Talk:WIS (TV)

History Cleanup

I took out a LOT of the station's history as noted on here, because it was either unsourced, promotional, or went off on a tangent. Some of it was also superfluous -- every television news program goes through set changes, I'm reasonably sure that every station there covered the "big stories" that were listed, and simply adding newscasts to the lineup is not "historical". I would ask future editors to please be concise. Amnewsboy 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to History Cleanup

Thank you for cleaning up quite a bit of the history. However, while it may be true that every station went through set changes, none of the stations in Columbia has focused on the transition to HDTV (only WIS has made this clear). Also, WIS was the only station to have significant news coverage until the mid-1990s. Unfortunately I cannot cite this here because this is from personal history, but those who have lived in the Columbia metropolitan area would have known that WLTX and WOLO did not have significant news teams and coverage until the mid-1990s, and only until Gannett purchased WLTX in the late 1990s did they begin to expand their news coverage and become a direct competitor. Before then, the station did poorly in terms of coverage (i.e. did not do extensive news coverage like WIS). WOLO still has a very weak news product and does not break in for local breaking news (only weather...and that's indicated with a crawler). Just wanted to give the context instead of just the assumption that "every station there covered the 'big stories'". 152.3.81.78 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for response to the edits; it's appreciated (because these things work best when they're talked about!). I think the problem we're drifting into here is that, while they may have done the best job or had the most resources, there are other stations in the market that cover news. By qualifying them in the way you suggest, we're introducing opinion into the article -- WP articles are supposed to remain POV neutral (WP:NPOV). It's very easy to turn this (and many TV station articles) into commercials for the station, and we have to watch how we balance it. Amnewsboy 09:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's objectively accurate (and documentable) that WIS has historically produced a (sometimes far) greater quantity of news and other local programming than the other two stations, and that's still true with regard to WOLO. Right now, WIS produces almost five hours of news per weekday (soon to be equalled by WLTX), while WOLO does half an hour at 6 and 11 and the five-minute Good Morning America cut-ins, and that's it. If you want a source to cite for the historical amount of local programming produced by each station, The State archives should be available on microfilm at libraries in the Columbia area -- the TV listings for any day prior to the mid-1990's will show you the disparity. JTRH 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Weathercaster vs. Meteorologist

The MSU Weather Certificate is a highly debated topic in the Meteorological Community. Simply stating that the AMS would call you a meteorologist, does not necessarily make it so. AMS is one of many for-profit, non-government organizations of differing opinions. One organization's opinion does not make something fact. The Meteorological Community as a whole (<--highly subjective), have an overwhelming opinion of differing the basic studies of MSU Distant Learning Certificate as a Weathercaster, where those with at least a 4-year degree in an accredited University shall be deemed a Meteorologist. The opinion of the Meteorological Community is the "opinion" that matters in the Field (as no organization legally owns the right to the "Meteorologist" title.)

Furthermore, since the topic is in such heated political debate, it is against Wikipedia's policy to take sides in the issue. This is the same way that Wikipedia cannot state that it was right or wrong for the United States to invade Iraq (There is no fact and no court ruling to make either statement legal.) All television meteorologists are technically "weathercasters" whereas all weathercasters are NOT technically "a Meteorologist." Given this fact, the correct way of stating a title for folks of this certificate is "weathercaster" or "weather anchor" as it's the only way of stating facts without incorporating debated opinions and politics.

The following has been re-inserted after being removed by another participant in this edit war:

I have a couple of questions for the above poster:

Does MSU itself call you a meteorologist after you've received this degree/certificate/credential, or only after you receive the four-year degree?

What other organizations are there besides the AMS that either issue or recognize the credential of "meteorologist"? Who else makes up the "Meteorological Community" to which you refer?

