lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:WXII-TV

message: I have removed most of the former staff section.  WP:NLIST requires that all people on lists of this type 1) be notable enough to be included in prose in the article, and 2) have a reliable source (or own article) that confirms that they were on-air personality on this station.  I didn't worry much about the first, but everyone who didn't meet the second was removed.  Note that some of the people had references, like Denise Franklin, but that reference didn't actually say that they used to work for WXII, or, in the case of Fred Shropshire, the source didn't meet WP:RS, or, as in the case of John Wendel, the link was dead so I couldn't verify the info.  If anyone has sources that verify that these people worked for WXII, then those entries could be re-added. For prior discussions on this topic, please see WT:WikiProject Television Stations and this Village Pump discussion.  
As a side note, when the references were done as a direct link, I converted it to a full citation.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant trimming of former staff
Talk:WXIX-TV

message: 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)
thread_title: WSCO Call Letters

message: 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:
#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) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ben Swann National Interest 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outdated
Talk:WXMI

message: 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:
#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: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. 
#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) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material
Talk:WPPT (TV)

message: Why does this page not mention that the station WAS a PBS affiliate from 1957 to 1963?Centerone (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Why didn't WPTPBS35 extra the democracynow election special for 2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.29.130 (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 democracy now election special
Talk:WYOU

message: Frank Megargee founded both the TV and radio stations.  Edwin was his brother and not a founder.
Regarding "Scranton Broadcasters was at one time probably the only broadcasting company in the country run by five women." -- WSAH (then known as WBCT) in Connecticut was operated by a group of women.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.182.28 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:WPHY-CD

message: 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:
#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: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. 
#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) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material
Talk:WZDX

message: I remember the tower on Green Mountain going up.  The article doesn't say, but should say, when transmissions moved (I presume) from there to the WAAY tower.  Is the Green Mountain tower still there?  Still in use? -- ke4roh (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmitter location
Talk:WZRB

message: WAZE-TV may have gotten all the attention with regards to the Roberts Broadcasting saga and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) action… but Roberts has now lost the WZRB license as of yesterday (PDF) for not filing a license to cover for its digital facility.  That's pretty similar to last Thursday's deletion of WAZE, except that WAZE's failure to actually build its facility was more directly called out (PDF).  Not being in the Columbia market, I don't know if WZRB is still on the air or not… (and with Roberts in general, who knows what's going on… all these FCC actions come on the heels of several lawsuits over programming fees) so an update might be needed. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, if it's an indication of anything, WZRB's website is stuck in June 2010.  Granted, that by itself doesn't mean much — but then again, this is a Roberts station… (and that's still better than WAZE and the now-also-deleted WRBJ, both of which have already closed their sites down) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today, 5 April, WZRB is still on air. According to the FCC, WZRB is now DDWZRB, WRBJ is now DDWRBJ, and WAZE-TV is now DWAZE-TV. Does anyone know why the FCC has two "d"s instead of one?--98.71.21.133 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! WRBJ is now DWRBJ and WAZE-TV is now DDWAZE-TV. Sorry about my mistake.--98.71.28.6 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: As of 19 April, WZRB and WRBJ are now back on the FCC TVQ and have officially regained the callsigns WZRB and WRBJ.--98.71.10.220 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed — WZRB deleted
Talk:WVVA

message: How is this article part of WikiProject Ohio?  WVVA isn't licensed within Ohio, and their signal doesn't even creep into the Buckeye State.  Perhaps someone got WVVA confused with radio station WWVA in Wheeling, W.V., a clear-channel station that actually covers Ohio.  Any and all Ohio-related tags should be removed from this article.  Rollosmokes (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio? 

