Talk:WTHR

Untitled

am I going to have to make my own Chuck Lofton page? Seriously? That man needs a stub on Wikipedia.

"channel 13 loves you"

Clearly this was produced, but does anybody know if it was used? I've lived in the Indy market my entir elife and have no recollection of this jingle. Lambertman 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=POTL4aAGpfM I undid your edit. Obviously the campaign did exist. I'd side with the original editor here, unless you can show that they didn't bring it back in 91. -- JT^Holla! 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would one prove a negative, and since the original editor provided no source, what makes him/her automatically more credible than me? And I never said the campaign didn't exist. My original comment above proves this.Lambertman (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have waited 11 months to bring this up again. Why did you edit 91 out in the first place, and why do it now? -- JT^Holla! 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I edited it out because I believe it to be wrong. The period of time I waited to do so is not relevant. I've been watching WTHR for over 20 years, and I'm the type of person who remembers image campaigns. That said, the first time I ever heard any of the " *channel* loves you" campaigns was on an internet video taken from another market. I have asked the original author to return to this discussion, and maybe he'll be able to provide proof this was actually used on-air in 1991. If he can't/doesn't, then it's exactly the kind of unverifiable info that Wiki frowns upon Lambertman (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that your personal recolection as to whether the campaign existed or not is not enough to derail an edit that has been part of the article for awhile now. I would side on keeping it until the original editor could come in and verify the information. It is unlikely he just pulled 1991 out of a hat. -- JT^Holla! 13:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Crosley/Avco poured a lot of money into WLWI?"

I don't agree with this statement in the article. I toured the WLWC studios in middle school just after the station was sold to Outlet Broadcasting. Everything in that building was cut-rate and old, from the RCA TK-41 TV Cameras to the news set, to the desks in the news department. I was told that all the money was spent at WLWT, which was considered the "flagship" and was the source for most of the regional programming. In fact, Outlet was pretty good to the station, immediately upgrading studio cameras, news sets and moving the transmitter to WBNS' 1,100 foot tower (from the 500 foot tower located at on the station grounds). Anyway, I can't imagine that WLWI received any more support moneywise than WLWC did.

I have never heard of that phrase with a cuss word from Channel 13, if true.=

That b-word, if it was used by only the entire station staff or not. No one can say that on the air against the city. - Despite Channel 13 has so much of a larger local news operation, they should had taken that phrase off, sooner. - Are they now on the air?

--4.188.66.33 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The station signed on September 2, 1957 as ABC affiliate WLWI

This date is incorrect, as WLWI first signed on the air on October 30, 1957. Historiccolumbus 18:29, 19 March 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gInKIMECXSI&NR=1 This promo, which ran on WTHR for a few months, says September 2nd as the date. We'll roll with what the station says, unless another source is available. -- JT^Holla! 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WTHR Today

Today, WTHR consistently dominates every news timeslot. WISH has been a close second except at 11PM where CBS has helped WISH move ahead. WTHR is also one of NBC's five strongest affiliates for primetime and news programming, ranking up with KUSA-TV in Denver and KSDK in St. Louis. This led to speculation that NBC Universal could buy the station from the Wolfe family and become NBC's first O&O in Indiana and change to "NBC 13". However, NBC Universal recently decided that it only wants to own stations located in larger markets, selling four owned-and-operated stations in several mid-sized markets to Media General. The most likely purchaser for WTHR is thought to be the Gannett Company, which owns KUSA-TV.

It should be noted, however, that the Wolfe family tends to own businesses for the long-term. Wolfe family businesses are profitable and carry very little debt, thus there is little incentive to sell. The Wolfe family controlled BancOhio Corporation, once Ohio's largest bank holding company, for nearly 70 years. The Wolfes also controlled The Ohio Company, once Ohio's largest brokerage, for nearly as long. The Wolfes have owned The Columbus Dispatch since the late 1800s and have been in the broadcasting business since the 1920s. The Wolfe family's last remaining interests are in the media and in real estate, thus it is highly unlikely that they are actively looking for buyers for WTHR.

(Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Wthr indianapolis.jpg

Image:Wthr indianapolis.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 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A few anchor/reporter changes

Jennie Renevich has been given the job of Weekend Evening Anchor. Took her from reporter and moved her to the anchor section.

Emily Longnecker will join the team this month as a new reporter. Added her name.