What are your own professional credentials in this area? You've made statements on behalf of the "Meteorological Community" without offering any sources for those statements or evidence of your own knowledge or experience. Until you can source some of your statements, your stating that he's NOT a meteorologist is every bit as much a matter of opinion as someone else stating that he is. I'm not taking sides, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking for more information. Thanks. JTRH 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WIS"

If the two of you simply keep substituting "meteorologist" and "weather anchor" for each other, I'm going to ask that the page (and the talk page) be protected until this can be resolved. JTRH 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JTRH, Sorry I didn't see your post earlier. The other party was obviously trying to cover up my discussion and deleted it along with your questions. I am in the process of researching for sources to prove the statements that I have made. I will get back with you once I get a collection. Most of the information I learned through common knowledge of working as a news media specialist for many years. The MSU debate has continued to be a hot topic for several years. There are many articles and forum discussions by professional meteorologists that state the ultimate fact that it's a debate as to who should be considered a meteorologist. Even a legislative bill that was introduced in the state of Texas that if inacted would have made it a Misdemeanor for someone in radio or television to be called a meteorologist without having a more advanced education than offered through the MSU Distance Learning Program. As far as other organizations in meteorology, your big ones include, but are not limited to, NWA, AMS, WMO and NOAA. The Federal Government of the United States also has a different definition of a meteorologist. Those can be found (ironically) on the AMS page as well. [1] The government will not consider you a meteorologist until you've completed the given coursework and accordingly would not hire anyone as a meteorologist in a government agency without those qualifications. The point is, AMS does not have the legal power in their opinion of who is a meteorologist, as the government and other agencies also have their own opinions that differ. There are a lot of loopholes involved there thus an official definition for meteorologist has yet to be reached. The consensus seems high enough that anyone with a B.S. degree or higher in Meteorology, Atmospheric Science or related field can be deemed a meteorologist. However, those that are still in school obtaining a degree and those with a meteorology "certificate" is where the debate often gets heated. A large number of meteorologists have reported publicly and through media message forums that it's highly insulting to them to have their title "meteorologist" watered-down by folks with only basic weather education trying to claim it. We know that every television weather person is technically a "weather anchor" even if they have a degree in Meteorology. In that manner, everyone in tv weather can automatically be listed as "weather anchor." Those that are without debate a meteorologist (B.S. Degree or Higher in a related field) would definitely earn the right to have the "Meteorologist" title added to their name. In the case where there is no clearly definitive answer as to whether or not a person is a meteorologist, the title should not be added to their name. They should keep "Weather Anchor" title, as that is all that we're sure is correct (As even if they are a meteorologist, they could still be classified as a weather anchor). In summary, my calling him a Weather Anchor is an accurate fact. The debate comes with whether or not his title should be allowed to be upgraded to meteorologist. Until there is a more clear definition that is accepted and the debate is solved, it is against Wikipedia's policy to allow the "meteorologist" upgrade. I'll gladly continue to discuss the subject, as my objective is not to troll and destruct the page, but simply to keep Wikipedia accurate and "politically correct."

---

Unrelated to the weathercaster vs. meteorologist: You say, "it is against Wikipedia's policy to allow the 'meteorologist' upgrade."

First of all, who are you to make that call? Unless you are a Wikipedia official (which you're not), you are not qualified to make this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.39.216 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way we can broker a compromise for the time being? We can just write down who anchors what program for now instead of making such a definitive statement with meteorologist vs. weathercaster. That way we can leave out the meteorology/weather anchor title and just write down "Anchors x news." That'll at least avoid the title issue until we can settle down on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.83.64 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Sure, the logical step is to call *everyone* a weather anchor, as technically, there is no legal definition for "meteorologist." I believe it is not fair to single someone out, by name, based on another person's opinion of their professional credentials. This meteorologist vs. weathercaster question an obviously debatable topic, but one which will surely never be decided in this forum, or on this website.

In response to 71.76.39.216, please read all of the policies/guidelines on Wikipedia and you will see where the page is designed to be non-biased and does not "take sides" in debated issues. Your unprofessional personal attack on me in your past post is also against the policies of Wikipedia. Please make valid posts about the discussion topic at hand, and do not revert to personal attacks. This policy can be found at the following link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Deletion> in which the policy says the following:

"No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro Meteorology Counsil (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think for the time being, the "everyone is an anchor of weather" is a suitable substitute. Reviewing the credentials, I do think it would be okay to define Ben Tanner as a meteorologist, based on him obtained a "Master of Geoscience Degree in Meteorology" according to the station's website. From my research, the Masters Degree is more than enough to classify one as a Meteorologist as it fits every definition from all organizations of defining the term and I would highly doubt that anyone in the meteorology field would say otherwise. However, the current layout of everyone in the category "anchors the weather" is not a false statement, thus I accept the article as simply saying that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro Meteorology Counsil (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so unreasonable to call someone with a masters degree in meteorology a meteorologist? If he had a masters in civil engineering we would have no problem calling him an "Engineer." I think it would be safe to say that anyone with a post-graduate degree who currently works in thier field of expertise could be safely labeled as an "+est." Also, in many cases where there is controversy we allow the person to "self-identify." In this case, (with false advertising laws applicable) they self-identify as "meteorologist". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Since Ben Tanner has a masters degree in meteorology, I think he SHOULD be allowed to use the "meteorologist" term. I don't think anyone has any debate over that. The debate comes with classifying other members of the weather team "a meteorologist" that do not have any meteorology degrees. I'll give it a day or so more just incase anyone has any objections to calling Ben Tanner a Meteorologist. At that point, providing no objections, I'll include the term by his name. As far as the dictionary definition goes, that simply focuses on the job of a meteorologist and not the qualifications. I've seen in dictionaries where it defines a medical doctor as "one who treats illnesses" and of course there are nurses, wives, parents, etc that all help treat illnesses too while they certainly are not a "doctor" for doing so. A Meteorologist is one who monitors, researches and/or forecasts weather, but just like in the doctor case, just because someone forecasts or monitors the weather, does not make them a meteorologist. I'm all for including the "meteorologist" title to Ben Tanner's name due to his masters degree in meteorology, but the other non-degree members need to stay as weathercasters or simply the "anchors weather at X time" as it's stated now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro Meteorology Counsil (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Meteorologist

Here is how the various dictionaries define "meteorologist":

me·te·or·ol·o·gist n.

1. One who studies meteorology.
2. One who reports and forecasts weather conditions.

American Heritage Dictionary

meteorologist, noun

• a specialist who studies processes in the earth's atmosphere that cause weather condition

WordNet

meteorologist

• A person skilled in meteorology.

