LIMSpec Wiki

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Stations Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance). Michigan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image:Lansing cw.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 ensure 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) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is way too much of this article that is either written from an insider's point of view (without verified sources as per WP:V) or is simply opinion or speculation. Amnewsboy (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the Suzanne Wangler information, although interesting and tragic, is quite irrelevant to an article that is specifically written about WLAJ. Wangler anchored or reported at several television stations -- not just WLAJ.

I suggest either deleting the Suzanne Wangler information all together, or moving it to its own page that is specifically about Suzanne. Reborn100 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain, because her actions, made WLAJ part of the news. If you listen to any report, they are saying "WLAJ" not "a Lansing TV Station". It should remain, as it is part of the WLAJ history now. - Tehunknown (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work here and I know exactly whats going on. Who keeps deleting my updates? The Hondo stuff and Jim Fordyce updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.121.202 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick WhoIS search shows the above user's IP is registered to WLAJ. To answer your question, please direct your question to Amnewsboy as he was the one who removed your previous posts. --Tehunknown (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still say the Wangler stuff should be removed from the WLAJ page. Just because WLAJ is mentioned in the press reports about Wangler's death, her legacy does not overshadow WLAJ's entire history -- just a very small part of it. One would have difficulty making the case that Wangler actually made a lasting impact on WLAJ, especially since she was only there a very short time. Joe Parker anchored at that station much longer than Wangler did, so it could be argued that he is a much greater part of WLAJ history than Wangler was. Yet, the article isn't about Joe Parker, Suzanne Wangler, or any of the other talent that have graced the airwaves there. The article is about WLAJ itself. Therefore, to add the Wangler info, is take the reader off point. Reborn100 (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the article is about WLAJ...but the embezzlement case, her resignation, and her death all happened while (and after) she was at WLAJ. Much like the Alycia Lane saga at KYW-TV is now a part of KYW's history (albeit a small part), this will be a small part of WLAJ's history. The large amount of information is due to this happening recently. As all the details are confirmed and brought to light, we will be able to condense the section into probably a sentence or two as part of the history. -- Tehunknown (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu, per your recent removal of staff, syndicated shows, et al. WP:TVS#Article structure specifically calls for "what kind of programming the station airs" and "information on its personalities, past and present". These types of content seem fairly widespread across US TV station articles. There has been discussion on the inclusion of news staff, but no consensus has been reached (nor has a formal call for consensus been made.) --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicated shows are shown on all stations do to the nature of the biz in having the non-network hour, they all have some sort of syndicated programming. In any case, the information was unsourced and the article structure calls for "what kind" not what shows. As shows could change with out much news notice and increase article maintenance. So, finding a source that indicates that "WLAJ's syndicated programs are off-network comedies, talk shows and game shows." (or some thing to that effect that isn't a schedule) would be acceptable.

What is or isn't widespread on US TV station articles isn't relevant. It is relevant that those that wish to enforce the standards cannot seem to stop these list from popping up. There wasn't an official call for a consensus, but a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Television Stations#Current on-air_staff list discussion|call for a consensus was made] none the less, OF WHICH YOU PARTICIPATED IN. There was atleast one more discussion: Current on-air staff lists redux. The former discussion outline several WP reason for not listing them. Spshu (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]