text:
Talk:WDTN

Time Warner / Lin TV Agreement
I believe the following is biased on the end of WDTN and should be edited to present a neutral view... "Time Warner Cable pulled the signals of Dayton's WDTN-TV and other LIN TV Corp.-owned stations from local cable offerings early Friday, October 3rd, 2008, after Time Warner and LIN TV failed to reach agreement on a new contract. Executives for Time Warner Cable and LIN TV Corp,resumed negotiations Friday, Oct. 3,2008 on a new contract, after Time Warner pulled the plug on the signals of WDTN-TV and other LIN TV Corp.-owned stations from local cable offerings."

The proper name for WDTN's chief competitor is WHIO-TV, not WHIO. The former are actually the call letters of the television station. The latter should link to the radio station, which predates the television station.
 * Correction on that: WHIO should link to a disambiguation page, which will then allow the readers to decide whether they wanted WHIO-TV or WHIO radio. -SwissCelt 16:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

WNBC-style infobox
I'm using the infobox from the "Template:Infobox Broadcast" used on WNBC-TV and other television stations. This is so to minimize bad infobox edits in the future: I realize that the previous infobox was hard to edit, and I don't believe there exists a template for that style. SwissCelt 7 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Dayton and out-of-town affiliates
Dayton's not that unique, in having out-of-town affiliates nearby. Youngstown has been served by stations in Cleveland and Pittsburgh; the metro's cable systems still carry either Cleveland or Pittsburgh stations (if not both). Toledo is served by Detroit. Erie is served by Cleveland and Buffalo. And poor WLIO in Lima... it's had to compete in at least parts of its footprint against WSPD/WTVG/WNWO in Toledo, WCMH in Columbus, WLWD/WKEF/WDTN in Dayton-Springfield, and WISE in Ft. Wayne... with Cleveland's WKYC, Detroit's WDIV, and Indianapolis's WTHR all within reach of a good antenna. -- SwissCelt 23:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pastwdtnlogos.PNG
Image:Pastwdtnlogos.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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cutting of Alumni
I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page. This is believed to be the current consensus at WP:WikiProject Television Stations. The rationales are as follows:
 * 1) Most importantly, per WP:NOT, 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) Secondarily, per WP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I'm not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
 * 3) Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages 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 info, 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). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 * This issue was also discussed at the Village Pump recently, and can be seen in the archives here: . The summary is that only people with their own Wikipedia page, or for whom reliable sources can show that the person worked at the station and is in some way notable (they don't have to meet the WP:N criteria, but we need something to show they are more than just another employee. Please do not add names to this list that do not meet one of these two criteria. If you have questions or disagree, please discuss here on this talk page. However, I will say that it is nearly impossible for an administrative assistant to meet these criteria, as their contributions to the station won't rise to the level necessary for inclusion here.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To User Strafidlo
Although you link to Time Warner Cable, the text reads "Time Warner". Shouldn't the full name be provided, lest a casual reader not know whether TW is a cable company, a satellite provider, or something else. Although I'm guilty of it myself, why do articles elevate cable lineups over say, satellite or phone company providers. - Also, could you please provide an edit summary when you make changes. Your changes to WDTN were so extensive, and also involved re-breaking of paragraphs, that it was extremely difficult to review the changes you had made, even using revision comparison. Thanks. Chaswmsday (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emption "info" from 2005
A lot of the parts of the article about pre-emptions of Cincinnati stations, other references to receiveable out-of-town stations, claims of "part-time" affiliates which are then described as having a full schedule, and just general gibberish (I add, uncharitably) were all added way back in 2005 by anonymous editor 205.188.116.65, and have persisted until today. It's time for that stuff to go! --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 09:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
 * Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
 * If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Verifiability.

Images in this article being removed by user "Delta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%94
Sorry, I'm not sure how to go about this. I've made an entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Removal_of_fair-use_images_from_WDTN_by_user_.22Delta.22_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:.25CE.2594

I'll quote what's there so far -- I have placed a number of non-free fair-use images in this article. User "Delta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%94 keeps removing these images for some vague "overuse" policy and warns blocking me for "mis-use of non-free images" and for edit-warring -- but aren't Delta's edits reverts themselves?? I also notice that Delta has been blocked (although later unblocked) for incivility in the past. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC requires as little non-free content as possible be used, and that it pass specific standards for inclusion (see WP:NFCC) In this case it does not meet either requirement. ΔT The only constant 10:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC "a" talks about one item conveying equivalent information but I contend that each image conveys distinct information about the logos used by the station, in context. "b" talks about an entire work, which I don't think applies here. WP:NFCC says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." I believe these images do increase understanding and are not used for decorative purposes. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It also states that not having the files must harm the understanding of the subject. Take File:WDTN Doppler 2X 2008.jpg why must this article include that non-free file? ΔT The only constant 10:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That was showing the "logo" for the "Doppler 2X" radar and describing how it is animated on-the-air. Not that different from the "news open" screen caps used rather extensively throughout articles within WikiProject Television Stations.

