Jump to content

Talk:WTRF-TV

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

What's Up With This Reverting?

[edit]

Someone keeps reverting the changes that are being made in the "News and Programming" section on the basis that the edits are based on "unreliable sources". The revisions in question are found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WTRF-TV&diff=1021302712&oldid=1021302584

The problem here is that there have been sources. At least one is Titan TV, which can be used as a source for the other information listed that the reverter is saying is based on an unreliable source.

Would also like to know what the person who is rejecting these changes expects as a reliable source for this information. Other TV station pages here on Wiki have used Titan TV as a source for listing the programs on a channel. Because this station houses four subchannels and has three network affiliations, one source can catch the majority of what the article would cite. This is the same source that is used on several other station pages, including KDKA-TV and WOIO-TV. The information that is listed on the purposed edit is also available on those and other station pages without many, if any, sources and is allowed to remain like that. I did notice that the "citation needed" tag was not enough for one of the shows that WTRF produced in the early 90's. That got completely erased thanks to whoever made the reversions without even a second look or even an effort to locate sources on their own, which was even suggested. There are far better ways to ask for sources than to just silently and blindly revert something.

Even worse, a source that listed that WTRF acquired the Ohio Lottery programming (including Cash Explosion) sourced THE VERY PAGE FROM THE OHIO LOTTERY SITE STATING THIS CHANGE! What other source does this person need to be convinced that this information belongs on this page? You can't get any more reliable than THE PEOPLE THAT MADE IT HAPPEN! What is this person looking at that makes the producers of the actual show in question telling you that the show moved to a new station isn't reliable enough? If you count the Titan TV page, that would make it TWO SOURCES THAT ONE COULD GO TO FOR CONFIRMATION OF THIS FACT! Again, what is this person looking for that would be enough for them to agree that this is sufficient enough?

In fact, the suspicion is that whoever is watching the page is getting a RedWarn (it shows that person got one on the History tab), just clicked "revert" without even inspecting the changes to make sure, and reverting them back to the SORELY outdated version we keep seeing. I don't think I've seen Decision Makers be a thing on ANY of the stations Nexstar got from WVMH in YEARS, yet whoever is reverting changes is INSISTING that this info is current and should remain on the page. This is insane. The only other thing I can think of as a reason is that whoever is watching the page REALLY hates this station and doesn't want anyone giving it a more NPOV, which means that someone at Wikipedia needs to look into it, because this station's page won't ever get updated as long as that person continues to blindly revert any update with that excuse when they would see the sources would be satisfactory, and others could at least attempt to add other sources to satisfy this user.

Again, there are a LOT better ways to address the sources situation than this currently is. Put a tag asking for additional sources, allow editors the chance to provide them! SOMETHING! This shouldn't be that much of a battle to add information to this page, especially when one of the pieces of info is sourced from the very site that belongs to the very people that would sign off on making such a decision. Darkpower (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again! Trying to add info leads to someone reverting it on grounds of "unsourced info". But what they reverted were things that just cleaned up the text to put things in different places so the information can be easily digested and not all over the place like it was, with the sources remaining. And none of their reverts are sourced, either. This is hypocritical and needs some explanation, yet those reverting won't come in here and mention what's going on and what we need to do to get these edits in.
West Virginia Tonight is hosted by Mark Curtis now. This page continues to insist that Dan Thorne anchors it. If he still does, then provide the source. Why is it that we need a source for the change in anchors but the person reverting it doesn't have to cite a source that someone that has not been on that show for years is still there? We'll get radio silence from those insisting he still does.
Decision Makers HAS BEEN CANCELLED! WAS FOR YEARS! Jesus! That source was given (Titan TV, the same source every other station page on Wikipedia uses).
Every other television station's page on Wikipedia has info about hours of news (that is allowed to be there unsourced), anchor info (also unsourced), and NPOV about news and programming operations. There was also SOURCED INFO about Cash Explosion moving to WTRF with the exact date that was for some reason also reverted for not being sourced, when the source was the Ohio Lottery official site. Again, no info given as to why that was inadequate.
WTRF has 35 hours of news programming throughout the week across their channels. Who's disputing this? Again, a simple search on TV listings provides this info, yet this is not able to be added due to insufficient sources?
Yet, no one that reverts comes in HERE to discuss edits that were made, or make requests for additional sources, or anything else. They will just revert to the HIGHLY outdated info and leave it there.
At this point, I'm wondering if this is something some higher up on Wikipedia needs to look at. People use Wikipedia all the time for info about stations and history, When they see all other stations having clean and accurate and up to date information and NPOV writing about operations and programming, and then we come HERE and we see a complete mess that no one wants anyone to correct and sounds like Wikipedia HATES the station for whatever reason, it becomes damaging to the station and those involved. Request to get this page protected is now out. Darkpower (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