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that last one was Websters. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The page has been protected from editing for 3 days. Please use this time to try to resolve disputes and reach consensus here on the talk page. The article will automatically be unprotected at the end of the 3-day period, but if the edit war flares up again then it may be re-protected for a longer period. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is now unprotected but the first shot of a new edit war has been fired. Reasonable people can all live with the phrase "anchors weather" as an accurate statement, and it was chosen and accepted as a compromise specifically to avoid a return to the recent conflict. I reverted the last change for that reason. If the anon user who keeps changing the title to Meteorologist persists, we may need to re-protect the page, because he wasn't interested in discussing things civilly last time. JTRH 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the anon user (71.76.39.216) is back at it again today. I think we'll probably need another protection. Perhaps an abuse report against this users IP address for repeatedly interfering with a discussion by reverting back without adding to the discussion as well as personal attacks and destruction of others comments the discussion thread. A little online research on the IP address in question lead me to some very interesting findings. I will not state my findings here as to protect the users privacy, but it does provide an answer to why the user is taking the situation so personal and responding with continued aggression. It is very hard to carry on a mature discussion when there is constant interuption by someone editing in a childish manner without attempt to discuss in a civil manner. If the user continues to maliciously edit the page or responds with continued aggression, a formal complaint will be filed with the Wikipedia abuse department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro Meteorology Counsil (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been far more civil to deal with, and more willing to rationally discuss your position, in this edit war than the other participant, but the only person whose qualifications either of you is arguing about is Brooks Garner. For your part, may I ask why you have put so much effort into stating that he, individually, is not entitled to be called a meteorologist? You're not making changes to the listings of other recipients of this certificate, are you? This seems to be personal on both of your parts. Just wondering. JTRH 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JTRH, nothing personal against Brooks Garner. I have watched his weathercasts a few times and he seems like a very nice fellow. The problem is, his name is the only one with the certificate that is being changed to "meteorologist." Alicia Roman is taking the same online classes to get the certificate and if "meteorologist" were put by her name either now or after finishing the certificate program, I would question that just the same way. If Joe Pinner's name was upgraded to include "meteorologist" I would respond in the same fashion. So it's nothing personal against Brooks, it's simply his name is the only name getting mislabeled. I have checked in several surrounding markets and all folks seem to be labeled properly (or either not labeled at all as weather anchor or meteorologist.) I would be interested in seeing what MS State has to say. They are probably avoiding the term on the programs website as they realize it's a very controversial topic (and even considered offensive to many with the on-campus "degree" at their University.) That being said, I would be a bit surprised if they will openly deny the right of someone referring to themself as a meteorologist with the certificate program because it would look bad upon the certificate program that's in question. Since there is no legal definition of meteorologist, and only a moral and political debate over what's right, they could easily get away with promoting their own program more than it deserves to be promoted. I think the only fair way to handle this would be a popular vote cast by professionals in the meteorology field. I think the perfect place to conduct this would be on Medialine. I've just registered for an account there, but have been a lurker on the site for a long time. The weather board is by far the most superior and professional forum I have found in my years of working in media and there are hundreds of professional meteorologists on that forum (Including many from Mississippi State on-campus and the distance learning certificate program.)I'll go so far as to say that when your "Average Joe" starts posting on there, they tend to get run off for not being in the business. I will conduct a poll on the weather section and post a link to where the situation can be followed. If the majority rules in favor (which it may, as I know there are many people that have posted in similar topics that they do believe the program has enough credentials to call one a meteorologist) then I too will let the issue rest. They are the professionals that do weather for a living and they (the meteorological community) are the ones whose opinion should ultimately matter. It has brought about considerable debate on both sides in previous topics, but I have never seen a poll to get the official tally. I will post links and information once I get the poll up and running (likely later today or tonight.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro Meteorology Counsil (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the program at Mississippi State to get their opinion. I'm willing to let that be the final word. If they attest that someone with this certificate is entitled to call himself a "meteorologist," then that's the appropriate term to use in this article; otherwise, it's not. But nowhere on that program's Website do they refer to people who earn that certificate as "meteorologists." The closest they come is something along the lines of "people with experience in broadcast meteorology."JTRH 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And the final word is...anyone with the MSU certificate MAY call himself a meteorologist, but the program prefers that the certificate holder wait until receiving an AMS or NWA seal. If Brooks Garner has earned the NWA seal, that seems to make it official, and I hope that ends the edit war. Thanks.JTRH 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting the final tally of what the meteorologists and operational forecasters have to say based on the poll stated above. As of late tonight, the poll is still getting votes (it will take a few days for all willing members to vote) but as of right now 78 forecasters have voted. Of those, 53% believe that the certificate should not be qualified as a meteorologist (need a full degree and/or AMS or CBM seal. 47% believe that the certificate alone should qualify one as a meteorologist. This shows that the debate is very divided among professionals in the field with a higher percentage against the labeling of a meteorologist. In order to protect the person's identity, I refer to the individual as "John Doe" in the poll and refuse to answer any questions in the forum dealing with the exact reason for the poll (as it would attract others to search for this discussion and likely lead to a severe edit war.) The link to the poll is [2]---Another factor also brought to my attention is the fact that the new CBM seal (Certified Broadcast Meteorologist) that is replacing the AMS seal will require higher credentials than offered by the MSU Distance Learning Program. If this certificate were to make one a broadcast meteorologist, then why would the most liberal defining group of the term (American Meteorological Society) not allow the person to obtain a (Certified Broadcast Meteorologist) seal. Until these questions can be sorted out or until the majority of the meteorological community sampled in the poll can agree to calling one a Meteorologist with the MSU Certificate, then the topic is still under too much of a political debate for a Wikipedia article to take sides. The final answer to a debated topic should be based on a consensus, which has (at least thus far) not supported upgrading the term to "meteorologist." If the final result comes out to a tie (or a very near tie) then I think the best course of action would be to replace "meteorologist / weather anchor" with a separate term (such as "MSU Certificate") that links to some type of unbiased article or discussion that explains that though the person does not have a degree in meteorology, they do have more training than your average (non-certificate) weather anchor and it should include that there is a nearly 50/50 debate among professional forecasters as to whether or not a person with this certificate should be allowed to use the term "Meteorologist." I would be willing to settle for that. considering the hard data, something needs to be done other than taking a side that the consensus does not support. I tend to be leaning more toward the letting the issue rest as an unsolved and unbiased debate by adding an additional category between "weather anchor" and "meteorologist" that explains the issue. That way, those with the MSU certificate would be able to fairly claim more training and credentials than those with no training in meteorology (so that their earning the certificate is not a waste), yet it would also be fair to those with a full degree and AMS/CMB certificate(s) so their additional training will not be a waste that they can't take additional credit for. I hope that what I'm trying to explain makes sense.

