This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mvcg66b3r. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:New KXRM logo 2019.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:New KXRM logo 2019.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I'm going to paste this here from that talk page, since maybe I can have better luck here in getting an answer (I have requested the page be protected for this and we'll see if Wiki agrees). This is far from the only problem I've tried to fix with the page, but a summary:
The problem here is that there have been sources. At least one is Titan TV, which can be used as a source for the other information listed that the reverter is saying is based on an unreliable source.
Would also like to know what the person who is rejecting these changes expects as a reliable source for this information. Other TV station pages here on Wiki have used Titan TV as a source for listing the programs on a channel. Because this station houses four subchannels and has three network affiliations, one source can catch the majority of what the article would cite. This is the same source that is used on several other station pages, including KDKA-TV and WOIO-TV. The information that is listed on the purposed edit is also available on those and other station pages without many, if any, sources and is allowed to remain like that. I did notice that the "citation needed" tag was not enough for one of the shows that WTRF produced in the early 90's. That got completely erased thanks to whoever made the reversions without even a second look or even an effort to locate sources on their own, which was even suggested. There are far better ways to ask for sources than to just silently and blindly revert something.
Even worse, a source that listed that WTRF acquired the Ohio Lottery programming (including Cash Explosion) sourced THE VERY PAGE FROM THE OHIO LOTTERY SITE STATING THIS CHANGE! What other source does this person need to be convinced that this information belongs on this page? You can't get any more reliable than THE PEOPLE THAT MADE IT HAPPEN! What is this person looking at that makes the producers of the actual show in question telling you that the show moved to a new station isn't reliable enough? If you count the Titan TV page, that would make it TWO SOURCES THAT ONE COULD GO TO FOR CONFIRMATION OF THIS FACT! Again, what is this person looking for that would be enough for them to agree that this is sufficient enough?
In fact, the suspicion is that whoever is watching the page is getting a RedWarn (it shows that person got one on the History tab), just clicked "revert" without even inspecting the changes to make sure, and reverting them back to the SORELY outdated version we keep seeing. I don't think I've seen Decision Makers be a thing on ANY of the stations Nexstar got from WVMH in YEARS, yet whoever is reverting changes is INSISTING that this info is current and should remain on the page. This is insane. The only other thing I can think of as a reason is that whoever is watching the page REALLY hates this station and doesn't want anyone giving it a more NPOV, which means that someone at Wikipedia needs to look into it, because this station's page won't ever get updated as long as that person continues to blindly revert any update with that excuse when they would see the sources would be satisfactory, and others could at least attempt to add other sources to satisfy this user.
Again, there are a LOT better ways to address the sources situation than this currently is. Put a tag asking for additional sources, allow editors the chance to provide them! SOMETHING! This shouldn't be that much of a battle to add information to this page, especially when one of the pieces of info is sourced from the very site that belongs to the very people that would sign off on making such a decision.
That was last year. There was another attempt to update info last night that was once more reverted for the same reasons. I'll edit out my more emotional parts of this, but you'll see my frustration here even after that:
It happened again! Trying to add info leads to someone reverting it on grounds of "unsourced info". But what they reverted were things that just cleaned up the text to put things in different places so the information can be easily digested and not all over the place like it was, with the sources remaining. And none of their reverts are sourced, either. This is hypocritical and needs some explanation, yet those reverting won't come in here and mention what's going on and what we need to do to get these edits in.
West Virginia Tonight is hosted by Mark Curtis now. This page continues to insist that Dan Thorne anchors it. If he still does, then provide the source. Why is it that we need a source for the change in anchors but the person reverting it doesn't have to cite a source that someone that has not been on that show for years is still there? We'll get radio silence from those insisting he still does.
Decision Makers HAS BEEN CANCELLED! WAS FOR YEARS! That source was given (Titan TV, the same source every other station page on Wikipedia uses). This has continued to be mentioned on the page as if the show still exists, and attempts to mention it's no longer on the air have been reverted for "not sourced". But where is the source that it's still being aired?
Every other television station's page on Wikipedia has info about hours of news (that is allowed to be there unsourced), anchor info (also unsourced), and NPOV about news and programming operations. There was also SOURCED INFO about Cash Explosion moving to WTRF with the exact date that was for some reason also reverted for not being sourced, when the source was the Ohio Lottery official site. Again, no info given as to why that was inadequate.
WTRF has 35 hours of news programming throughout the week across their channels. Who's disputing this? Again, a simple search on TV listings provides this info, yet this is not able to be added due to insufficient sources?
Yet, no one that reverts comes in HERE to discuss edits that were made, or make requests for additional sources, or anything else. They will just revert to the HIGHLY outdated info and leave it there.
At this point, I'm wondering if this is something some higher up on Wikipedia needs to look at. People use Wikipedia all the time for info about stations and history, When they see all other stations having clean and accurate and up to date information and NPOV writing about operations and programming, and then we come HERE and we see a complete mess that no one wants anyone to correct and sounds like Wikipedia HATES the station for whatever reason, it becomes damaging to the station and those involved. Request to get this page protected is now out.