Do I need to do anything else and are my Image files safe from deletion during this dispute? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the request for admin help, as no administrative action is being requested. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been involved in a Wikipedia dispute before...could you tell me what the proper procedure is? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting a discussion here, as you have done, was a good move. You could have asked for help using, rather than , since nothing you have asked specifically requires any of the tools which are restricted to administrators. If you find that discussion here fails to resolve the problem you can consider looking at Dispute resolution for further suggestions. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chaswmsday. Looking at the version of the article with the heavy use of non-free content, I must say that I agree with Delta's assessment. In using a non-free image, you are effectively saying that reader understanding of the subject is significantly decreased if it is not used. Now, it is generally agreed that a single identifying logo image meets the non-free content criteria, but this does not extend by default to historical logos. As for the screenshots and adverts, they, again, appear to be mostly there to show off the older logos. Basically, you have to ask yourself what needs to be seen in order for the article to be understandable by a reader. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read a lot of the arguments and counter-arguments on the whole dreaded "logo" issue within the WikiProject Television Stations community. I got the impression that there was a dislike of separate image galleries in these articles, but that the latest consensus was that TV station logos are OK if they're more organically placed throughout the article, relating to points made in the text. I see quite a few logos in other articles handled this way. But I don't want to read those discussions again...ugh! :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Galleries are a bad thing, but just spreading the gallery across the article doesn't really solve anything. The issue has to be whether the logos are actually needed, not merely how they are used. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense (since there's nothing offensive about it :) ), but I went to your user page and found that you're English. I don't know that you guys have the same tradition of local broadcasters as we do. Here, the TV stations are generally strongly branded by their channel number and/or logo. I did find that in the UK, the Channel 4 article showed historic logos, as did British Sky Broadcasting (in a gallery!). The BBC, by contrast, showed only one logo, but had six images of various HQ buildings and the main broadcast "center" (as we choose to spell it...). So I would say, just a different TV culture here, which I believe makes historical logos more relevant to us. Besides, "Delta" didn't have a problem with the concept, just the number, apparently. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the logos are genuinely significant, I have no objection to them being used (and, sadly, I'm all to aware that other articles abuse non-free content...) but we cannot assume that they are, just because this is an American station. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way I can keep these images from being orphaned during this dispute? --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. To the general issue; Logos indeed are intended to convey a branding message. They certainly are tied to the identity of a given station. However, that is insufficient reason to include an array of historical logos. If that were the reason, then all historical logos should be included in the infobox in the upper right of the article. But, we don't do that. In the vast majority of cases, the inclusion of an historical logo is usually associated with secondary sourced discussion in the article. If the logo is just on the article without any associated secondary sourced discussion, it's very unlikely it would ever pass WP:NFCC #8 muster. A non-free image must contribute to a reader's understanding of an article. If there's no discussion of it, it doesn't matter whether it's in a gallery, table, or scattered throughout the article. Its relevance is very low. Since we are focused on being a free content encyclopedia, we have strict standards on when non-free content is permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'm confused. WikiProject Television Stations states (admittedly, in part): If creating a historical logo gallery, pay specific attention to NFCC policy statements #3a and #8. Remember that the purpose of a historical logo gallery is to illustrate the evolution of a television station's branding over the years, so there should be noticeable difference between logos and clear critical commentary on each logo. Do not add a logo if the only thing that has changed from the previous logo is the finish of the image. I'm not even suggesting a "dreadful" gallery, but this would seem to endorse inclusion of historical logos in US TV station articles. It looks like logos once flourished, but then the "logo wars" drove most of them into exile. A lot of what I see now is the current logo in the infobox, plus either a very old logo, or the immediately prior logo, in the History section. I'm not sure how these two types are any more or less relevant than any other type. How are historical logos of local TV stations any less relevant than historical logos of TV networks, or indeed, those of any company or organization which are included in Wikipedia? I've also seen nonsense such as this in WHIO-TV: "The logo for the station is their version of the "Circle 7" logo—an orange 7 against a blue background, encompassed by a thin orange circle, and juxtaposed by "WHIO-TV" written in blue on a white background, underlined in red." All that verbiage just to avoid using an image!! And still, the probable endorsement within the Project notwithstanding, how is "overuse" defined? It would seem IMHO to be extremely subjective. Comments? Questions? Bueller? Bueller? I tend to go off on rants... ;) --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Yeah, it is very subjective. Many times over the years editors have attempted to define overuse as a line in the sand at a certain number. But, we can't set such a line. Some articles really do need a lot of non-free media in order to be encyclopedic. Not many articles are in that group though. The great majority of articles do not host non-free media and shouldn't. Of the remainder, most can realistically host 1-2 images. A very, very, very small set of articles ever need more than that. As to WikiProject Television Stations's suggestions; with respect, it's irrelevant. Projects do not set policy and is it not uncommon to find writing suggestions at such projects that directly conflict with policy and/or guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Still confused. Do I now go out and remove all or most of the images from NBC logos? (Or historic logos from McDonald%27s or KFC?) Or do I CREATE an article called "WDTN logos" and make up some acceptable amount of "learned" verbiage (or even nonsense like the WHIO case I cited above), which will pass some subjective muster? --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't go out and just remove images because of this conversation. Each image/article should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if it meets NFCC. If there is disagreement then a discussion should be held where both sides can give reasons for their side. GB fan (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to at least remove the "Test Pattern" logo from WDTN, as I looked at it very closely and figured out the call letter and channel number fonts looked just like those in 1969. And please tell me again how WDTN differs from McDonald%27s. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And as I stated elsewhere, images are in jeopardy of being orphaned and deleted - can they easily be resurrected? I have no clue. What's the great jeopardy of leaving them up during the dispute? --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The way that WDTN differs from McDonald's is that this is WDTN and that is McDonanld's and as I said above, each of the articles need to be looked at independantly to determine if they meet WP:NFCC. If after looking at McDonald's you determine that the non-free content does not meet NFCC then remove it and discuss it on that talk page. You can not use the argument that something belongs here because there is a similar situation in a different article. Also it is not a valid argument to say because the person who originally removed the content is now blocked the content belongs in the article. If you are concerned about the images and that they will be deleted, download them to your computer and you take responsibility for having copyrighted material on your system. Or if they are deleted they are still on the system and an admin can later restore them if it is determined they can be used. GB fan (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know they could be restored. That's why I tried to revert Delta - to start the (is it?) 7-day orphan window over again. And when I delete historic logos from McDonald's I can of course direct all ire to GB fan, right?? :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No you can not redirect all ire to me. If you decide that they don't meet NFCC, you are the one making that decision not me. You are the one that needs to defend your position and explain why you feel the images do not meet NFCC. GB fan (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to restate my best points:

1) TV station logos are the most identifiable public face any station presents (or presented in the past), possibly aside from most local news staff, and therefore, I believe, quite relevant and necessary.

2) How are logos, current or historic, any less valid than any textual information, current or past? "A picture is worth a thousand words." They are not merely "decorative", as would be, e.g. 25 pictures of Brangelina, added merely because people find them to be attractive. Logos convey information about the subject station just as validly as text about current or past ownership, network, personnel or any other facet of the station's history or operations.

3) How does a highly notable article, such as McDonald%27s, differ from one that is less significantly viewed? IMO, they should be treated the same. Policy is policy, so if a certain editorial judgment is allowed at McDonald%27s, the same judgment should be allowed at WDTN; conversely, any choice disallowed at WDTN should also be disallowed at McDonald%27s.

4) There were bitter, ongoing disagreements over the use of logos in US TV station articles. Finally, consensus was reached at WikiProject Television Stations, allowing for fair use "to illustrate the evolution of a television station's branding over the years".

5) If you don't feel bound by the WikiProject, an entirely reasonable reading of WP:NFCC items 3a and 8 would seem to support the inclusion of logos.

6) Delta scares me with talk of blocking me, based on what I later find is just his/her own Essay: WP:Fair use overuse, assuming Delta=Betacommand=Durin. This Essay seems to misquote WP:NFCC items 3a and 8.

WP:FUO 3a states: ''Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. ... Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. while WP:NFCC 3a states: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.'' (Emphasis added.)

WP:FUO 8 states: ...Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. WP:NFCC 8 has no such statement. The closest is WP:NFCC 1, which asks: Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? (Emphasis added.)

7) If there is an issue with the format of the images I've used, I would welcome help with properly cropping them to show just the logo.

8) I see many articles which I would personally word differently or which include items I personally would exclude. But I err on the side of leaving strictly editorial choices to the judgment of the articles' editors. I would hope that the Wikipedia community would grant me the same respect to make my own editing choices, where it doesn't take a strained reading of policy to support those choices.

