Talk:WNEP-TV

Good to see such a nice contribution from an anon. I get so tired of associating IP numbers with things like "OOOOhhh look I'm posting nonsense in an article... WEEEEEEEE"

Well, this is a station in my home market. Better represent, I suppose! - 128.230.205.232

One question though... what do you mean by DMA? None of the meanings listed at DMA seem to correspond to the meaning in this article. Isomorphic 06:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Designated Market Area. I'll go ahead and add that to DMA. - Hephaestos|§ 06:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hatchy Milatchy?

O'Reilly has always said in books, in interviews, and on his programs that the show he wrote for was Uncle Ted's Ghoul School, not The Land of Hatchy Milatchy. Can someone provide a source for this?

Failure to Provide Descriptions of Criminals

WNEP has a strange policy whereby it refuses to provide physical descriptions even of armed robbers. If it furnished physical descriptions, say, of people who robbed convenience stores, potential future victims might be saved and tips might be given to police officers so that the criminal could be apprehended. WNEP seems to think that, if it gives physical descriptions of people who have robbed stores, that will somehow cause inappropriate public action such as stereotypical of minorities or lynching. Such a concern, of course, is nonsense because most TV stations across America do indeed describe individuals who have robbed stores because it alerts and protects the public and because it may allow a tip to be transmitted to the police so that the criminal may be arrested. Anyhow, WNEP's policy is this regard is very, very strange -- and diametrically opposed to the public interest. —Preceding

For example, on April 23, 2008, WNEP described a home invasion robbery where a couple was pistol-whipped. The criminals were reported to be still at large. Did WNEP describe these dangerous criminals to protect the public or help the cops catch them? Nope. unsigned comment added by 70.44.154.103 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this, this, this, this, this or this? Tomdobb (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

Am I the only one who thinks this article is too long? After all, we're only talking about a TV station here, not a head of state. Not even the articles for the network flagship stations in New York and California are as long as this. I think this article should be cleaned up a bit. -- Name Not Needed 02:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate anchors page

A small network affiliate in Northeastern Pennsylvania doesn't merit its own separate WNEP Anchors page. I have proposed a merger there. --VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Shocked and Appalled

I grew up watching WNEP-16 and other stations in the Wilkes-Barre-Scranton area (Channel 28, 22, and the PBS Channel 44, the anchor for Channel 28 news was my Battalion Commander). While WNEP has a storied history, I am absolutely shocked to find a long article on it in Wikipedia. It's nothing but a minor local television station, it probably doesn't even merit an article, but someone put a lot of work into this. Wow, Uncle Ted and Hatchy Milatchy! An article on Hatchy Milachy would be more interesting than one on WNEP. Still The One and were having fun. GestaltG 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased

Although I'm not familiar with the station, the article does appear to be too long and I think it's neutrality is lacking. Thoughts?

Production Equipment

Is stuff like cameras made by Sony really relevant,too much info. Dudtz 1/20/06 9:10 PM EST

Detailed but good article

Does it really matter that the article is long? I think one of the nice things about Wikipedia is people who are passionate about a subject can share their knowledge and, in the end, help others who might be seeking some obscure piece of information. Yes this article has a lot of information and much of it is very detailed, but as long as it's accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it isn't, it should stay. In my view, it shouldn't be deleted just because of length or level of detail.

I've often found it surprising that some topics on Wikipedia that you'd think would be quite detailed only have a few paragraphs while others, like this one, are quite detailed. I don't think it sends the right message to be cutting articles for being "too detailed" in the minds of some. To me, Wikipedia is about sharing information, and as long as that information is accurate, it should stay.

It's also important to remember this station is quite popular in Northeast Pennsylvania and I'll bet a lot of people who visit this page find it very interesting and informative to know about WNEP in such detail.

Finally, I agree the article does seem to have a somewhat self-serving tone, but I'm not sure if anything can really be done about it. In addition, the article includes mentions of the station's less proud moments. I do, however, agree that the article WNEP Anchors should be merged since it's already mentioned in the main article.

Depth of information

Indeed, this is a very detailed article. However, my belief is that since Wikipedia is unlimited by space (that is, not limited by a page count), more information is preferred. Too many articles are stubs or contain very sparce information. It's obvious that the contributors feel passionate about the station. It does appear that certain details, the advertising packages come to mind, might be insider knowledge, and detract from the article's neutrality.

To remove much of the information already on the page would not benefit Wikipedia users, but I would refrain from adding subject headings or more minutiae, especially biographical information on the reporters and staff. Some of the details under the advertising heading reads like a sales pitch. I would not decimate the article, however, or remove it entirely.