"WTRF will be starting a new Fox affiliate due to the demise of the FoxNet cable channel in September, 2006. It is not clear if this will be cable-only or also available via WTRF-DT 32. This is per users4.ev1.net/~chipk/CW.html/."

Can someone please explain this in English? I got something about TRF being some sort of FOX affiliate, but after that the words failed to make any bit of sense. I've never heard of the "FoxNet" cable channel in Wheeling. Maybe it was the last sentence that lost me. Maybe I'm just in need of sleep or something.

Pretty simple

[edit]

With the new digital broadcasting (replacing the 50-year-old analog broadcasting), TV stations can broadcast more than one signal. WTOV is using it's second "channel" as a full-time weather channel. WTRF is using it's second as a FOX affiation. Most of the Prime-Time programming found on FOX53 from Pittsburgh can also be found on "FOX Ohio Valley". TV sets with digital tuners can receive this on channel 7-2. WTRF's regular programming can be found in a digital format on channel 7-1.

Does that clear things up?

DRA@1st.net


WTRF has experienced reporters who know the Ohio Valley. Jerry Echemann, D.K. Wright and Dave Elias know the area and understand how to present news to the Ohio Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.222.3 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary ABC affilliation

[edit]

Didn't WTRF have a secondary ABC affiliation well into the 1980s? I remember for special events (Indy 500, for example), they would carry the ABC feed instead of the CBS feed? The date in the article of 1980 seems too early. Does anybody have a more exact date of when they completely dropped ABC as a secondary affiliate? Dmine45 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, assert that WTRF kept a minor ABC affiliation well into the 80s. While they apparently didn't carry any of ABC's prime time schedule, preferring CBS instead, I distinctly recall that rather than CBS's daily morning news program, they carried ABC's Good Morning America. 2601:545:8201:6290:8906:831E:5F5C:2173 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Discussion here and WTRF's ratings due to Nexstar and who WTOV is owned by now

[edit]
  1. First, I notice that this talk page is more becoming a "let's comment about quality of stations" instead of how the page itself is (which hasn't been updated significantly in a while besides to update channel affiliations and ownership). This wiki page is in dire need of an update. WTRF has a LOT of history behind it, and it does seem like whoever gave the two Upper OV stations the updates must have really loved WTOV.
  2. Now, about that. We might want to consider if some things have changed now that the two stations changed who they are owned by. Seems like Nexstar is trying to get some things going for WTRF, and we all know about WTOV getting bought by Sinclair, and yes, they were one of the many stations shown in the infamous "ScriptGate" controversy that got a lot of attention (they were shown prominently in the video). These things could have had a major effect in how each station is viewed right now. Would love to see some research done here.
  3. Regardless, I think this page needs major revisions so we can have some actual backstory about WTRF instead of "hey, it existed, and at one point, the station sucked, but look at all the different logos and owners they had." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkpower (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Reaccolidation? What did this section even say?

