Talk:WGRZ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reads like an Ad[edit]

This artice reads like an advertisment for this station, whenever I make a change to it, the same person changes it back to the way it was. Fill-in weather anchors who dont have a regular schedule do not belong listed under the weather staff, nor do reports how fillin during staffing shortages. These fill in anchors do not appear on www.wgrz.com as weather anchors nor do they appear on commericals for the station. Also under the dopper section, do not list the featurs of the doppler it makes the article too long. Perhaps you should create an article for the feature of the doppler. The storm team 2 section should be reviewd for neutrailty. 128.205.68.214 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above[edit]

I have to disagree with the points brought up. First, WKBW and WIVB, which both have their own pages on Wikipedia do freely list their fill-in meterologists (John Stahlin for WIVB and Dave Cash for WKBW), it is only fair to list the fill-ins for WGRZ. Also, they do appear frequently, and documentation has been provided many times on Wikipedia to support this. Further, other stations which have their own Wikipedia pages do list fill-ins regularly.

The argument about how the weather anchors never appear on commercials is false. They have done promos for the station when filling in.

1.) Mary Beth Wrobel frequently appears on mornings and weekends and has done so numerous times since being brought in as a fill-in meterologist in December 2009 from rival WIVB. Prior to this, Maria Genero was a fill-in meterologist and there had not been a problem with her being listed as one (she has since been hired by the station.) If it is not ok for the WGRZ page to list the fill-in meterologists, why is it ok for WKBW and WIVB to list them as part of the article? After all, they do contribute to the station.

2.) Josh Boose who has been a fill-in weather anchor many times does appear nearly every day as a regular reporter as well. He has handled weather broadcasts multiple times. The argument of him never appearing in commercials is false since he appears in news promotions frequently.

Another point of discussion is the number of weather staff. This is only stating the obvious in comparison. It is not in any way intended as an advertisement, but just showing staffing differences between the 3 stations in the Buffalo area.

I do however support the idea of giving Storm Team 2 Interactive Radar its own page as it does have many features. This can help readability of the article and those who wish to read it can do so. Babyox4420 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Team 2 Interactive Radar split into own article[edit]

I went ahead and split the Interactive Radar into its own page to improve clarity. In this case, I will agree with the previous poster in stating that it would improve the article, and have gone ahead and done this. Babyox4420 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct info on meterologists/weather anchors[edit]

There has been someone who has been deleting verified information regarding the AMS seals of Kevin O'Connell, Andy Parker, and Mary Beth Wrobel. I want to clarify this information and provide the link to it a second time. [1]

This link provides a national database of all AMS meterologists and weather anchors across the country. It also provides a link to AMS Certified Broadcast Meterologists as well.

The seals in question:

Seal #236- Kevin M. O'Connell- uses same name on air from this documentation. Seal #767- Mary Elizabeth Wrobel- uses stage name of Mary Beth Wrobel on air when she does forecasts. This is identical to what she did at WIVB.


Since this is documented and verified information, it should not be deleted from this article. Doing so would provide factual inaccuracies which would go against Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyox4420 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above as well[edit]

I see no need for this article being flagged. It does not read like an ad. I've looked at the other Buffalo station articles, and, if anything, they read more like an ad that this article.

I appreciate the user that corrected my entry about their news being broadcast in widescreen HD, correctly stating that they are merely "upconverting". However, there was no need to go into technical detail because, the link you provided, clearly stated those details.

I am merely a viewer and am not employed in any way by WGRZ or whomever owns them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris.bill (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coverage[edit]

Can you see this TV station in nearby Canadian border cities without cable and satellite? The article just says it is offered in Canada via cable and satellite. --58.69.199.177 12:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Terehend72 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the neutrality nomination[edit]

I agree with the 2 last posters in saying that I don't see a reason for this to be nominated for neutrality. The article is backed by facts which are supported and is well written. In comparison, I think the WIVB and WKBW pages tend to read more like advertisements while stating their accomplishments.

The last poster Babyox4420 provided very good documentation for the weather anchors/meterologists and there is no reason for this section to be deleted (example- AMS weather seals.) The person who deleted this section who is listed only by IP address should leave this alone. Otherwise, it would be false information.

I also agree with Babyox4420 in stating how fill-in meterologists/weather anchors are just as important. I have looked at many other station pages on Wikipedia and a large majority of them also feature fill-ins. Even WKBW and WIVB do, which are both in the Buffalo market just as WGRZ. The argument where he states it would not be fair to delete WGRZ fill-ins but leave the fill-ins for WKBW and WIVB is right on target. If it's acceptable for the other 2 pages it should be acceptable for this page.

Overall, I find the article to be an easy read and one that is backed up with documentation where appropriate. Therefore, I think this is neutral in point of view and should not be reviewed. This is coming from a viewer of all 3 stations mentioned in the Buffalo market and I am not an employee for any TV station.76.180.135.42 (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Removal[edit]

OK, so 3 of us agree that this article should not be flagged. So how is the flag removed? Being a Wikipedia newbie I have no idea.. . What shall be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris.bill (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material[edit]

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:NLIST 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) 13:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babyox4420 (talk)I had a question about this. How is it that nearly every other article for a TV station in Wikipedia can include all of their former reporters, even if there are no links or if there is not a Wikipedia entry on themselves? I was just wondering because many other articles do this but it seems that the WGRZ article along with WIVB and WKBW were singled out.Babyox4420 (talk)

Hello Babyox4420, I'd be happy to answer your question. Actually, in no way are the station articles you've mentioned been "singled out". Myself and a number of other editors, have been diligently removing these kinds of unreferenced lists of former employees, based on the criteria above, for almost a year now. If you're aware of other articles that still contain this type of unreferenced list, it would be genuinely appreciated if you could point them out to us so that they can be dealt with as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up for clarification- if a former station employee moved within an ownership group (example- anchor or meteorologist moves from 1 station to another for promotion purposes), and they don't necessarily have their own article on Wikipedia, is using a verifiable source sufficient to list them? (example- using a newspaper article, ownership group press release, etc) The reason I ask is that I know some of the reporters that were deleted previously do have sources available.Babyox4420 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Notable on-air staff and titles/slogans[edit]

Hello, I have removed the staff and former staff that is/was not notable. In order for lists of people be included, they must meet the criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. This isn't the first station article this has been discussed on, and articles have been protected to prevent these additions, or the editors in question blocked when they persistently continue to reinsert inappropriate material. If a name is included in the article in this way, it has to show that it's relevant to the subject by meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Just because a station lists its employees doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to as well, and other station articles needing similar cleanup doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be cleaned up, because whenever it's actually discussed on a station article, the end result is the same; the names that don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE are removed. Wikipedia is also not a directory. A list of previous discussions are listed below:

As for the titles/slogans, they were all unsourced, except one. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WGRZ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the Call Letters[edit]

Where did anybody get the idea that the WGR part came from WGR Sports Radio 550 AM? I asked WGRZ on Facebook about its connection with that radio station, and someone who works as part of the staff for WGRZ said, "No affiliation." There has to be a mistake. Cbsteffen (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WGRZ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on WGRZ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WGRZ&oldid=1207847717"