Talk:WLOX

Question

• Since when did photographers and producers start appearing on TV pages? A little too much, don't you think? - --Bdj95 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• The history section was copied directly from WLOX's Web page. This needs some serious cleaning up. - --Bdj95 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

News media people think they are special and worthy of Wikipedia notation apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.150.110 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

CBS sub-channel is standard definition

and looks TERRIBLE! And they even have it set like this during football games! It makes my eyes bleed. The Fox station has HD on BOTH channels, what gives??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.150.110 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)