Talk:WADL (TV)

message: WADL-TV → WADL (TV) … Rationale: FCC-assigned callsign is WADL CoolKatt number 99999 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support for resason given as the correct dab title. Vegaswikian 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
*IMPORTANT Please note that the reason it is currently at WADL-TV is because of a copy and paste move. -Whomp 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support for resason given as the correct dab title. Vegaswikian 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
*IMPORTANT Please note that the reason it is currently at WADL-TV is because of a copy and paste move. -Whomp 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've done a cleanup on the edits done by Diversitygroup and Cavern Kowalski. These edits are a bit promotional, and were obviously badly formatted, but on the other hand they do correct a lot of misinformation, and,f rankly, the zeal to revert them instead of fix them has been the cause of a lot of the edit wars here.
Can people who object to this version please explain why? Everyone here is, I think, editing in good faith, and we should be able to work together to make a good version of the article. Phil Sandifer 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, less like the advert that was being posted.  --DBishop1984 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and do not object to this version at all. Protecting the article sooner to avoid this mess was probably a mistake on my part. --Geniac 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The station hasn't replied at all about the new version, so we'll see how it goes. --DBishop1984 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You stated "If it is a fact and it is current it belongs in the edit." - Actually, no. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In relation to recent edits to this article, the other policy editors should keep in mind is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Geniac 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current version

message: Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to a list of former employees in the article. Not including this type of material in articles abides 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: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). If an article already exists in Wikipedia for the person you're considering adding to the list, it is generally considered sufficient to demonstrate their inclusion in a list of past employees is appropriate. 70.48.216.22 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material  

message: As of yesterday (7/6/15) Antenna TV moved from subchannel 38.2 to 38.4. Something called "getTV" is now on 38.2, but I'm not sure what it is, old movies of some sort it seems. Also, I don't know how to cite any of this, but that's what currently shows up over the air using a digital tuner.23:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently WADL had been planning to dump AntennaTV for a while cite http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wadl-detroit-gives-cancellation-to-antenna-tv-300105611.html 68.51.193.141 (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antenna TV  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on WADL (TV). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Below is the new logo that can be incorporated into the infobox that correlates with the existing announcement in the article of WADL_(TV) becoming an affiliate of MyNetworkTV beginning September 20, 2021.
Thank you.Tsmith47 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Proposed Changes 

message: Please update the program affiliations in the info box to the following:
| affiliations           = 38.1: MyNetworkTV38.2: Twist38.3: Quest38.4: QVC38.5: The Word Network38.6: True Crime Network38.7: HSN38.8: Digi-TV
If a third-party citation is needed for this request, here is an updated list of the station affiliationshttps://tvstations.fandom.com/wiki/WADL.Tsmith47 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise this is frustrating, but Fandom.com is a wiki that anyone can edit, so it's not a suitable source for Wikipedia. Do you have a better source? If there isn't a definitive list somewhere, then maybe those affiliations shouldn't be listed in the infobox. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely understand your point and realize that also using the company website itself to show the new order of these listings probably won't pass editorial review.  However, there is a source that I found that may suffice.  Perhaps this will work https://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=print_market&mktid=14.Tsmith47 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Thanks for the update. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you .Tsmith47 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit Request 

message: Source: https://thedesk.net/news/fcc-approves-wadl-mission-sale-with-conditions/ (Credit to AVSforums for providing the link)
Mission may actually buy WADL but under certain conditions (one of those being Nexstar's inability to operate the station). Not too sure if the station will join The CW (either that or it's a subchannel on WDIV/WJBK) though. BrownieTheAlien (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WADL may be sold to Mission