Talk:WGHP

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Television: Stations

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

Is a listing like "DMA 44" accurate without more information? IIRC, Nielsen renumbers the DMA's ever season based on popularity, so the number can change. For example, Nielsen itself now lists Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem as DMA 48. -- Kaszeta 12:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I have moved this article back to WGHP from WGHP-TV. Consensus on both WP:NC#Broadcasting and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Article_names is that the article name should reflect the actual call letters of the TV station. As can be seen here: [1] the call letters for this station are in fact WGHP. Any concerns regarding this topic would be best addressed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations. A 05:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WGHP new FOX look?[edit]

I haven't heard anything about WGHP switching over to the new FOX O&O look yet. If they haven't, should you be switching the logo over to the new one? Ntropolis 10:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions to Previous Logo Images[edit]

I've taken the liberty of reverting to the logo images that CarloPlyr440's edits on 6 October replaced, since presumably no major issues arose with them in the year they were on the page. If there are issues, I won't dispute. Just doing my bit... --Enwilson 22:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that WGHP has used the images in this article to make a collage of logos on their history page... here --Leuqarte (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2009 (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:

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.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
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.
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) 02:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4KidsTV[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article says that 4KidsTV aired on WUPN (now WMYV), but that's not true, it didn't air at all in the Piedmont Triad. Plus, there was no frequent sockpuppetry on this page as only one block evader edited the article. Also, can you please remove "The station's digital signal is multiplexed:", as it's unnecessary cause the DTV tables tells you that. Thank you. 14.136.236.129 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PBS IS commercial[edit]

Per this edit, UNC-TV has been running commercials for years. Here is just one example. They ran product commercials for the various garden shows and Fearrington Village was the sponsor of British TV on PBS for years. They've claimed to be non-commercial but that hasn't been true in years.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See PBS waffle on it. Time article documents some. Another article about running commercials.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just underwriting spots, not traditional commercials. An underwriting spot can't have a so called "call to action". Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...no so-called industry jargon. If you are in the industry then please note the conflict of interest policy. "Underwriting spots" equals commercials as they waste one's time just as much as traditional commercials while trying to get you engaged in products or services. It is a commercial effort and they get paid for it. Underwriting spot is their semantic they chose because they want to look non-commercial while really selling out. I'm not buying The Emperor's New Clothes. If I sit through it and it feels like an ad then it is an ad.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the sources that I gave you call them commercials.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But two of them are old (2011). And the stations themselves have non-commercial licenses. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "old" makes my point that they have been doing this for years and they still have them on there now. They may have non-commercial licensing but they are still commercial. I'm still looking for the lawn tractor commercial that comes on during either GardenSMART or Growing a Greener World. I removed the non-commercial qualifier out of the article and there is nothing inaccurate in what remains. I didn't label them as commercial within the article so there is no reason to change anything.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As examples, the first several seconds of this episode is a car manufacturer ad. The first minute and a half of this show has four ads, Proven Winners, BassPro Shops, some cruise line and one for a specific car.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Since the word "non-commercial" is controversial, adds very little to the article, and didn't have a source anyway, it should probably be left out. If editors feel it is necessary to include information about this aspect, I suggest putting together a balanced paragraph on the topic and placing it in the article, rather than trying to sum up the whole issue with a single adjective. Bradv🍁 04:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]