message: Leigh Ann Long Departed from WVVA on June 30,2008. I understand she is still on the web site, but she is now with a station is Ashville,NC (I watch this station) --Catdog4169 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leigh Ann Long 

message: I'm confused as to why the IP's edit is considered vandalism.  RTN is NOT seen on 6-3.  While it is signed up to carry RTN at some point in the future, it is not currently being aired.  I've seen it with my own two eyes and it's reflected on my website, and if that's not reputable enough, WVVA's website doesn't mention it either. TripEricson (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: The RTN says WVVA is a RTN affiliate, but it is not on air.  Should WVVA be listed as a current RTN affiliate????
23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...it is an affiliate, so it should be listed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know that it's going to be on 6-3.  It could very easily replace CW+ on 6-2.  The article stated very clearly that 6-3 "is" an RTN affiliate, rather than "will be," when there is no 6-3 at all so it's not factually accurate as stated. TripEricson (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTN Affitiate or Not!?!?!?!?!?! 

message: WVVA changed its logo. Please update. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:489C:A050:16DE:8685 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo changed
Talk:WXLV-TV

message: (1) There's a statement that sister station WLOS produces the morning news cut-ins, and then "It is unknown" whether WLOS still produces the cut-ins since Time Warner Cable is producing the morning newscast. Couldn't someone actually watch the broadcast and answer this question? (2) The morning news anchors are listed as Rob Boisvert and Claudine Chalfant. According to their TWC News biographies, Boisvert is in Charlotte and Chalfant is in Raleigh, but the morning news is listed as being produced in Greensboro. Could someone please clarify this? Thanks. 71.75.60.229 (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Warner Cable News on WXLV 

message: Several of the articles on Sinclair Broadcasting stations, including this one until I changed it a moment ago, make the flat statement that Sinclair violated FCC regulations by having effective duopolies through its relationship with Glencairn and/or Cunningham, both of which are owned by family members. Unless they have officially been found to have committed a violation, this statement is POV and should be removed wherever it occurs. Even if it's accurate, it's not verifiable if no action was ever taken against the company. 166.205.64.48 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinclair Broadcasting and the FCC
Talk:WYFF

message: I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page or have a reference to establish their notability.  This is the current consensus procedure, based on discussions at WP:WikiProject Television Stations and at the Village Pump. The rationales are as follows:
#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.  
#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.
#Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
#Per WP:NLIST, lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article. 
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). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant trimming of Former Staff section
Talk:WYMT-TV

message: Hey, guys... I know you guys are trying, but parts of this article are not written in formal enyclopedic style.  It's reading too much as a "behind the scenes" tour of the station, and less about just the facts.  I'm not sure there's a way to describe the problem, but I think the article needs a more dispassionate (and not-so personally invested) view. Amnewsboy 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give it a one-over after 12 Midnight (am running an online radio show right now) and see if I can't make it more enyclopedic.  Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knocked some sections that would be un-enyclopedic. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:TONE]]
Talk:WYTV

message: Possibly important distinction, possibly not: Do these guys actually have an affiliation agreement with My Network TV, or are they simply planning to show My Network TV programming and are still negotiating with Fox? Because Broadcasting and Cable, TV Week, and Mediaweek all have no articles on it, and the first two are my personal holy grail of CW/MyNet announcements. This reminds me of when B&C had an article on Clear Channel officially buying KUWB from Acme Communications with the "intent" of making it a CW affiliate, which really confused me as it wasn't really an affiliation announcement, and there was a separate actual announcement later. Morgan Wick 01:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, B&C has an article today. Morgan Wick 22:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My YTV 

message: Subchannels generally don't get separate articles from the main station, unless they are de facto continuations of a defunct separately-licensed station. That's not the case here. (At the same time, any merger might ought to be selective — how much of the overdetail-in-this-context regarding the CW and MyNetworkTV formations and the minimally-referenced content should be retained?) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[WYTV-DT2]] into [[WYTV]]
Talk:WYES-TV

message: Someone is changing the phrasing of virtual channel references from "Through the use of PSIP" to "However".  This reduces the quality of the article as it suggests that it is unknown how a virtual channel is established.  The editor should identify him/herself and explain the merits of this change.  In the interim, I will revert all NOLA TV pages back.
Sore bluto (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: PSIP
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Proposed revision

