From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WMBF-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:26, 7 March 2023 (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:WMBF-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 17:15, 7 March 2023 (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. ( reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. ( OR):
    d. ( copyvio and plagiarism): I reviewed the three non-zero matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. Similarly, no issues from the nespaper clippings I reviewed.
  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.: Some past differences of opinion betwen editors about content, but the article is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): Logo is PD.
    b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions): Good ALT text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

History

  • Spot check on Coastal Carolina's proposed station got a call sign, WCRD, but little else, being unable to secure financing - OK
  • Spot check on The president of Cosmos told The Sun News that the odds were long for Cosmos to actually be granted the channel - OK
  • Spot check on The construction of WMBF cost Raycom an estimated $10 million - OK
  • Optionally, use WP:CITEBUNDLE for "[13][14][15][16]"
    • What a freight train of references. Recent big TV station M&As tend to be this way with the same content and excessive citation volume on dozens of pages—it's also often the case (not here, but in some other pages) that M&As involving the parent company have been mentioned despite not being terribly germane to the station in question. I've kept two references and removed two.
  • Being somewhat familiar with your work on Wikipedia, I'm assuming that the reason there's not much history after 2008 (apart from the sale to Gray Television) is because there's nothing of note that happened.
    • Yeah, and frankly I suffer a bit from the decreased coverage of local media in newspapers. Only a handful of markets have media columnists that produce stories at the same volume they were prior to either 2000 or the Great Recession (someone like Alan Pergament of The Buffalo News, Cincinnati's John Kiesewetter, etc.)

Newscasts

  • Spot check on In the station's early years, managers elsewhere were often instructed to seek advice from WMBF on technical issues related to HD news conversion - OK, but consider adding that it was managers from other Raycom stations.
    • Done.
  • Spot check on WMBF was the first local station to launch weekend morning newscasts in the early 2010s - OK
  • Optionally, reword WMBF was the first local station to launch weekend morning newscasts in the early 2010s to show it was the first, not the first in the early 2010s
    • Done.

Technical information

  • No issues.

Infobox and lead

  • Infobox: The call sign meaning isn't sourced.
    • Fixed—turns out the first article about them from 2007 notes it's named for its Myrtle Beach–Florence coverage.
  • Lead is fairly short, which seems proportionate to the article, and I don't think there are any glaring omissions.

Great work on the article, Sammi Brie. I have only the most minor suggestions, but feel free to challenge. Placing the review on hold. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 18:10, 7 March 2023 (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

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) 13:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WMBF-TV; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Just a question
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @ Sammi Brie: Good article. Though, the first hook kind of confuses me. It makes it sound like WMBF is the first TV station in south carolina which i'm not exactly sure is the case. Simply, i kind of feel like alt0 is worded confusingly so i'd prefer a rewording. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

better. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Contour maps

Can either @ Sammi Brie: or @ Nathan Obral: add a contour map of WMBF and its translators? Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mvcg66b3r: Created and inserted a contour map along with a table for all translator specs. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:WMBF-TV&oldid=1206065898"