Talk:WMTV

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:NBC152.PNG

Image:NBC152.PNG 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 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 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
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.
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) 00:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I am surprised Nate that you oppose this edit as you supported it against a IP editor at Talk:WJRT-TV/Archive 1#Digital TV information. I also pointed out there that the none of the infobox's pages (WP:INFOBOX, Template:Infobox broadcast, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Station infobox) indicate such nor that there must be a digital TV section per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Article structure.

small in infobox is contrary to MOS:FONTSIZE.
The Template:Official website is newer usage that interfaces with WikiData to pull the website url as a variant of the Template:URL that is show at Template:Infobox broadcast.
DT2, DT3, DT4 are not standard usage in the industry. The only set and common usage is the .2, .3, etc. If you look at the article, this station uses WMTVNBC, WMTV-CW, ANT-TV and WMTV-WX, not DT#. Per industry usage as per Digital_subchannel#United_States, the W or K is switch out for another letter for:
- W: "E" (.2), "G" (.3), "H" (.4), "I" (.5) or "J" (.6)
- "K": "N" (.2), "O" (.3), "Q" (.4), "R" (.5) or "S" (.6)
Template:ubl is recommend in other infobox for list and at four in the list is less characters for the system to hold.
I request a discussion at TVS to clarify infobox usage, as a subtopic of article structure, to directly address these issues with zero response. Now you claim that they are "TVS standards", which they are not as the samples are vague. Spshu (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf:, a IP vandal is back at WJRT claiming "do not disobey mrschimpf on what he said about tvs standards". Apparently, this one is taking your edit here as cue to undo improvements I place in the articles. I have requested page protection. Please come and discuss this matter. --Spshu (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am editing so much in WMTV

Before I had a Wikipedia account, so many parts of this article were outdated, like the slogan, and the .4 branding being wrong. I always watch WMTV at home, and I want this article updated every time like if there is a new logo, branding, and more. If you think I’m vandalizing, I’m sorry. It’s just I want this article as accurate as possible. Firenado (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't vandalizing, you just didn't provide a reliable source. Some of your edits might also be original research. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]