Thanks for your consideration. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For point #6, Delta is not an admin and can not block you. Delta can report you to an appropriate administrive noticeboard and if an admin feels that your editing is harming or disruptive to the project you could be blocked. That said since you are discussing the images and not just edit warring trying to keep them in that shouldn'r happen. As far as the images themselves, each image needs to be evaluated seperately to determine if it is needed in the article to adequately convey to readers information about WDTN. Looking at the older versions I think you will be hard pressed to prove that all those images are needed to adequately convey information to readers. You could probably convince editors that some of the images are necessary. You should prioritize the images and start working on justifying them then when you have consensus adding them back in. GB fan (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the McDonald's page, that needs to be discussed on the talk page there and a consensus achieved as to whether all the images belong. Each article is independant of each other and needs to be discussed without saying other stuff exists. GB fan (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a really dumb question: Why isn't a policy applied equally to all articles? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And the other stuff exists type articles seem to apply to the existence of articles, not to inconsistent application of policies within articles. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding the policy. WP:NFCC does not apply to any articles. It applies to non-free content that is used within the english wikipedia. You can not look at an article and say that this article only should have one piece of non-free content. You need to look the individual pieces of non-free content and determine if it meets the criteria in WP:NFCC. If you want to look at why the policy might not be evenly applied across all the non-free content on the site this category is where you can find it all, Category:All non-free media. As of right now there are 406,117 items in that category. You are right that the way the otherstuff essay is written is directed at articles and deletion discussions but the concept is the same here. GB fan (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I truly don't understand how "consensus" works. Who would I consult with? How do I know when it's completed? Is the process documented somewhere? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I'd like to get down to the heart of the matter. What is the basis for all the animus against logos? Is it fear of copyright violations and lawsuits? Is it the belief that editors will, as in my example, go all out of control putting Brangelinas, jpg's of every toaster ever build, and other pointless images all over the place? Is is strictly stylistic, in the belief that images make the pages too cluttered? I understand the inclusion side, but people on the exclusion side just seem, IMHO, so exercised over this whole topic. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you but Every single one of the files on McDonald's article are free So you cannot claim other stuff exists. Take a another look at WP:NFCC .....and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding The files in this article are not required to understand the topic, rather they are decorative. ΔT The only constant 14:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please define "decorative". 2) You've just changed the details of File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg "File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg" from non-free, fair use to public domain. Since I had no actual intention of modifying McDonald%27s, but was just citing it as a reductio ad absurdum argument, I cannot assume good faith on your part. I don't believe there is any logical basis for treating the use of this image any differently from the historic logos I'm trying to use in WDTN. Thus, they should given the same treatment as the historic McDonald's logo, or in the alternative, I should be permitted to change all of my images to public domain, just as you did. IMHO. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually All I did with File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg was fix a template, it was tagged as free but was using a non-free rationale template. The rationale template was not needed so I removed it. Secondly They are not "your images" some else owns the copyright to those files. Again I did not change any licensing information with regards to that file. ΔT The only constant 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So again, please define "decorative". You're probably right about the change you made, but I'll mention it on your ongoing noticeboard entry anyway, so they can tell me for sure. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not required to understand the topic. ΔT The only constant 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what Delta is saying here is that the definition of decorative is that the image is not required to understand the topic. GB fan (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to help, but I'd much rather that Delta speak for him or herself. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. Sorry, Delta, my bad :( - but you got me so agitated that I assumed the worst and intrepreted your reply as "I know, but I'm not telling". And in answer to your actual reply, "understanding the topic" is an extremely broad definition. How could that ever be anything but subjective (or determined by consensus)? --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When using non-free content, a good way to see if the use of a particular file is needed is to ask, why must this article have this specific file? take a look at Virgin Killer the file in the infobox is critical to understanding the subject, there have been countless debates and arguments over that file to that degree we have an article just about that debate Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. understanding the topic typically refers to the article as a whole take a look at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima also. ΔT The only constant 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I understand those uses: an alternative album cover, like the Beatles' "butcher shop dolls" cover I'm too tired to look up, for Virgin Killer, and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima depicts the two flag-raisings; but both of these articles concern more-or-less discrete, "one instance" subjects. A single album, which had two covers, and what is in the public mind a single event, the Iwo Jima flag-raising (which happened to actually have two such occurrences). A TV station, radio station, corporation, what have you -- is instead an ongoing concern. Instead of a single occurerence, these articles concern topics with a past and present (and presumably future). The US flag, as another example, has had a history of different "versions". Maybe in that case, each would merit its own separate article. But perhaps they would all be within one article. Yes, I understand that in the case of flags, the "logo" essentially equals the topic. But I've looked up fast-food restaurants and both iterations of AT&T, which show historic logos within the articles. Lost my train of thought -- but in TV articles for instance, if WAAA-TV has had 7 different owners, is it truly critical for the reader to know the middle 5? Possibly not, but I wouldn't want to remove all references to them. So, I don't know. I'm getting really exhausted, so I'll just stop for a while. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Consensus is discussed in this policy document, Consensus GB fan (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And now that User:SarekofVulcan has changed the McDonald's logo back to non-free, doesn't my argument number 3 come back to life? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No,#3 does not apply because as I tried to explain above, NFCC does not apply to articles it applies to non-free content. It applies to the pictures or logos themselves. The policy should be evenly applied across all the 406,152 pieces of non-free content but there isn't any one editor who has looked at all of those pieces. As you come across non-free content you should try to apply it evenly to each individual piece. Aplying it evenly might mean that the image must come out of McDonald's or it might mean that it belongs because it individually complies with all the required elements of WP:NFCC. The same might happen here, you might be able to show that each of those images meet all the criteria. I believe you are going to have a hard time showing that with criteria #3 in NFCC with the number of non-free images that were in the article. I really suggest you forget about trying to compare this article to any other article and concentrate on showing how the images meet the NFCC criteria. GB fan (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood the distinction. Maybe my #3 didn't explain that as clearly as it could have. I'm not sure in what way any of the WDTN images fail WP:NFCC. By what means can I have the editor community vote on the fair use of the individual images? Do I do that right here in Talk, do I add images back to the article one at time, or is there some other procedure? Or again, if the issue is strictly the number of images, my reading of NFCC 3a would still suppport them, as none of them are equivalent to each other. WHILE I'M WAITING for consensus... you're saying I should feel free to -- go out to articles and "be bold"; remove images not meeting your and Delta's interpretation of NFCC; cite NFCC, this Talk, your Username and Delta's; not use the word "decorative"; and not mention anything about violators being subject to blocking? :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am saying that you should feel free to be bold and go to other articles that have non-free images in them and evaluate them to determine if they meet the criteria in NFCC. If you determine they do not meet the criteria you can be bold and remove them. If you decide to do this, it is your decision not mine and not Delta's so you should not be citing us as a reason you are removing the images. As for this article I still haven't seen you try to explain each image on how it meets all 10 criteria so it is hard to judge consensus. Right now there are 3 editor's that are saying the number of pictures that you want to add to the article is to much and you are the only one saying that they all need to be in the article. So if you want to change people's minds you need to stop all the side stuff about other articles and concentrate on explaining why all those pictures need to be in this article. I am done trying to explain this and I am done with this conversation until the focus changes because it is going nowhere. GB fan (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the count right now is 4 against the inclusion and 1 for the inclusion of all the pictures if you include this conversation you had on the subject also. GB fan (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then. First, I haven't immediately responded because I've been away from Wiki for a bit. Second, I don't necessarily believe that images in other articles should be removed; I just believe, as you do, that policies should be applied consistently. ("As you come across non-free content you should try to apply it evenly to each individual piece."). Third, I've asked for specific objections, since without knowing those, I wouldn't know what/which changes, additions or removals are desired by those objecting. Since I feel each of the images is OK under NFCC:3, and the other responses I've received dealt with the number of images, I must assume that is the only major objection. Fourth, I'm still uncertain what I must do under the consensus process. Where and how do I make my arguments? Who will see them? How will I know that the audience won't be just me and members of the (you'll excuse the expression if it's considered pejorative, since I truly don't know) "deletionist" camp? There were certainly heated discusssions concerning the "historical logos in US TV station articles" issue, long before I ever started editing. Since the WikiProject ended up endorsing logo inclusion, and the resulting comments were of the nature, "glad that's finally settled", I have to wonder where editors of the "inclusionist" camp have gone. Tired of dealing with the issue again? Converted to deletionists? Unaware that the issue's being raised again in this small forum, in this less-notable article? To get disinterested editors to take a look, would I need to create a(n) WP:RfC? Fifth, in the absence of clear direction, I'll just be *bold*, restore *one* of the images, comment on it here, and see what happens. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1st, I am not looking for an immediate answer, sometimes it takes days for people to answer. 2nd, I am glad we can agree on that. 3rd, I have told you my specific objection, that there are to many non-free images on the article and that you might be able to justify some of them but not all of them. 4th, You should make your arguments here. You can ask for input from relevant wikiprojects with a neutral statement. (which you have done and the one person who answered was in agreement that all the images did not belong.) I am not inclusionist or deletionist, I argue both sides depending on the conversation. Where the editors went that were arguing the two sides I don't know, but as was mentioned somewhere above, a wikiproject can not override the legal policy, WP:NFCC. You can create an RFC if that is the way you want to go. GB fan (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of file Wdtn news 2011.png
Per the above discussions about image deletion, I will now restore this one image to the article. Not that it's necessarily relevant, but the inclusion of this image pre-dated my editing of the article.

