Talk:WAMI-DT

Miami Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Template:TelevisionStationsProject

cleanup tag

Needs a major facelift, especially with grammar, --->!!!WORDING!!!<---, formatting, and who knows what else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PRueda29 (talk • contribs) 05:05, September 24, 2005 (UTC)

Done, almost three months later. --Wcquidditch | Talk 12:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic tone

The history section seems to have taken a tone that does not read like an encyclopedia article, particularly in the portions detailing the station's history as an independent. This is especially noticeable in the mentions of the station's award wins. This probably needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcquidditch (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 July 2008

Agreed - and have added an unbalanced tag to that effect. 74.161.38.253 (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was revisiting my past contributions, and have just now heavily rewritten / copyedited (and refactored in the case of the awards section) the 1998-2002 (under USA Broadcasting) history section to hopefully better fit an encyclopedic tone and fit under a neutral point of view. Further edits might be helpful to further improve the article (and particularly this section), while remembering this is an encyclopedia article and should be neutral as to whether WAMI was successful or not. adamw4 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TelefuturaLogo.jpg

The image Image:TelefuturaLogo.jpg 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. --07:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the other 15 years of the station's existence?

It seems that the period from 1997 to 2002 seems well-covered (although it's in dire need of copyediting), there is only nominal mention of the first nine years and barely a trivial mention of the programming and personnel of the 2002-present station (and the latter should be presented before the history). There could also be a brief mention of channel 61 being a translator channel for WCIX-TV (as were 33 - now WBSF - and 61), once the statement can be sourced. B.Wind (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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) 02:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]