# Talk:WKMG-TV

"CBS Sports programs were not fully restored on WCPX until Post-Newsweek took ownership of the station, and today WKMG clears the entire CBS schedule without preemptions."
Depends what you mean by pre-emption. I was in Orlando a couple of months ago and was sort of PO'd to find The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson was delayed by half an hour (compared to my normal CBS station, WBZ-TV). It's obviously a deviation from the regular CBS schedule, not necessarily a pre-emption, but should it be noted in the article? Kirjtc2 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wkmg2007.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 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 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in the 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:

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: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.
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) 20:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

... that a Florida TV station was named for Columbia Pictures, even though a merger with that company fell through? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-orlando-sentinel-call-letter-change/141567604/
Reviewed: [[Red Yao people and Burger Continental]]
Comment: Sorry for being a day late, hope you don't mind

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC).

 Is "named for" the best understandable term? I, personally, didn't get the hook. ArionStar (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@ArionStar: Would changing the hook to "named after" satisfy your concern? For what it's worth, "named for" is grammatically correct. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Could you give me a synonymous term? ArionStar (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. "Named after" and "named for" are both grammatically correct, although the former is more common. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
@ArionStar: Are you still planning to give this a full review? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
If it is intelligible in English,  Ok. ArionStar (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
 @ArionStar: That review won't hold as it did not check all of the DYK criteria. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll leave it to the more experienced people to do. ArionStar (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)