[edit]

I think this had something to do with WVTX-CD no longer being on air and thus, WTRF had to do something to get MyNet in HD from 420p like it was on their subchannel. Problem is, it's not just too much info, but the info that's there is way to hard to make out what was even said. It's terribly hard to follow what is even being said. Common people won't even know what a spectrum even IS, but instead of explaining that or cross linking to something that will give more info, the section instead info dumps to the point where it becomes hard to follow. Points are suddenly abandoned mid sentence to explain what something is that can be explained elsewhere or cross linked to another article, and then the previous point is suddenly picked back up again as if we were able to follow along. I would fix it but I'm not even sure what the author was trying to get across, even when I have a general idea of what the subject is about. WVTX-CD, after the failed attempt to make a third station in the market out if it, became a secondary feed for WTRF's ABC subchannel until WTVX ceased operation. Outside of that, I don't understand what was being said. Darkpower (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WTRF-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 17:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
  • Copyvio check - only a single 1% match found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector (the phrase to the Federal Communications Commission") - so no concerns.
  • Images - Logos OK, with ALT text. I don't think any additional images are necessary.
  • Stability - there has been some past reverting, but no issues since May.
  • Neutrality - no issues with NPOV.
  • Coverage - suitable breadth and dept as far as I can ascertain.

Sources

  • What makes charlestonrotary.com a reliable source? (Looks like they may have published a mini-bio provided by Curtis himself.)
    • Trying to find current info on station programming can be...tough. And there is absolutely no reliable source (even a newspaper mention) to even state who hosts this program. This particular update, that Mark Curtis hosts that program instead of a Dan Thorne, was a thorn in the side of someone trying to improve the page (go read the talk page itself). And that change had to have happened in about 2018, when Thorne left for a job in San Francisco. I decided I had to chop this paragraph because of the lack of RS coverage. I get the distinct impression that West Virginia news media are...lean and soft.
  • Other sources all aeem OK (e.g. looking at their people list, rabbitears.info seems fine).
  • I think that "MY OHIO VALLEY" in "WTRF MY OHIO VALLEY Starts September 1" shouldn't be all in capitals, per MOS:ALLCAPS.
    • That ref was there, and I should have spotted that.
  • I spot-checked Broadcasting, September 17, 1979; The Times-Leader, October 24, 1953; RabbitEars.Info; Wausau Daily Herald, January 3, 1985; Electronic Media April 1, 2002. No issues except any mentioned below.

History

  • "a part that failed at the last minute" - wasn't it several parts (modulator, resistors and transformers)? You could specify the equipment, or maybe use the word "equipment" in place of "a part".
    • Fixed — I think another ref I had mentioned a part.
  • "it aired Cleveland Browns games that Cleveland-area stations had to black out" - fine as a summary of what's in the source, but made me wonder why those games were not able to be shown.
    • NFL broadcasting rules. In 1972, the NFL still blacked out all home games even if they sold out on TV stations whose signal reached within 75 miles of the stadium. (This is why a Canton cable system would want to reach all the way to Wheeling to get WTRF, outside the exclusion zone.) This policy was abolished in 1973. See National Football League television blackout policies.
  • "WTRF-TV was the leading station in the market" - optionally, specify the market here.
    • It's specified in the lead here (Wheeling and Steubenville)

News operation

  • "The news staff has been unionized since 1988..." - is this level of detail typically included in articles?
    • It's unusual for this small a market and honestly for this red a place. This is one way, imo, that this market is influenced by very nearby Pittsburgh. The other station in this area, WTOV-TV, has a history that includes an attempted move to Pittsburgh.

Subchannels

  • No issues.

Infobox and lead

  • Lead is quite short, but fairly proportionate to the article length. You could consider adding information about the year that channel started broadcasting.
    • Why did I not do that? Also a note. Summary leads were unheard of in this topic area until I started sending pages to GA. Read an unimproved page of this type and you will find there is usually only one lead paragraph (e.g. WTOV-TV). I do have articles with longer content in my GA pipeline (KOVR, Kentucky Educational Television come to mind).

Only a couple of minor questions and points, Sammi Brie. thanks for your work on the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 18:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Sammi Brie: Good article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WTRF-TV&oldid=1211000294"