldn't watch the site's video content outside the U.S. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And deleting something without discussing it with the editor who added it is the normal course of action. See WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Schlepping an editor to ANI over a content dispute, as Mvc did, is NOT the normal course of action, especially as that editor made ONE EDIT to the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I can access the website, being American, but it popped up a complaint about my ad-blocker. That's not a site worth going to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just disable the ad blocker for that site, and it should work normally. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the ad blocker to block junk. It's the first time a website has actually chastised me for running an ad blocker. F*** that! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WISN-TV&oldid=1206062638"