Alphabetized the anchors. -JT 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• When WTHR swapped affiliations with WRTV in 1979, its final closedown as an ABC affiliate went in an unusual way than its past sign-offs. Two years before, ABC awarded WTHR a cup in honor of its 20-year affiliation with the network. A rifle attached to a camera shot through the cup. The next day was its first day as an NBC affiliate, and the station played the NBC chimes during its first startup as an NBC affiliate.
• Late night talk show host David Letterman was a weatherman for the station in the 1970s.
• Longtime WTHR Chief Meteorologist Bob Gregory, now retired, has a son named Kevin, who currently is the chief meteorologist at competitor WRTV.
• Three of WTHR's weekday evening anchors, John Stehr (5, 6 & 11pm), Anne Marie Tiernon (5:30 & 6pm) and Scott Swan (Noon and 5:30pm), all previously worked at competitor WISH-TV. Swan and Tiernon were once colleagues at WISH-TV, while Stehr was previously a reporter before moving to CBS as a correspondent.
• Prior to joining WTHR, Jeremy Brilliant was a reporter/anchor at WRTV. He met his wife Jennifer Carmack at the station. Carmack is still a reporter at RTV 6.
• WTHR is the largest NBC affiliate in terms of market size to not have a NBC WeatherPlus digital subchannel; likely due to the fact it operates the SkyTrak Weather Network.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alumni section

A while ago, User:Deconstructhis significantly trimmed the alumni section of the article, and left an edit summary explaining the rationale. This is something both he and I do on TV network pages. Following is the full rationale with policy and discussion links that explains why all people on the list need to be blue-linked or have a reliable source:

This (removal of redlinked or unlinked people from alumni lists without reliable source support) is the current consensus procedure, based on discussions at WP:WikiProject Television Stations and at the Village Pump. The rationales are as follows:

1. Most importantly, per WP:NOT, 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. Secondarily, per WP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I'm not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
3. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages 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 info, 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).

Thus, I have reverted the most recent addition to the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Digital television table

The Digital television table appears in this article with no column-headers and no data in most fields. The "nothingness" in the left-most columns extends for several pages, causing the section below it to be compressed into the narrow right-most column of the table. It seems unnecessarily difficult to read (using IE9). I'm an expert on neither formatting nor wiki guidelines, but wonder if this is the way the table was intended to be displayed or if it should be updated. Thanks. ZouBEini (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards & Honors

Today I set up a new subsection on awards & honors, adding info on WTHR's multiple Edward R. Murrow awards from the RTNDA. While obviously it's a fine line to walk and not get into WP:Peaock territory (ironic since they're an NBC station lol), I do feel since the Murrows are national awards along the same lines as a Peabody and not something like a regional Emmy or some state broadcaster association award that they should be noteworthy enough. What say you folks? Sector001 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE

WP:LISTPEOPLE is pretty clear about lists of people, and content like this does not belong on the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow you're misinterpreting that. You seem to have missed that the name of that page is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, usually list articles starting with 'List of (people)...' It does not mean to say that no name may be included in any sort of list if it doesn't have an article; that MOS page does not cover this. And how can that possibly be a WP:BLP concern? We just have to ensure that information is neutral, verifiable, and not original research; though the section does need a source, we're not making any sensitive remarks or potentially libellous statements.