1. No free equivalent. True. 2. Respect for commercial opportunities. True. 3. a. Minimal Use. First image, so doesn't really apply, although it differs from current station logo. True. 3. b. Minimal extent of use. "Entire work" clause doesn't really apply here; image resolution guidelines aren't quite clear, I read them to say the image file itself should maintain source resolution to preserve quality of the image, but in article should be a thumbnail. True. 4. Previous publication. True. 5. Content. True. 6. Media-specific policy. True. 7. One-article minimum. True. 8. Contextual significance. From the file description: "This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone." and "Use of the screen capture visually identifies the station's programming and ownership in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC". True. 9. Restrictions on location. True. 10. Image description page. True. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to challenge it on NFCC#8 grounds. What does this picture actually show? The logo is already shown above, and, other than that, there's a tiny bit of text (which could easily be reproduced in the article) and the background (which is hardly important. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I get a substantive non-numbers-based objection. And it's not even an image I put there in the first place. I'm seeing thru Wikipedia that the font of the call sign doesn't do anything for anyone. How about the "On Your Side" slogan? Guess not. How about that background? When animated, it's all colors and stylized peacock feathers (the NBC network's classic logo). Still no? Oh, dear. I just checked BSkyB and Channel 4. I hope 4-zians and Sir Rupert don't blow their gaskets (it's an American phrase.) :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why you feel you need to bring any other articles into this conversation. What is or isn't in those articles have nothing to do with this article or this picture. GB fan (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * GB, I'll reply below. This is already an overly threaded mess. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The image you added doesn't add anything to the article that you can't add with prose. GB fan (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After your note on my talkpage I came down to see how discussion was going. If I might make a suggestion, I think you're looking at it wrong. The question shouldn't be 'what do I have to do to put a non-free image in?' but 'Does this article need a non-free image as it stands now to be understood?'. Wikipedia is a free content work, we want reusers to be able to distribute it in any form for any reason to accomplish our mission of giving every person access to a high-quality reference work without fear of copyright encumberment. The WP:VEGAN parable is a good read on the topic. -- ۩ M ask  18:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, the point of me restoring this file was to see if Wikipedians could arrive at a consensus. The image was back for less than one day. Or is there some other method of letting editors examine it in context? Therefore, I'll *boldly* put it back until I hear otherwise. [User:Chaswmsday|Chaswmsday]] (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC) --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not put it back, you are the only one who who has commented and feels it belongs, here is a link to version with it in, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=WDTN&oldid=435067319 GB fan (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chaswmsday asked me to come back. I have nothing further to say at this point that I didn't already say in this edit summary, so I leave it at that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wait, y'all are responding to my edits and talking points while I'm still trying to respond to others! We're getting our wires crossed. Slow down the train here :). Right now, it's what, running 3 or 4 to 1 when specifically asked about this image? So how will editors know to go to the previous edit in the first place? The only folks responding are those I've already had dealings with. And it really hasn't been "five" days, Hammer. I haven't been sitting here defending 24-7. I just assumed this one image could sit for a few days to let the community look at it. Do I need an RfC to open this up? --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Plus, I'll being entertaining out of town guests for the next week, so I won't be here to reply to anything for a while. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And Chaswmsday has asked me to come back again. With no hostility intended, allow me to be blunt; the image File:Wdtn news 2011.png does not have sufficient justification to be included on this article, nor any of the other non-free media items that have been removed. I understand a willingness to defend a use. But, this has gone on for five days now with nobody agreeing with your position. Enough, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, not one person has agreed with your position. I fail to see what starting an RfC will accomplish. You asked for help from others, they came in and still no agreement with you. The first thread started on the 16th of this month. That's five days, inclusive. In that time you've failed to convince anyone of the veracity of your opinion. As to discussing a usage, as others have described you can refer to specific diffs in the article's history if you like. But really, I fail to see the point now. The point is moot, with the lone exception being you. This is not acceptable use. What more do we need to say to bring this home? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, absolutely no reason to be snotty about it. Being new at this type of conflict, I'm not sure exactly what an RfC entails. It does seem there are a handful of people, out of the universe of Wikipedians, who all seem to have a similar agenda/interpretation of policy, and don't care for images I've included. (Once again, by the way, this image predates me.) My understanding of an RfC is that it opens the discussion to a wider audience. And because the specific objections I had heard were as to the number of images, not the images themselves, my attempt was to try each of them out, one at time, to see if any passed muster with at least this subset of Wikipedians. And this image was up for less than one day before you pulled it. Diffs are only there if one specifically looks for them, and won't be helpful once orphaned images are deleted. Now, please wait "one" moment :) so I can reply to the earlier comment about BSkyB without receiving my 45th edit conflict in the last 30 minutes. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not attempting to be snotty about anything. I just fail to understand why five days of discussion with many different editors yielding a situation where you stand as alone a a tree on top of Mt. Everest could yield a situation in which we feel motivated to bringing this to an RfC. It is NOT the number of images. Criminy, if that were the case then you could use 40 non-free images and be just fine. History of painting uses 40, and that's stood for a long time (it used to have over 100). So what you're saying is we have to allow each non-free image to be restored to the place you want it on the article and then we need to have a discussion about that use? The diffs are there for that use; nobody has to look for them. All you have to do is refer to them like this which GB fan noted to you with his 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC) comment above. It is wholly unnecessary to restore anything while discussion is going on, and at any rate we don't restore non-free content until consensus is reached to remove it. It works the other way around. As to waiting? Sorry, edit conflicting you is not intentional. I may shortly not be around for a while so please forgive me for doing it again. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah Hammer, you apologized for edit conflicting at the same moment we *were* edit conflicting!!! ;) Well, Delta's original removal was cited as being for overuse of non-free content. Next, I was barraged with comments of the type, "the number of non-free items you have won't stand up to scrutiny". So yeah, I feel sorta entitled to think that the number was the primary issue. So I now take it that was not the main/primary issue? Howz a boy to know? ... now you won't have to refer to me as s/he or it, as I've been compulsively doing.:) If I understand right, an RfC opens the review up to anyone who notices it sitting out there? Right now, it doesn't seem like any disinterested parties are looking at it. In my mind, a lot hinges on the definitions of "information" and "significant", and it would seem that y'all and I define those terms quite differently. - Now I don't remember who wrote what, where. AKMask, I read the Vegan analogy, understood the literal interpretation, was kinda clued in on the fact that some point was being made, but I *truly* didn't get the analogy between English Wikipedia (since "German" was mentioned...to compare and contrast with "English W"? or, ironically?) and the vegan party. Isn't Wikipedia more akin to a neighborhood potluck, where vegans, carnivores, herbivores, omnivores, locavores, foodies and junk-food junkies all show up to contribute and partake? If you don't care for the Brussels Sprouts Casserole, you don't eat it. If some kids run in and knock a bunch of food onto the ground, you chase them out. If the same kids dump mud into the Brussels Sprouts, you chase them out. If someone insists on serving ultra-sour lemonade, you sneak in behind them and dump sweeteners into their pitchers, and gently let them know that next year, you'll make the lemonade, as you know how much work it is, and next year they can just sit and enjoy the day. Now however, if someone brings peanut butter and shoe polish sandwiches in an attempt to poison the neighborhood, at that point, you call the authorities. - And whoever wrote that we needed to worry about copyright restrictions, I gather, worldwide(?) - I'm not sure how anyone could keep track of all that and still create anything that wasn't a least-common-denominator recitation of words. Maybe I totally misunderstood your point, but if I did get it, and we had to obsessively worry about legal issues in other countries, would we then need to worry in case we wrote anything in English Wikipedia that would offend the sensibilities of the Chinese or Syrian governments? Whoever that was, please restate your point. - Now, I do need to be somewhere else. Ciao. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The German gag at the bottom is because the second largest wikipedia, the German project, allows no fair use images at all. And it's not like a potluck at all. Wikipedia is not a webpage hang out or forum, it is a 501(c) non profit founded to produce and spread with the widest possible range of reuse a free content reference work to enable our founding vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." and our Mission statement, which I already linked below. Wikipedia is a free content work, fair use images harm our ideals, our goals, and the ability to redistribute wikipedia for any purpose, and as such are strictly limited. -- ۩ M ask  20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