This is where you and I part company. The person at Mississippi State with whom I corresponded mentioned that this is a controversial issue. But the fact is that the accredited academic institution which issues the credential states that a person who receives it is entitled to call himself a meteorologist, and therefore he is professionally entitled to do so. The final word about that (in general, not just on Wikipedia) is theirs, not yours and not mine. If you feel so strongly about this (as you obviously do) that you want to raise questions about the legitimacy of the credential (in general, not just for Brooks Garner), you can discuss it on the talk page, but removing the title of meteorologist from his listing because you don't thin he's earned it is no longer appropriate. It's not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of your substituting your opinion (and/or that of a non-scientific poll) for that of an accredited academic institution. I appreciate your civility as this has been going on; as I've said, you've been far more pleasant to deal with than the other guy. I supported the use of the terms "weather anchor" or "anchors weather" as a compromise while this was going on, but as far as I'm concerned, the issue has been resolved and the term "meteorologist" belongs in the article, and I will not support changing it. If you still feel strongly, we can ask for arbitration. Thanks. JTRH 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A more constructive thought, a few minutes later: Is there a page on Wikipedia that discusses broadcast meteorology? You might want to write a paragraph about this controversy there, and link to it from any pages that you think are relevant. If I didn't make myself clear in the above statement, I'm not questioning your editorial judgment, I'm accepting the statement of a reputable academic institution, which qualifies as an acceptable source in academic work. JTRH 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

November 2007 Revisions

I edited Brandon Lokits title from "Saturday morning weather", to "Saturday Morning meteorologist." Brandon attended Mississippi State University for his undergrad degree (4 year program), earning a BS degree in Geosciences, therefore graduating from the University as a 'meteorologist.' If he were to have attended the 3-year MSU Certificate Program in Geosciences, he'd have to be on-air full time for at least 2 years, plus have an NWA or AMS seal to earn that title. (That last sentence regarding the MSU Certificate Program was based on the information and conclusions in the earlier discussion on this page, which featured direct confirmation by MSU.)

December 2007 Revisions

Brooks Garner's title had been changed by someone (with an Indiana IP address), from "evening meteorologist" to "chief meteorologist." I changed it back to "evening meteorologist" as WIS has apparently done-away with the old "chief" system with the departure of Ken Aucoin in early '07. While Garner is the main evening meteorologist today, I've never heard anyone refer to him, or read on the WIS website, as being "chief meteorologist." Titles should not be assigned if they're not readily apparent, and instead their positions should be simply described based on on-air appearance (morning/evening/weekend). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.11.134 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

May 2008 Revisions

"Storm Track Doppler Radar" was not the stations own radar. It was a viewer of WSR-88D NEXRAD data from the National Weather Service. Once WIS purchased it's own radar, it was branded "Super Doppler."

Also removed the "first website in the market" portion. WOLO was actually the first station in the Columbia market to have a news website. WIS was second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina Media (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Just to add to the May 2008 revisions: a note and suggestion. Use it as you may. I have worked as a consulting (software) engineer at these stations and found some inaccuracies earlier contributed.

WIS accesses the WSR-88D National Weather Service (NWS) radar data on both the Level 2 and Level 3 data sets offered by the NWS. (Level 2 is higher resolution -- K-band radar.) WIS imports that raw government data into their computer system, which runs on a software they have named, "3DStormTrakr radar", which interprets that data and creates the product they show on air, with a custom map-base, road, and radar color-table.

BUT, in addition to that government radar data, they also have their own C-band doppler radar (real-time data), which they own and operate, located on top of the Blue Cross building, in NE Columbia. (It looks like a giant golf ball on the roof of the tower at I-77 and I-20 intersection.) The K-band NWS radar has a longer effective range than the WIS C-band radar, but the C-band radar has a higher resolution for the Columbia Metro area than the NWS K-band WSR-88D, due to its relative proximity far enough away from downtown (considering the lower C-band transmission power) to avoid a "doppler dead zone" -- which is a lack of effective data occurring within about 10nm of a K-band radar site, due to the tilt of the beam and extreme power of a K-band radar site. (A dead zone looks like a donut of "no rain" over the affected area -- in this case, downtown Columbia.)