I have to agree with Reywas92s unsigned post above ^. I've seen plenty of other TV station articles that have a small listing of staff. Obviously it can get a bit ridiculous to include former, non-notable, staff and such, but I don't see a problem with listing at least the news, weather & sports anchors. Just my two cents. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable and non-notable staff and such is determined by reliable sources. If the only source that supports including this list of names is the station itself, then including a link to that list as an external link would serve a better purpose than simply copy-pasting it over to the article, thereby giving undue focus to something that reliable sources do not. Wikipedia articles are not directories; just because a primary source supports a list of names does not mean that the list of names is suitable for a summary-style article, and that is what WP:LISTPEOPLE covers, which covers when people should probably be included in a list, not simply a stand-alone list. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think providing the names of anchors is useful then argue that. I think it is. To cite listpeople is nonsense, because this article is not a a list of people. Yes, that does refer to STAND-ALONE LISTS, like List of people of Korean descent, List of people who disappeared mysteriously, or List of American philosophers, just to find a few random examples. It does not refer to smaller sections within an article. Also, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with using a primary source. While an article's notability is dependent on secondary sources, content in an article may perfectly well be sourced to the topic. I really don't understand how it could possibly be undue to give the names of who you see when watching WTHR! I really wouldn't expect another news outlet to give their names, and the lack of separate coverage doesn't make it off-limits here. You have missed that UNDUE is a section of WP:NPOV, and nothing here violates neutrality, so use use of that guideline fails. You completely failed to even read WP:NOTDIR. WP is not the white pages, a catalogue, cross-categorizations, release notes, genealogy, or a repository. Which one of those prevents the names of TV personalities on the same station??? Reywas92^Talk 05:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't expect it, yet it happens when the people are relevant enough to the subject; there are plenty of similar articles with entries whose notability has been shown through third-party sources, and they don't even have to be notable, just something showing that this person is relevant enough to mention in an article. One or two names? Sure. When it starts turning into dozens of names like that, it puts undue focus on something that reliable sources do not. Articles on cities are not list articles, yet they have the same requirement that people listed there be worth mentioning. I never said there was something "wrong" with using a primary source, only that a single primary source is insufficient to give that much focus on something in a summary-style article. You think WP:LISTPEOPLE doesn't apply to a list of people? There is nothing there that suggests anything close to that. Before suggesting that I "failed" to read something (which is uncivil at best and borders on a personal attack) please note where it says that Wikipedia articles "are not...lists of persons (real or fictional) ... Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic...". In fact that's the very first thing that's mentioned. You are welcome to read through the various archives (such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists) if you believe there is some kind of "bright-line rule" for when a list is "stand-alone", but the fact remains that when you put that many names into an article it certainly starts to blur that line. Since we're just copying the primary source here, what's wrong with simply linking to the source instead of copying it into the article? The information's "usefulness" is still provided, and nobody has to worry about WP:LISTPEOPLE or WP:UNDUE or anything else; the content also doesn't have to worry about becoming out-of-date; that seems to be a fair compromise that satisfies all the concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well whatever the case IMHO you need to step away and give it a little break. I counted five recent reversions by you. Sure seems like edit warring behavior to me. Let someone else handle it for a bit. Sector001 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the times over the past few days where I reverted a drive-by addition added without explanation or even an edit summary from an IP editor that has the same editing focus and geolocation as an indefinitely blocked editor who continues to use sockpuppets and IP addresses to continue editing? I appreciate that you have concerns about edit-warring, but persistently re-adding content while ignoring attempts at discussion is not the way to include content in the hopes that it'll stay if you place it in the article enough times. Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Since both sides seem unwilling to stop your edit warring I've posted a notice on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations requesting assistance and guidance in this matter. Perhaps you will listen to the opinion of the Wiki group that actually deal with TV articles frequently. Otherwise the next option is to start issuing warnings and/or drag an administrator into this. Just food for thought, regardless of what WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:UNDUE may provide as general guidlines, the large majority of tv station articles do indeed include current onair staff lists. For example: KSHB-TV, WGN-TV, WCBS-TV...and many more I could include. If they ALL are wrong too, then someone has an awful lot of work to do changing them all to meet your standards. Sector001 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That you've "seen other articles" with these directory listings is hardly a reason to include them elsewhere, unless those inclusions were done with any sort of consensus or discussed at all? If they were added without rationale that's not much to go by. In your example WGN-TV, every single name there meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. If you look on the article's talk page you'll find a relevant discussion (my previous user name was User:SudoGhost). Multiple administrators have protected such articles before multiple times, so don't call them "my standards". I am more than willing to discuss and have done so; I started the discussion and made a reasonable proposal to include the list as an external link, when nobody responded after a couple of days I made the suggested changes, and still no talk page discussion. The IP came along and reinserted the content with no explanation and no talk page use whatsoever, so I reverted it hoping for some sort of talk page discussion. Nothing. Big surprise, now they're evading the block so I've reverted their block evading edits (which is not edit warring). When discussion started I stopped editing the page, when nobody responded, I tried a compromise and only made the edit a few days after suggesting it to give time for any kind of discussion, and then I made the change. That's your definition of edit warring? Instead of discussion, we have an IP editor (with the same geolocation and editing focus as an indefinitely blocked editor who quite often uses IP addresses to evade that block) continuing to ignore any attempt at discussion and instead insert their preferred content into the article relentlessly, even going so far as to simply switch IPs when the old one is blocked.

Despite that, you choose to accuse me of being "headstrong" and of "not listening" when I started a discussion and ceased to edit when any kind of discussion took place. You're accusing me of edit warring when making a suggestion and only editing the article days after my suggestion and only when no talk page discussion took place objecting to it or even commenting on it in any way, and reverting a IP editor who has consistently shown he has no intention of discussing anything and who persistently evades their blocks. While I don't doubt that your intentions are to help, throwing around accusations like that and using uncivil language to describe others do not help create a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on WTHR

Cyberbot II has detected links on WTHR which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/2012-national-edward-r.-murrow-award-winners2089.php

  Triggered by \brtnda\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Fixed. General Ization ^Talk 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WTHR. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

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) 14:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Channel 13 Eyewitness News" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Channel 13 Eyewitness News. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#Channel 13 Eyewitness News until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)