GB, J_Milburn and I had an earlier exchange on this page. His/her user page identifies her/him as British. I was curious how articles on British media outlets handled historical logos (which, in a complete aside, isn't what this image is, as it is identified as a "news open" screenshot, not a logo). I noted to J_Milburn that historical logos were in fact included in two of the articles I visited. When J_Milburn made her/his later comment, I re-checked those pages. Much to his/her credit, even though I personally would favor the logos' inclusion, s/he enforced the interpretation of policy that y'all favor. (I'm not Southern, I just think that standard American English needs a plural form of "you"). I then made a joke about the presumed reaction of the "Channel 4" bosses and Rupert Murdoch, famed owner of Fox and BSkyB. I complimented J_Milburn and we're having a civil exchange elsewhere. Nothing was "dragged in". I'm now off to another part of Wiki... Urk. I haven't read your reply yet, Hammer. Another edit conflict. Peace out! --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chaswmsday, you've had this explained to you several times, not the least of which was the short-lived thread at ANI you started. So lets take this slowly. The purpose of a logo is identification. WP:NFCC requires only one example if it is sufficient for identification, and one is. Older logos, should you wish to include them, would need to stand on their own. That means they must be notable in some fashion (covered by sources so its not WP:OR) and that including them somehow conveyed an idea that greatly increased comprehension of some specific point, a comprehension that could not be achieved by describing them in text and one so great its worth, in this instance, breaking our founding Mission statement. You have to demonstrate these things to keep it, the burden of proof lies on you not those asking to remove it. -- ۩ M ask  20:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And as I have now explained several times, this image is not a logo, but a "news open" screen shot. One may argue it's the same thing, but that would be subject to debate. It's perfectly fine, and may even be correct, to argue that this image itself violates NFCC in some way, but it's not a given that it would violate under any restrictions on logos. - While there are guidelines directing editors how NFCC should be interpreted, and perhaps although called guidelines, might be considered binding on editors, I don't see where WP:NFCC itself, as you keep citing, says *anything* about logos, much less the use of older ones. - A straight-through, non-critical reading of the Mission Statement would appear to exclude the use of any non-free content. It's only after one starts following nested link after nested link, qualifier after proviso, exception after rule, that one would even begin to be able to divine what it is one is supposed to do, in any given situation, out of the innumerable different situations and conditions which might arise, in what is a massive, collaborative work of art. And with that rant, I'm (I hope) replying no further for most of the week. Good Day, Sir! (Or Madam, alien life-force, bot, or whatever entity you happen to be, which, if I've excluded, my most sincere apologies.) :>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaswmsday (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 June 2011
 * The purpose is to show the station branding, that brings it under logo. It's not showing anything distinctive about the studio, or the personalities. It's simply a screenshot of on-air branding. -- ۩ M ask  21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Notable former staff
Copied from User talk:GB fan --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your addition of that tag in that specific section of WDTN. First, per WP:V, not everything must be referenced (that is, we're not Veropedia). Even WP:BLP doesn't require that everything be referenced--merely stating that unreferenced information must be removed if contentious or negative, and that other unreferenced information can be removed. Second, the presumption is that the information is referenced--it's referenced on the blue-linked pages of the people themselves. In fact, if we looked at those pages, and the information was not referenced there, then they should actually be removed from the WDTN list per WP:NLIST. Now, I monitor a fairly large number of TV pages, and routinely remove people from lists of these type unless they either have their own Wikipage or they have a reference verifying that they worked at the station and are at least somewhat important (NLIST says something like "important enough to be mentioned in prose in the article"). Theoretically, all of the blue-links should be checked, but the effort of doing so is so tremendous that it goes beyond what anyone I know is willing to do. But if a reference was found on the person's page, there is no requirement that the reference be duplicated on the station page. I respectfully request that you remove the unreferenced section tag, as no policy requires it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I respectfully disagree with your standpoint. WP:V says I can remove any material in an article if there isn't a source that directly supports it and that if someone readds it, the burden is on them to show it belongs. I am not removing any material just asking for it to be sourced. If you remove it again I won't reinstate it again, but I won't remove it. Julie Chen's article says she worked there but there is no reference tied to the statement. Jodine Costanzo's article also says she worked there but there is no citation. Phil Donahue's article says he worked at WLWD (now WDTN), but still no reference tied to the statement. Johnny Gilbert's article is the same as Phil Donahue's. Kris Long's article has no reference tied to the statement he worked there and the one reference on the article does not mention WDTN. Dan Patrick's article doesn't even mention WDTN. So I do not believe asking for citations is to much to ask. GB fan (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 * In that case (and I thank you for making the detailed check), it seems that WP:NLIST requires that we remove all of the names from the list. Do you agree? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removal or give it a little but of time to see if sources are found. I am willing to wait a little, but if you feel that they should be removed right now I won't object. But then we should also look at removing the information from the respective articles also. GB fan (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a chance to find sources before removing. Just returned to Wiki after a couple week break and discovered this. (Also should have placed on Talk:WDTN, not here.) I've found sources for Len Berman, haven't added yet. Not sure about Johnny Gilbert. Dan Patrick definitely worked in Dayton radio, can't remember that far back if he did TV work, will investigate. The other staff mentioned did work at WDTN, will try to source. Julie Chen should additionally have a slightly longer description, as she's more well known today for Big Brother and The Talk. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any plans of removing this information any time soon. I believe sources are available and thought someone would find them. If the sources had been in the linked articles I would have just pulled them across and been finished with it. Thanks for copying this here, I was going to do it when I saw your message on my talk page. GB fan (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of logos: a new understanding?
Given the responses last time, I've hesitated reopening this issue. I now believe I have misunderstood the argument against inclusion of historical logos. Please let me know if I'm now on the right track.

I followed through on my train of thought, so this got wordy. If nothing else, please read the bolded lines.

Throughout the entire discussion, I had been wracking my brain about what seemed to me an inexplicable bias against including historical logos in articles.

 * I don't recall reading anything in the much older arguments within the TV project about the use of logos that would have led me to any other conclusion.
 * Indeed, in almost all of the discussions about this article, the arguments were about denying inclusion unless the logo was crucial to understanding, or unless the logo itself were the subject of commentary.
 * "A very odd threshold," I thought. "This bizarre 'anti-logoism' had driven these editors to get the rules changed to support this curious position against a very particular type of information."

Then, I read a revelatory response from  ۩  M ask / AKMask: "Wikipedia is a free content work, fair use images harm our ideals, our goals, and the ability to redistribute wikipedia for any purpose, and as such are strictly limited."

Wait! What?! This isn't "about" logos?! This is really about ALL fair use images?! I don't remember hearing that before.

 * With this new context, AKMask's earlier statement made more sense: "Wikipedia is a free content work, we want reusers to be able to distribute it in any form for any reason to accomplish our mission of giving every person access to a high-quality reference work without fear of copyright encumberment."

 * However, I was then directed to read the "Veganism parable."
 * First, this essay on its face doesn't suggest it's referring to "fair use". It might just as well be an analogy for some other topic.
 * Reading it now with a more complete understanding of what it is supposed to be about, I still find it obtuse. Upon further analysis, I also believe the "veganism" analogy is flawed in several ways.
 * Reading it before the "revelation" completely wiped out any understanding I might have gained from AKMask's earlier statement.