When WIS combines their radar with the NWS radar source, there's no "doppler dead zone" over Columbia. Other stations can't claim this advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.1.2 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

WSR-88D is supposed to be an S-Band radar system. Precipitation radars are X, C, S and L. Cloud radars are what we call K-Band and W-Band. So, for the last poster, I think you're referring to S-band rather than K-band. At one point, WLTX had their own live doppler on top of Lexington Medical Center, but to my knowledge has since done away with it. I would avoid putting those radar comments into the actual article. While it serves as good advertising, it is misleading by making it seem that other television outlets and the NWS do not have the capability to monitor weather as affectively. The closer location of the NWS WSR-88D actually helps Columbia as it's able to scan over columbia at a lower elevation. That lower elevation makes it more valuable for detecting tornado development. It will still show an accurate precipitation reflectivity over the Columbia area as well (the donut hole of complete silence is actually only about 1 nm in diameter, where downtown Columbia is approximately 5 nm from the radar tower.) The only setback over the downtown Columbia area is for analyzing purposes, where the radar beam may not be able to scan high enough to see the upper part of the storm where the largest hail is located. For that, one must resort to the next nearest radar towers of KGSP and KCLX. Those two S-band radars give a good look at the upper levels of storms over the Columbia area. So from this standpoint, all levels of a storm over Columbia can be monitored by any station or any member of the public through an internet connection just as affectively as WIS. Promotion of such a thing, especially on an "equal" media such as Wikipedia, would not survive long before controversy arises. Even promotion of that on the WIS-TV airwaves could cause controversy with other stations and even the NWS, should they feel that their equipment and degree of service is being unrightfully downplayed. Television stations in other markets have gotten into pretty hot waters with NWS and their competition due to similar radar controversy in the past. Just something to be cautious of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina Media (talk • contribs) 07:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The goal of my last post about the WIS-owned live radar wasn't to assign or suggest market dominance of their radar capability over other stations, but was intended instead to discuss that WIS doesn't just rely on NWS radar, as the previous discussion suggested, and as other stations (WLTX, WOLO, WACH) do. In my unofficial opinion as a (weather) freelance software engineer and weather enthusiast, two radars are better than one. It seems that having a second source nearby to the WSR-88D not only aids in scanning a cloud from a slightly different angle (for a second radar opinion) but will help a radar meteorologist readily decide whether or not an echo is real or false.

Off subject, but since when does the NWS have authority to judge promotional material or enforce false claims or puffery by a station's ad team. What would 'getting in hot water' really mean, other than affecting interpersonal relationships between the station in question and the NWS? :) I know that's an off-subject inquiry, but it's not like the NWS is a law-enforcement agency. They actually "work for" the area stations and their area citizens. It's a symbiosis of sorts between government and private industry, right? Maybe I'm totally off-base. I am weary of assigning false authority to a division of the US Department of Commerce.

I guess you are right, that to avoid controversy or 'hot waters', a TV station like WIS or any other television entity in the market, should avoid direct comparisons between technology -- or the skills of personalities. Ha, have you seen TV ads between meteorologists around the area lately? Have you seen it between stations and technology? That's water under the bridge, my friend! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJH-nvnCqLI)

But you are right that the opinions posted on this page are that: opinions. This is a discussion page, after all, not the main wiki-encyclopedic page.

My goal isn't to anger or persuade readers of this page to follow my views, but simply to think about the possibility that radar capabilities between WIS and WLTX, or between any other stations in the market, are not on equal ground. Two radar sources at a stations disposal will present more information than just one. Generally, more information is better than less. I'm just saying ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.1.2 (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I added the 'AMS Seal of Approval' endorsement to Meteorologist Brooks Garner's title under 'Storm Alert Personalities.' It's now being used on-air and listed on his bio: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3560452

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.11.90 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision 7/09

Changed Chrissy Kohler's position from "Saturday Morning weather" to "Fill-in Weathercaster." She has not been assigned to any specific newscast and she fills-in for both weekend and morning shifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.128.71 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On "past personalities" section, removed David Stanton's status as "laid off." Other notable personalities have been laid off too, but that status was not added to their name, so it's not logical, and casts a person in bad light to add their professional standing/status with a company to a section called simply, "notable past personalities."

Please do not edit these back. Your understanding of this means a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.128.71 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (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) 14:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)