Talk:WNGH-TV

Copy edit

@Mvcg66b3r: I've noticed that you've made a lot of reverts to copy edits of this article. I'm going ahead and providing the reasons for my edits here:

• Infobox
  • The infobox was large and crowded with information, extending past the lead and TOC and well into the first section of the article. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE notes that the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article [...] The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I trimmed a lot of extraneous information, particularly information that did not fit an infobox parameter or which was unsourced.
  • I stripped bold per MOS:BOLD
  • I stripped specialized styling on the expanded call sign per MOS:ACRO
  • I removed tiny font sizes in infoboxes, due to accessibility issues. (A recent RfC decided that since infoboxes already use small text, that further reducing text size was not to be recommended.)
  • All of the above style issues are really just attempts to cram more information into the infobox, which is counter to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
  • Replaced html line breaks with templates, as the former has been known to cause problems with some mobile platforms.
• Other MOS fixes: MOS:GEOCOMMA, MOS:BOLD
• Various grammar fixes
• Lists should be bulleted rather than numbered when they do not have an inherent order (MOS:LISTBULLET)
• Removed excessively detailed unsourced trivia. Articles should be a summary of notable information about the subject.

Please feel free to {{ping|Reidgreg}} if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the copy edit was reverted in this edit on 6 December, along with similar reverts to copy edits of WKON, WKOH, WKMU, WKMJ-TV, WKSO-TV, WKGB-TV and WKHA. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I was only doing the infoboxes to maintain consistency with other TV station articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I can understand that, but it's a bit of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Other articles or editors doing that describes a practise, but it doesn't mean that practise has consensus on the level of a guideline or policy. Also, I think there's an argument for consistency across all Wikipedia articles, not just topic-specific articles. The Manual of Style represents a fairly broad consensus of editors, and while it can be set aside for a good reason there really ought to be a specific reason to explain why deviating is beneficial. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Do you have anything else to add for why you think the article is better without the edits that I made? I'm going to go over a few more things (some of which was previously mentioned on my talk page).

• I felt that a lot of the information in the infobox was unsourced and marked some for needing citations and removed others as unsourced trivia. The two tiny external link icons under "Public license information" are unlabelled and non-obvious, and aren't a standard reference style. If they are being used as references, it's unclear what information in the infobox is being cited to them. A good deal of the information in the infobox can not be found at either external link or contradicts with the infobox:
  • at publicfiles.fcc.gov the studio is listed as Atlanta, not Chatsworth.
  • the call letter meaning, branding, station slogan, former affiliations, former callsigns, and other channels/translators do not appear to be listed at either site.
• I moved the first mention of the unsourced former callsign WCLP-TV up to the lead sentence as an (alternative) historical name for the subject. This is important as WCLP-TV redirects to the article (WP:R#ASTONISH).
• I added tags at unsourced passages, to help editors spot where citations or additional citations were needed. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, challenged material should either be cited or removed (WP:CHALLENGE). I feel that removing the inline tags without discussion is not an acceptable practice.
• I linked terms on first mention in lead and body (MOS:REPEATLINK).
• Some tone issues, replacing informal language:
  • can no longer get GPB's flagship station → can no longer receive GPB's flagship station
• Conciseness; summarizing material in fewer words makes text easier to read:
  • In effect, it was also Chattanooga's first educational television station, as WTCI-TV had not started broadcasting until 1970. → It was Chattanooga's first educational television station, joined by WTCI-TV in 1970.
  • In early 1979, the station added the -TV suffix to its call sign, becoming WCLP-TV on February 2. → On February 2, 1979, the station branded itself as WCLP-TV.
• The unsourced passage about translator W12DK-D had some confusion about the timing of what it describes. I had tagged it for clarification regarding this and changed some verb tenses and which will also → is anticipated to be. We can't state future events in Wikipedia's voice WP:CRYSTAL but with it being unsourced and no idea of who anticipated it or when this was supposed to have happened leaves it rather problematic.
• I removed some information about W04BJ, W27AA, W65AD, etc., as non-notable trivia. I didn't think their equipment failures or channels that they never broadcast on were important enough to the subject of the article, especially as it was all unsourced.
• Removed unnecessary quotes around the parenthetic ("parent").
• Removed under federal mandate (which was later pushed back to June 12, 2009) which was irrelevant to the subject since the station had completed the switchover on the original target date.
• Filled-out a citation template for an external link in section Digital television
• Ran IAbot to clean up citations and check archival of sources for dead links.

Please let me know any additional reasons you have for reverting the changes like those described above. If you agree that some of the changes were improvements, perhaps those parts of the edits can be reinstated in the article(s). For the rest, if we remain undecided, I feel the best option might be to call a Request for Comment since this involves multiple articles and general editing practices. In such case, I hope you'll help me with the wording of an RfC to concisely cover our concerns. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion Request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.

RfC about TV and radio station style variances

Is there a good reason for television and radio station articles to vary from Manual of Style guidelines? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Further information:

There has been a practice in some television and radio station articles of varying from the style guidelines, such as applying special styling to expanded call signs (e.g.: WNGH: W North Georgia Highlands), bolding previous callsigns and broadcast translator names throughout the article (not merely in the lead for alternate names and redirects), filling many fields of the infobox in considerable detail with information not found elsewhere in the article, and using small fonts in infoboxes to facilitate inclusion of more information. MOS:ACRO, MOS:BOLD, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and MOS:SMALLFONT discourage these practices.

Additionally, are the small external links in the bottom of {{infobox broadcast}} (under "Public license information") an acceptable reference for information found elsewhere in the infobox?

There was a brief July 2018 discussion related to this at WikiProject Radio Stations, with opinion divided between style editors and WP:Radio editors. More recently, this involves the copy edits and reverts of such to eight TV station articles (WKON, WKOH, WKMU, WKGB-TV, WKHA, WKSO-TV, WKMJ-TV and WNGH-TV). The edits to WNGH-TV were discussed above, and are indicative of the group.

It is hoped that this RfC will determine if there are reasons for these practices, and if they might form a consensus of opinion.

Thank you for your time and opinions on this. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• No. I feel that this represents style creep, and makes these articles look cluttered and inconsistent from other Wikipedia articles. Call signs are most often given in all caps, and emboldening them outside the lead gives them too much emphasis. Infoboxes are meant to summarize only the key facts that appear in the article, and not be repositories for trivia (e.g.: transmitter antenna height). While some of this might be useful for tuning in broadcasting stations, Wikipedia is not a directory or TV guide. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Reidgreg, Responding to your own question? That's crazy man. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Is it? Everything above my "No" had to be phrased neutrally, but I do have an opinion. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)