I'm not sure what is needed at this point. This is in no attempt to vandalize the page or make the page biased the other way, as I've accused the page of being biased against the station. Other station pages are way more clean than this one, and any attempt to clean it up and update information is met with things like this, even with things we source with official press releases and articles. At that point, what else can someone do to satisfy a request for information to be sourced if even the official press release was not enough, yet outdated information about who a host of a program is can remain on the page completely unsourced (while any attempt to update that info of who now hosts is immediately reverted on the grounds of no source). I've mentioned a few other things on that talk page that go completely ignored. Forgive my frustration, but some explanation can be helpful. Darkpower (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm going through other station pages on Wikipedia now. All of them have number of hours of news programming produced, some offer what other programming they had. And if it is not a TV guide, then why is the Decision Makers part allowed to even stay, let alone the incorrect info that it's still on air? This reason makes no sense when compared to other station entries on Wikipedia. How is it that other station pages, including the competing station in that market, are allowed to have this sort of information yet we can't even update anything about this page without a war breaking out?
If edits are "poorly written", then there can be an attempt to clean up the edits rather than completely removing them and reverting them back to outdated information. There's no problem in cleaning up an edit someone had made. That's not the argument, nor the reason given for complete reverting of the information. We can't even move information to a more relevant section of the page without a possible edit war breaking out on this page as I've seen when the edit to move information about the FOX affiliation to a more relevant part of the page was also reverted. Where is the justification for that? That wasn't even rewriting anything. That was only moving what was written, word for word, to a different portion of the same section.
I don't know how much attention you've paid to my work in particular with TV stations pages, but I have been doing a lot of cleanup lately. One of the first things to go is usually the "hours per week of news" metric because I almost always can't source it to anything other than a listings page. (Plus, there have been cases where newscasts are launched with little or no fanfare, especially at smaller-market stations.) I've also been critical of syndicated programming sections for the same reason, plus syndicated shows often change or move.
I do agree that the only statewide public affairs program they are airing is Inside WV Politics (which is aired on the ABC subchannel), so the mention of Decision Makers should be excised. The Cash Explosion item could have been retained as a one-sentence mention.
While I've written new or expanded articles into over 150 media markets in the US, Wheeling–Steubenville to date hasn't been on my list (though that is likely to change as I have located a relevant newspaper record), and my only edits to this page have been automated find-and-replaces. This article needs a good bit of help. It's mushy in ways that are peculiar to TV stations pages, and it lacks sufficient citations. I'd be happy to improve it from the bottom up in a way where it's written to my standard. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the cleanup of edits I would like to make or have made. An extra pair of eyes is always helpful to revise things people want to add. The issue is the hypocrisy in comparison to other pages. If you look on the WTOV-TV page, that has a good bit of information attributed to it. It's clean and tidy, and gives information about on-air personalities that came from that station. It looks like any other Wiki page of any other tv station. That is the other station in that market. Now compare that to how WTRF's looks. It's as if it was thrown together in the span of a few minutes, things are completely out of date (like I said, the host of West Virginia Tonight is Mark Curtis, not who is listed, yet we need a source to say that it is Mark Curtis now but not when it is said that it's the guy no longer there?), and looks like it comes from someone who doesn't seem to like the station at all. I've in the past questioned about how NPOV the WTRF page even is, and no one seemed to care when I brought it up a while back on its talk page. At the very least someone could answer to what the issues are to the edits, or ask for additional sources instead of what happened. I've also seen a LOT of other station pages still lists the amount of news hours per week being broadcasted, so if this is something that is going to be axed in the near future, then there's a lot of work that needs to be done for that.
Furthermore, the information about availability of KDKA and WTAE in that market has changed significantly. Satellite doesn't even offer those options to viewers in that market now, and cable systems do put those stations in the 1000s on their digital systems. The local affiliates are the default ones now. This can be relevant information as many in that market would have to go searching for those channels. However, though I know this is accurate, assistance to find a reliable source to make Wiki satisfied would be helpful there. The graphics and set switch is also accurate, though I'm not sure what you could use as a source for that, as you would need to go to a video to confirm that, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia feels about videos being used as a source. Probably depends on the credibility of who posted the video.
Regardless, I have said that article has needed cleanup for years now. It comes across as biased against the station, in my eyes. For a station that has a good bit of history to it, something feels off about the amount of times things get reverted when other solutions to things like cleanup of what was added, being able to find the relevant sources, and to make it look more in line with other station pages on Wikipedia. When I see those edits being reverted, that raises a bit of a red flag about the reasons behind it, especially when I know of the shaky reputation the station has had throughout the years. I've done a lot to try to draw some attention to my concerns that the page isn't NPOV. Hopefully escalation and some suggestions can finally bring some attention to it.
If you desire, this discussion about what could be done can be moved over to the article's talk page instead of here unless you feel like the person in question needs to also hear this. I have added an update tag to the article so at least people know that the article is outdated and does need revised. Hopefully that is not reverted, too.
