Talk:WXIX-TV

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

WSCO Call Letters[edit]

WXIX was known as XIX and WXIX for decades. I can't even remember it being referred to as WSCO -- I don't know who the heck came up with that non-factoid! It was WXIX when it broadcast Gilligan's Island and Popeye Cartoons at 3:00 p.m. during the school season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.252.141 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WSCO-TV were the call letters chosen by Daniel H. Overmyer after he bought the construction permit in 1965. In keeping with the scheme used for all of his stations, WSCO was formed from a family members initials, in this case his wife Shirley Clark Overmyer. When U.S. Communications Corp bought the station in 1968 the call letters were changed to WXIX and with those it signed on August 1, 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.72.125 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So channel 19 was never on the air with the WSCO call sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.72.125 (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in this 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) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Swann National Interest[edit]

Ben Swann has anchored "Reality Check" segments that have gained national attention including a piece about the true nature of the Federal Reserve and an interview with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.24.72 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

Fox 19 has changed their logo, along with the title card, all reporters need credit. Enough said. --72.106.217.160 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:54, 29 July 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:WXIX-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As expected from a Sammi Brie article, it is very well researched. Sources are great, and everything is well detailed. However, I am seeing several minor problems with how information is presented which will require changes before this can pass. While all these issues are minor, they add up. Phrasings like the station made a series of news expansions so great it analyzed or statements like WXIX-TV was the number one UHF independent station in the United States and in the top ten of all independents, VHF or UHF, nationwide. need to be toned down or attributed. This shouldn't be too difficult, though.
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The two uses of () for entire statements is a bit off-kilter. The station was able to successfully parlay its 10 p.m. success into mornings, adding a 6 a.m. hour in 1998, and the station's success increased... [emphasis added] should be fixed. The FCC approved the purchase by AVC forgot to say what was purchased. For the record, that bit is also a run-on sentence.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    sailed through MOS:IDIOM; Some chatter MOS:WEASEL; Lang promised MOS:SAID. That's just what I found in "Prior to launch", and there needs to be more rewrites in other places to just fix the tone issues.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Seeing the tribulations of other UHF television stations around the country, This should be clarified as only Lang's opinion.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    See 1b comment.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Above concerns should be addressed before this can pass. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MJL: I believe I've addressed the tonal issues and made other prose tweaks. Please let me know if there is more; I'm always listening. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sammi Brie: I'm not seeing anything else, so I'll mark this as a pass now. Good job and congrats! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:51, 29 July 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 Rlink2 (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

To T:DYK

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 23:42, 29 July 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: Epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)>[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WXIX-TV&oldid=1211002130"