After this revelation, I've tried to investigate this matter further prior to proceeding.

My understanding of the argument is that including fair use images (for that matter, anything fair use) either directly harms Wikipedia, or places it in some kind of jeopardy.
 * I don't have enough information at this point to understand this position, but it does seem on its face to be defensible (as opposed to a specifically anti-logo bias – my earlier misunderstanding – which wouldn't be defensible).

Were these logos not fair use images, I presume that they would be subject to no more or no less scrutiny than any other element of an article.

I have some ideas on how I might legitimately proceed with the articles I've been editing, but after finding out if I'm indeed on the right track, I need to understand this fair use issue to see exactly what the parameters are.

 * I'm unsure about fair use images which are permitted under the "avoid fair use" argument.
 * Are the allowed usages so compelling that they trump any harm or risk to Wikipedia?
 * Or is it that, in an ideal world, no fair use would be allowed, and that permitting any is merely a compromise, taking the matter as far as the Wikipedia community in general was willing to go?

 * Unfortunately, when I look up "fair use" in Wikipedia, I get an encyclopedic article strictly on the legal issues; for some reason, English Wikipedia's "fair use" is supposed to be stricter than the law's definition.
 * When I look up "fair use" in the meta portions of Wikipedia, I get only WP:NFCC, which purports to tell how to handle fair use images, but doesn't explain why they should be treated in a unique manner.
 * Looking up "deletionism" and "inclusionism" yields discussions about the existence of articles, not about the inclusion of elements within articles.
 * Also returned are dueling deletionist and inclusionist manifestos/arguments/quotes, all of which seem to me to be alternately serious, hyperbolic, silly or incomprehensible—but also useless in answering this question.

 * Armed with my "revelation", I've also searched for "fair use" arguments and counter-arguments anywhere I can find them, including in talk and incident pages. Although extensive, these seem to generate an extreme amount of heat, but almost no light.
 * There are citations of the WikiMedia Foundation's Mission Statement, but from the debates I've read, it seems there is reasonable disagreement as to whether it calls for Wikipedia itself to be free content, or whether it calls for all content within Wikipedia to be free—which, as far as I can tell, doesn't seem to hold true.
 * There are also references to WP:NFCC, but these just seem to be circular arguments.

I would greatly appreciate if anyone could point me to a reasonably succinct explanation of "fair use's" harm or risk to Wikipedia, or could provide that themselves.

If my understanding of the issue is on- or off-track, please let me know.

Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're hitting it square on some points, others not so much. I'll try to be succinct. Wikipedia strives to be a free content encyclopedia. The idea behind that is that it is freely distributable, even in commercial form, for whoever wants to use it in any way they wish. It provides free access to knowledge, with as little encumbrance on the distribution and use of that knowledge as possible. Within that framework, the Wikimedia Foundation recognizes that there are cases where being encyclopedic on a subject strongly argues for including non-free content. Therefore, in limited cases as defined by WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, we allow non-free content (usually meant to mean images, but can be text too). We could use this non-free material under terms of Fair Use law in the U.S. We don't. Our criteria for inclusion of non-free content is considerably stricter than that law allows. It's easy to get caught up in "fair use", and spin circles. The crucial point is whether a given thing is free or not. If not, then there needs to be a really, really, really good reason for it to be here. Simply including historical logos because, well, they're part of history isn't enough. There needs to be sourced commentary to support the use; else, it's purely decorative. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 * 1) So I am correct in assuming that the objection was never against logos, per se, but against non-free, fair use content in general? And that a free image, such as File:Coca-Cola logo.svg, would not raise these issues?

 * 2) I don't expect we'll agree; I'm just putting it out: I'm afraid I still don't "get" the underlying reasoning behind the non-free content guideline. It sounds quite nice and "Kumbaya-y", but it appears to hold Wikipedia editors quasi-responsible for any and all use or misuse of content by anyone downstream, at the arguable expense of WP's own article quality. Print encyclopedias and other print and online references are not held to that standard. Why WP? Because it's so easy to copy? A well-written article will include online citations and source references. At best, we haven't solved any problems; we've merely added a few more clicks between WP and some ill-advised or ill-intentioned person downstream.

 * 3) I never tried to include historical logos simply "because they're part of history". If that were my mentality, I would have attempted to include YouTube clips of every station advertising campaign I could find, along with the names, home addresses and favorite pudding flavor of everyone who ever worked there. No, I believe that current and past logos represent a part of the public face of any corporation or organization, but represent even more for TV stations. Other organizations make something, or provide some service or benefit, and their logos are just used for identification/advertising/awareness. In the case of TV stations, their on-air branding and their local programming (these days, virtually 100% newscasts), IOW, their public faces, are the product. I also believe, as apparently do the Germans, that logos exist in a different category than traditional "works of art", news photos, paparazzi photos, and the like.

 * 4) I realize the word "decorative" has developed as a shorthand among those heavily invested and involved in NFCC issues. However, the word is off-putting due to its extremely pejorative connotations. Use of the word carries an implication of frivolousness and/or bad faith. I (and I assume most other editors caught up in NFCC squabbles) try to edit in good faith to improve WP's articles. Besides, the only direct reference to "decorative" I have found within WP is an advisory essay dissuading from its use. A better term might be derived directly from NFCC:8: "Not contextually significant". This term is defined, and is not "loaded" with connotations.--Chaswmsday (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ) That's correct.
 * ) Because it's fundamental to our purpose. See Mission. We are the free encyclopedia. The more we encumber the project with non-free usage, the further from that goal we become.
 * ) Quoting you; "I believe that...". This is original research. With no hostility intended, what you believe means nothing to the project. We are focused on verifiable truth. As to the German Wikipedia, they operate under a different set of laws than this language one does. It's an apple-orange comparison.
 * ) I don't see it as pejorative at all. No insult intended. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ) Thanks!
 * ) I knew we wouldn't agree on this! Can downstream users freely use the "free" Coca-Cola logo obtained freely via WP to brand their own soft drink? I think not! I disagree with the basic premise within the "free vs. quality" balancing act here, and might in the future (if I'm feeling especially masochistic) work toward modifying policy and/or carving out specific exceptions. In the meantime, I'll try to abide by it.
 * a) Not OR, just describing (in a talk page) the editing/style choices that I, IMNSHO, believe would improve articles in the TV Project. e.g., if the "Coca-Cola" logo were somehow magically WDTN's logo under ABC affiliation, I would include it. If I were instead to include my personal opinion about what constitutes a station's "public face" within the article itself, as fact, then that, IMO, would be OR. b) I thought that the Germans' threshold of originality was supposed to be much lower than ours, such that almost every image is owned/copyrighted by someone. I've just found that in the German project, that either is not the case, or they're just ignoring their own rules/laws/standards.
 * ) Since I've fully understood the specific WP meaning of "decorative", no insult has been taken. However - The plain, dictionary definition of "decorative" has neutral to positive connotations. The WP word "decorative", as used in debates with those who are unaware of its (quite non-apt) "special" meaning, does carry the implication of unseriousness, especially with the modifier "purely". Since WP's "decorative" has a specific meaning something like "lacking contextual significance", you have "purely lacking contextual significance". That's either redundantly redundant speech or else it sounds like one of those "little bit pregnant" type phrases. "Decorative" is one of those terms like "Democrat Party", or my former work colleague (from a different company in a multi-company project team) who repeatedly "forgot" my manager's first name and kept addressing her by a wrong one. In all of these cases, the term chosen can easily get under someone's skin, raise their hackles and instantly put them on the defensive. But since NFCC debates are always friendly and drama-free, there's no harm done if discussions start off with an irritant.;-) Plus, as I mentioned earlier, "decorative" is wholly undefined within WP, except as part of a cautionary essay, whereas a term similar to what I had mentioned above would be derived directly from a WP policy. Unless of course, you actually enjoy fighting, in which case I would suggest UFC as a better fit. :) Holiday hugs! --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) No, as that would violate trademark. There's a gap of difference between trademark and copyright.
 * 3a) The point is you think the logos are important to the brand identity of the station. Without verifiable sources, that's unsupported speculation.
 * 3b) Their threshold of originality is higher than in the U.S.; i.e, their courts have ruled more towards more creativity being necessary to enable copyright than less. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