message: Sometimes notable things are only verifiable from a few websites. How are we supposed to keep articles verifiable when such sites (even articles by reputable newspapers) go missing? - 131.211.210.14 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of a sourcing question, but verifiability has never meant "easy online verifiability". There are a lot of books that aren't online, and most scientific articles are hard to find outside of libraries, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be referenced. --The Cunctator 13:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing websites

message: The following was added:
:"Verifiable information" has either been published by reliable sources (such as books or newspapers), or are directly verifiable in a practical way (such as CD track listings or level names in a computer game).
Providing a definition of verifiable information is, I think, outside the scope of the Verifiability policy. (Or is it?) The policy/guidelines of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Try to verify and Wikipedia:Citing sources hammer down the current thought on what is or is not verifiable. In other words, I don't think the *policy itself* should restrict the definition of verifiability outside of common sense. --The Cunctator 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of verifiability 

message: Personally I am opposed to dividing the page.  Given that wikipedia is not paper, length in and of itself is not a problem.  But this explains only why I see no need to divide it; I have other reasons for being opposed to dividing it.  I believe that the detail provided on different ways to comply with the policy are essential to a sound understanding of the policy.  It is easier for someone to go to the policy and read the first few paragraphs and then decide they get the point, than for someone to go to the policy and then have to follow various links to other articles because they still aren't clear.  By the way, I suspect that some of the Cunctators concerns with the policy - specifically Jguk's version - have to do with cuts Jguk made.  I urge the Cunctator to look at the pre-Jguk-cuts-version and see if that version preempted his concerns. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I just think that the idea of separating the statement of policy from interpretation and analysis of policy is always good. Like the Torah and the Talmud, or the Koran and the Haddith. Think about what is likely to remain immutable and what will change as Wikipedia changes over time. Examples of dealing with verifiability are dependent on the current instance of Wikipedia -- but the policy of verifiability is not. --The Cunctator 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dividing the page
Talk:Cryptography/Archive 1

message: Could someone confirm (or change) the date for the publication of AES as a FIPS. It's either 26 November 2001 (as the AES entry states) or 4 December 2001 (when the press release was made).
:FIPS 197 shows a that 26 November 2001 date as correct. This date appears both on the page listing it, and inside the document itself. -- Cyrius 03:48, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: misc issues

message: The cypher vs cipher question has arisen again. See an exchange of notes in User_Talk:SpellBott for the details.
And yet again. See Talk:Lorenz cypher for the details. Even more strongly felt this time. ww 20:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: again, cypher v cipher (elsewhere, these times)

message: I have undertaken to regularize and simplify some of the language in the first portion of this article.  In particular, I have removed the words "garble" and "gobbledygook" from the first paragraph.  Though these are somewhat valid descriptions, they gave the article a hokey feel, as did the later use of "marketing blather", etc.  If anyone disagrees with me on these points, please feel free to change it back.  Or better yet, explain why you intend to change it back, then do so. Dachshund 18:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: informal language bad
Talk:Jaja Uma Grooming Up!

message: hi. I will need a big help to expand these as i know only the plot and story, but no details. help me patlabor fans... :) Tasfan 08:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact same story synopsis is found on this page. I don't know who copied it from who, but if it's theirs, they own the copyright and the story synopsis on this article need to be removed per WP:CP and/or rewritten. Ninja neko 14:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help
Talk:Chatsworth, KwaZulu-Natal

message: This article neglects serious issues that surround Chatsworth's economic and social climate, namely rampant poverty not likely to be addressed by the "devlopement" noted.
:Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, it's nice to use a header (which I added). Thirdly, be bold and make the necessary changes. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic and social climate 

message: What is the hypothesis of this settlement 41.13.140.9 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lusaka informal settlements