Talk:WWJE-DT

WZMY vs. My Network TV

The parts of this article dealing with this "dispute" seem very speculative. Has there yet been even a lawsuit filed anywhere? It seems that we editors have this "dispute" already resolved, when there's no source in the article to indicate that such a dispute exists. -- SwissCelt 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be a template indicating this in the applicable section, but I don't know which one, as there are so many! Another option is to simply delete the section per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, since it's mostly speculation. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I think the crystal-ball provision needs its own page. It's currently a tiny little section in a broader article, and it's by far the most-cited part of WP:NOT. More importantly, I think we need to flesh out what we're getting at a little more. (Although I know that's entering rulecruft territory.) Back on-topic: There is a tiny citation in the article, but it's now old enough that you have to pay to read it online. (Once the article really did say that a lawsuit had been filed, and that was the only citation the people who put that in could come up with when I pressed. That's why it's in there.) We really don't know whether or not a lawsuit has been filed, but it would seem to be a very verifiable thing, so I'm erring on the side of not. The existence of some sort of dispute, however, is anything but speculative. Several other places have referred to it, among them [1]. Morgan Wick 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think WXPO-TV needs to be merged into this article. Sure the stations are unrelated, but they occupy the same channel. Therefore, there should be one article about the same frequency. CoolKatt number 99999 03:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

for an idea on what it would look like, see User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft. CoolKatt number 99999 03:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were up to me, I would say go ahead with the change. I can name many examples of unrelated stations occupying the same channel, yet are included in the history of the station currently occupying the frequency (WKBF being a major example). Gatorman 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think WNHT and WBPX (WNHT became WPXG) would have to be merged, too. -Tracker 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That would create a confusing WBPX article. It would be best if we just simply morph the current WNHT article into a WPXG article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me take care of that one too. CoolKatt number 99999 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, a preview of post-merge WBPX: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft 3. CoolKatt number 99999 02:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to a Merge of WXPO into WZMY and WNHT into WBPX. This is a very good idea and will help to establish uniformity in these forms of articles. -Tracker 03:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If we want to create uniformity, we should arguably split articles on different unrelated stations that just happen to occupy the same channel. Why should we put two or more completely unrelated stations on a single article just because they happen to share the same frequency? There are more arguments on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Morgan Wick 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WZMY ↔ My Network TV

Let's not get carried away with this whole "oh, WZMY is going to join My Network TV!" thing. Our only source is an e-mail from the station (not the "network") delivered secondhand via a message board (which looks so authoritative). As a result, we have places on Wikipedia that treat this with the same level of authority as anything official. I find it very possible that the reason there wasn't an official announcement right then is because there wasn't an actual agreement, the two sides were only close to one, and it's possible talks will or have fallen apart since then (assuming this "e-mail" isn't a hoax!). I'm anxiously waiting for Wednesday, and this stuff can mostly stay up for now, but if there's nothing I consider an official, authoritative announcement by Friday (which is cutting a LOT of slack), I'm going to go on a slash-and-burn run. Morgan Wick 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is something on their official site [2], No hoax about it. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added it before I saw that (and before articles at B&C and TV Week turned up). At that time, it was little more than a rumor, hardly grounds for putting it up willy-nilly as fact. Morgan Wick 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WPXO Did NOT beat WKBG

"Its Treehouse 50 program in the afternoons gained a cult following with Boston-area college students, as it had slapstick comedy and the Warner Brothers cartoons that had been released to television stations at that time. In addition, channel 50 was the first station to have news updates every hour, long before the 24-hour news sources of the early 1990s, was the first New England television station (beating WKBG, now WLVI) to air a ten o'clock newscast (however, it had no newsfilm to use), and attempted to do live remotes with some mixed success. In addition, WXPO was infamous for a New Year's Eve show that by 1:00 a.m. had started to become particularly strange."

This is flat wrong. They did not beat WKBG, becuase 56 had been WLVI since the early 1970s. Also, WLVI launched their 10:00 pm newscasts in the mid 1980's, not the early 1990's. Somebody needs to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.27.75 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Broke off WXPO-TV again

Did anyone bother to notice that WXPO was licensed to Manchester, while WZMY is licensed to Derry? Not only that, it's not even the same license. It's not even a close call--I split WXPO-TV off into its own article again. Blueboy96 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What I Think

I think FOX Should Seek Out and Buy WZMY and Create A Duopoly With WFXT-TV (as well as make WZMY A My Network TV O&O). What Do You Think? Tomjerry9 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not have anything to do with the WZMY article (talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of it). It probably wouldn't happen anyway. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MyTV.png

Image:MyTV.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WZMYMNTV.PNG

Image:WZMYMNTV.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:WXPO.png

The image File:WXPO.png 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. --02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WBIN-TV. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060329130102/http://business.bostonherald.com:80/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=127585 to http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=127585
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130503165246/http://www.concordmonitor.com:80/home/5950671-95/bill-binnies-wbin-stops-news-broadcasts to http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/5950671-95/bill-binnies-wbin-stops-news-broadcasts
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)