2) Quoting from WP:NFC: "Wikipedia distributes content throughout the world with no restrictions on how people use it. Legally, we could use any copyrighted material for ourselves that is either licensed to us by the owner, or that fits the definition of "fair use" under US copyright law. However, we favor content that everyone can use, not just Wikipedia. We want them to be free to use, redistribute, or modify the content, for any purpose, without significant legal restrictions, particularly those of copyright." [All emphases mine.] ... Except for the fact that downstream users do face restrictions, and they are not free, to use, redistribute or modify for "any purpose" they wish. "Trademarks" are a problem, dontcha know. Plus who knows how many other restrictions, as yet unenumerated. Ah, but the catch-all phrase, "without significant legal restrictions" absolves us from fulfilling the freedom mandate. That phrase sounds a tad weaselish to me.

3a) I also believe that the first word in each English sentence should be capitalized, that prose should follow a logical train of thought rather than allowing the sentences to be placed in random order, and that the cardinal directions in Western culture are north, south, east and west. And I will reflect all of these beliefs, and more, in any WP article to which I contribute. So I don't get your point. Is it that by stating my disagreement about fair use content, you somehow infer that I will act upon that disagreement and violate NFCC policy? As I've already stated, I'll try to abide by it. "Try" meaning I reserve the right to disagree, to advocate for policy changes, to find exceptions and exemptions, and generally not be a pushover, as I deem fit. All while doing my utmost to stay within the bounds of policy, as violating it is both improper and causes unpleasant consequences.

3b) If that's the case in Germany, please to explain why the German WP isn't littered with all manner of free imagery which would be copyrighted in English WP, and is instead held out as a model for non-free-less-ness in the WP:Veganism parable.

I'm just rattling on right now waiting for my spin cycle to finish... :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) As I previously noted, trademarks are a different beast than copyright. If you believe all of this is weaselish, please feel free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation to get them to change their stance. I'm sure they will be receptive and amenable.
 * 3a} ?
 * 3b} It does use logos under a free license that we would use under a non-free license here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over schedules
There's an edit war under way over schedules being added to this article at WDTN. Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, the use of such schedules is not supported. Noting that someone is an anchor is one thing; maintaining on this article which time slot for which they are the anchor is inappropriate. It has zero meaning in any context outside of the time zone within which the station resides. Further, none of it is backed up by reliable secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree it does not belong in the article. It does not provide any encyclopedic content, it is just a TV schedule and not all that important to gain an understanding of the TV station. GB fan 19:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion on this matter, I disagree. I use Wikipedia as a way of tracking news anchors in various television markets and it is helpful to know what anchor position they hold. A weeknight anchor holds a higher position than a weekend anchor. If you feel such a need to start an editing war, then why aren't you doing it on WABC, WNBC, WCBS or any other large market station? Why are you starting this on WDTN's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.253.243 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier just to put "weeknights" or "weekends" instead of adding times the reporter is on? What does it matter what time they are on anyway? Can't you find that on the station's website? Wikipedia is not a repository of all information, nor is it TV Guide as stated above. My 2 cents. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  00:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer why it started on this page, maybe editors haven't seen it on other pages. I don't have those other pages on my watchlist. GB fan 00:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Per your last revert, @GB fan: As I have already noted in my edit summaries: WP:NOTTVGUIDE advises that Wikipedia is not to be used as an electronic program guide. Listing anchoring duties does not constitute a station schedule. Also, as noted, there is no requirement or MoS calling for times to be internationalized. As @24.210.253.243 noted above, such information can serve to track and rank anchors. I would also argue that a schedule of news programs would be significant, in that one could compare a station's news offerings to others in the market and to stations around the country. And that's not even what was reverted here.

This "anchors and times" format is widely practiced throughout WikiProject Television Stations. If you're serious in your belief that this particular project-specific standard be disallowed, I would strongly suggest that rather than reverting here in the relative "backwater" of WDTN, you could spark a much wider conversation by reverting equivalent verbiage at WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC, KABC-TV, KCBS-TV, KNBC, WBBM-TV, WLS-TV, WMAQ-TV, et al.

I've discussed this issue, as you've requested; per my responses, I'll now restore. I await your comments/findings on the above-mentioned articles.--Chaswmsday (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm out of my blasted mind. How could I have been so stupid? No, no, nobody's that stupid. Actually, it was an evil plot to cause trouble with Wikiproject TV stations. Mwahahahaha! Did it work? Oh wait. No, that would be disruptive, right? Sigh. Look, nothing....NOTHING....in any project trumps policy. Thanks for keeping up the edit war. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The schedules have managed to creep back into the article yet again. If people want the schedules in here, they need to first see about overturning WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is no clear consensus that your interpretation of policy actually is policy. I reiterate: please stop singling out this article; if you believe your interpretation is correct, either "correct" the articles I had mentioned prior, or make your case on the Project page. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted, if you wish to overturn this, your first stop is to have WP:NOTTVGUIDE overturned. You have yet to do that. Please do. As I previously noted here, a project page does not overrule wikipedia wide policy. Asserting that this policy isn't as it is obviously worded is reverse logic. This policy has already seen the removal of schedules all over the project. It most emphatically does apply. Edit warring to stop its removal is counterproductive. Please go to WT:NOT and make your case for why this or any other page should be a special case that allows schedules when the rest of Wikipedia does not. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo similarity paragraph
Once again I have removed the paragraph on the similarity of the WDTN logo with other logos. When it was reinserted it was stated that the similarity of the logos is no more an opinion than "New Zealand is an island country". That statement is a fact and can be shown to be true with reliable sources if someone challenged it. This time the fact tag was removed, it was stated that, " WP itself is the citation." Wikipedia can not be a source for other articles in Wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR. I once again removed it and the burden is on anyone who readds it to provide a reliable source. GB fan 15:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I was not, for instance, claiming without attribution that the logos have a common origin. I was not claiming, to use another example, that the logos are reminiscent of an ancient fresco found in the ruins of Pompeii. I was merely describing facts that are directly observable within Wikipedia itself. To use another silly analogy: The French flag is blue, white and red. The U.S. flag is red, white and blue, as is the Thai flag. In the national flag article, one might note that these flags share the same colors. If challenged, the proof is trivial: observe the flag images themselves. In this case, observe the logos themselves.

 * Under the WP:Ignore all rules policy and its explanatory essay WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." How is this article damaged by this edit? And... ''"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored."

 * I'm not even particularly enamored of the logo similarity passages myself, and may not have included them had I been the first to recognize the similarities. However, a previous editor did take note of this, and these true statements should be preserved. Perhaps they will serve as a springboard for a future editor to research the logos' common origins, since WDTN at least was likely under Hearst-Argyle ownership when its logo was created, and at least one of the Baltimore Providence stations may have been as well. Perhaps the statements will come to nothing else, and just stand on their own. Regardless, they are factual and, if challenged, trivially proven.--Chaswmsday (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They have been challenged and under that you need to provide a reliable source that says they are similar, if you can not provide that source the information does not belong. GB fan 17:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I see no improvement from that original conclusions that someone made about the logos. It is just trivial information that someone decided to include on what they feel is similar. GB fan 17:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Please respond to my WP:IAR comments. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did respond to them. I see no improvement to the article by having this original research in the article. GB fan 18:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have been civil of you to let me know of your third opinion request, @GB fan.