Responding to a comment above: I don't have any information in front of me, but I can attest to the statement that Bill O'Reilly worked on "Uncle Ted's Ghoul School." I have never heard "Hatchy Milatchy" mentioned in relation to his tenure at WNEP. --professortestokes

Too long

I've shortened this article to something more manageable. While I know that some people really like this station, the article was entirely too long, and in some parts, biased. If more information is desired, like the names of anchors and reporters, I feel it should be on a separate page. Hopefully this revised summary will retain the most-important information and keep it as NPOV as possible. Name Not Needed 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore article

I'm very disappointed "Name Not Needed" deleted this article and ruined the hard work of a lot of people, including myself. I've edited this page from time-to-time. As evidenced from the History page, a lot of people have added to the details of this article, which should be evidence that there is in fact interest for such detailed information. As for NPOV, the only area I really felt was biased was the advertising section --- though since the station is, in fact, far-and-away number 1 ranked, most of the information about it being a good place to advertise is indeed true.

As for breaking information into separate articles, I don't think this is the way to go either. People would then start complaining that a station such as WNEP doesn't warrant a separate page for its anchors, equipment, etc.

My vote is to have the article restored to before "Name Not Needed's" edits and allow folks to address the NPOV issues. As discussed previously on this page, length/detail shouldn't be a sole reason for cutting a lot of hard work and information.

I'm reverting back to the previous version and making edits to get rid of NPOV, but keeping the depth of information. It seems to be the conensus that length/depth shouldn't be a reason for deleting accurate information.

"Name Not Needed": please consider your actions before making such drastic deletions in the future. I can't emphasize the fact that your edits deleted a lot of hard work by a lot of folks. Before doing something like this, remember how you'd feel if someone deleted your hard work.

It sounds like you're taking this personally. What, do you work for WNEP or what?

I wasn't the only one who thought the article was too long. Wikipedia has guidelines for article length, and if you edit the main article, you'll see a size warning. If you want to keep the extra info, then I feel it should be broken into separate pages. That's how the article on WFMZ is, and I don't see anyone saying "Oh, but a small independent station in Allentown doesn't deserve that!"

A detailed article about WNEP is fine, I suppose, but right now, it reads like a giant advertising vehicle. That's NPOV if you ask me, and just because WNEP is the de-facto leader in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area doesn't mean it's OK.

To you, the anonymous contributor, I suggest you stop being so attached to this article. Don't be surprised that others can edit it; after all, that's the name of the game here! - Name Not Needed 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond editing

There's a difference between editing and deleting. The solution for this article should be to keep its length and allow people to improve NPOV issues. While I understand the need for NPOV, it's tricky with articles about companies. Things such as broadcast times and show descriptions certainly may sound like advertising, but are also valuable pieces of information about the company's product. As for the advertising section of the article, much of this is confirmed in an article found in an industry publication.

I already start to improve the NPOV issues by going through and adding source links. While some of these sources are WNEP's site itself, as would be expected, I've tried to provide other sources wherever possible. I'm planning to continue this effort of sourcing information.

I don't feel personally connected to the article or the station. I do have an interest in TV news and think this detailed of an article is great. I'm just trying to protect the hard work that so many people did to build such a fascinating and interesting article. While it's obvious the article is on the long side, that's one of the advantages of the Internet. However, I do have a suggestion about breaking out some of the article info (see below).

Sigh. You know what, fine. You try to help and improve something, and suddenly people are screaming about "MY HARD WORK" and what have you. Not just here, but all across Wikipedia. Do what you want with this article. I don't care. - Name Not Needed 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Break out Newswatch 16

What do you think about breaking out all the information about the station's news broadcasts into its own article (called "Newswatch 16")? This would include broadcast times, anchor/staff info, production/equipment info and all newscast features sections. However, let's not jump on this; let's see what everyone thinks.

I agree with you on this, there should be a seperate article for the News coverage. Oh and to the people that say an article is too long. Its an Encylopedia, as long as the info provided inthe article is correct it can't be too long. If users or the encylopedia owners themselves limit the lenght of correct info then it is only turning this project from an encylopedia into a biased self serving waste of bandwidth. Deleting an article that is too long but has correct info is like firing you from your job just because I feel like the 10 hard years you put into your job was to much. Sorry for the little rant but that is how I feel Fisha695 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wnep 2007.png

Image:Wnep 2007.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 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wnep anchor.JPG

Image:Wnep anchor.JPG 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 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wnep dt2.JPG

Image:Wnep dt2.JPG 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 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wnep weather.JPG

Image:Wnep weather.JPG 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 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Song ditty and commentator

Dear WNEP: Day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day year after year after year after year after after after year YOU keep using the same OLD OLD OLD OLD Ditty song to go and return from a commercial. And the same commentator voice that has become like a old moldy smelly cellar. YOUR WATCHING NEWSWATCH 16 at 10 ON FOX 56. This is used everytime you go to commercial break and return. At Least WBRE got away from ON YOUR SIDE, However you'll continue to use the same old phrase since the 1970's. Sincerely;Larry Lishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.216.157 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wolf tv weather.png

The image Image:Wolf tv weather.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)