And, what?? @Czardoff might well be a wonderful person, but a Russian-speaking Montenegrin responding to an en.WP request?

WP:NPOV?? The statements in question, whatever anyone may think of them, most decidedly do not reflect any point of view.

You, @GB fan, aren't even citing WP:V anymore, as the statements are bland, trivially proveable facts.

Out of the "big three" core content policies, the only argument that holds water is WP:OR.
 * Apparently, WP mandates that we check our brains at the door, and only include content someone else has dreamed up.
 * As I recently had occasion to look up, I was disabused of the notion that English nursery rhymes were "coded historical narrative, propaganda or covert protest". Apparently, a lady named Katherine Elwes made all that up out of "whole cloth" around 1930. But if I had cited her claims in an edit to Humpty Dumpty, that edit would have been guaranteed not to be "original research". Yay! Glad we're so concerned about "improving" the encyclopedia! --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I didn't realize that you would take offense for not being informed that I went to WP:3O and said there was a disagreement in this section. I thought you would welcome a different opinion. If the opinion had been the opposite I would have reinserted the material and dropped it. I still am citing WP:V. That is my one and only argument. It appears that this is someone's opinion of the similarity of those logos and there aren't any sources for the statements. If a source is found I would have no problem and would support the paragraph. What wikipedia does is take the information that others have published about a subject and consolidate it into articles about that subject. No one is asked to check their brains at the door. GB fan 19:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with "a Russian-speaking Montenegrin responding to an en.WP request"?—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing, inherently. Your command of English is quite good, much more so than my lack of fluency either in Montenegrin or in Russian. However, it was just "off" enough that I wondered if you fully grasped the meaning of WP:NPOV. This is certainly not a dispute about a "point of view". And requiring sourcing? OK, but to satisfy WP:OR, not WP:V, as I still contend that these factual statements are trivially proven if challenged. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is somehow tricky, but it is indeed the question of WP:NPOV: if this material needs verification (apparently it does, as this dispute couldn't occur otherwise) and there are at least two points of view (either logos are similar or not), we have a choice of points of view to state here. Given that there are no sources on similarity of logos, the pro-similarity point of view should be considered as the one not supported by reliable sources, thus the minority POV. As such it shouldn't be covered in the article.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to try to explain the significant difference between a "point of view" and not maintaining NPOV. I see, though, that you're working diligently on NPOV issues with regard to a proposed University of Pristina split. I can tell you fully understand what NPOV truly means, so... --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, @GB fan, I do take offense. Informing me of what you were doing would have been both civil and courteous. First of all, I had not restored those statements, and you had no indication that I would. I might disagree with policies or guidelines and comment on them without acting counter to them. Second, although WP allows you to resolve disputes though a third opinion -- rather than grabbing a person "off the sidewalk", I might have suggested that we put the question to the TV WikiProject. Perhaps an editor there would have encountered a similar issue in the past and have suggestions to make that bit of prose acceptable. Or, s/he might have said that such information is beyond the pale for TV station articles and should indeed be removed.

 * Third: WP:V is not your "one and only argument". You say "It is just trivial information that someone decided to include on what they feel is similar", strongly suggesting WP:OR, or just a plain dislike of a particular edit. Both of which, BTW, are certainly valid rationales. It's been my experience that many reverting editors employ varying rationales against content with which they disagree.

 * Fourth: If incorrect information, properly sourced, might be given a pass, while "original research" (e.g. claiming that 2+2=4 without a citation - horrors!) is forbidden: then yes, you are asked to check your brain at the door.

 * Fifth: Despite vigorous claims to the contrary, many editors do behave as though Wikipedia were a bureaucracy. "Rules" seem to drive many edits and reverts, rather than the mandates to improve WP and to use common sense.

 * Don't feel compelled to reply, as you won't change my position, as I'm sure I haven't changed yours. Instead, to avoid pointless arguments, I will move the "disputed" content into this talk page to see if anyone has any insight on the issue. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I didn't ask for a third opinion for you I asked for me. I didn't think you were going to add the information back in, that never entered my mind. I wanted to see if I was wrong in my thinking that those logos were sufficiently similar to be trivially proven. We had two sides, you saying they are trivially proven just by looking at them and me saying they aren't that similar. There was no slight intended against you, I have used third opinion multiple times while I have been here and have never informed the other side and you are the first editor to ever take offense at that. The third opinions have agreed with both sides and when their opinion disagreed with my position I have supported the material also. Sometimes it is good to have someone completely outside look at the situation and give their opinion. If you want someone from the wikiproject to come and give their opinion go there and ask, that third opinion does not stop that. I am sorry if it seemed that I was varying my rationales for removal. As I said the only reason that I am removing it is beacause I have found nothing to verify the information. The "It is just trivial information that someone decided to include on what they feel is similar" is just my opinion of the material not the reason I removed it. I have not asked for a citation on 2+2=4 and never would. I do disagree though that this information is not that easily proven that the logos are similar. The 2+2=4 is a fact, the similarity of these logos is an opinion. You are right there are many editors that remove things just because the rules say so. I have argued both sides, I do not just go and remove things because of the rules. Other wise I could earlier on this particular article I could have removed all those notable former employees. When I started working on them, none of them were sourced. My idea was to leave the material in and work to find sources. I have looked for sources here but have not found any, nor do I expect to. I never feel compelled to reply to a post. I welcome as many opinions as we can get, if others say the information is appropriate for the article, I will add it back in. GB fan 15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

LIN standard logos?
The following content was removed from the lead section on 15 February 2012, for WP:OR and/or WP:V.
 * WDTN's logo is very similar to ones used by KMID, WPRI-TV, and WNAC-TV.

The statement was modified on 25 Febrary 2012 and moved to the "Station slogans" section.
 * WDTN's logo, with the number "2" placed over a bottom-left to top-right oriented red oval, is much like those used by its sister stations WPRI-TV, which has the number "12" over a similar oval, and WNAC-TV, which has the words "FOX Providence" over a similar oval. Its logo is also similar to that used by unrelated station KMID. There the oval contains a different shade of red, but the font of the number "2" is virtually identical.

This paragraph was also removed.

WDTN had used an identifiable Hearst/Argyle style logo even after the station was sold to Sunrise Television. Upon Sunrise's 2002 merger with LIN TV, the logo was changed to one very similar to today's, but lacking the NBC peacock component, as it was then an ABC affiliate.

LIN stations WPRI-TV and WNAC-TV, both in Providence, RI, use similar logos. I've subsequently found that former LIN station WAND in Decatur/Springfield/Champaign/Urbana, IL, does as well.

My operating theory is, as former logos are retired, LIN either does or did employ common station branding. Can this theory be proved or disproved? If it was LIN policy, was it only applied to certain stations?

KMID, in Midland/Odessa, TX, has no apparent connection to the LIN stations. Is its similar logo just a coincidence or is it an example of reusing a public domain logo?

If anyone has any insight on this and/or sources proving or disproving, please let me know here. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry to burst in on this subject, but it keeps popping up in my watchlist. Why exactly is it important that the logos are similar again? I am a bit out of the loop on this one but I don't see a reason to argue over similar logos, or see how that could be encyclopedic. My two cents... -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it might indicate a common branding effort by LIN. Jeesh, it's just in the Talk pages now... --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on WDTN. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wdtn.com/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WDTN Operates Its Own Radar?
If so, that's news to me.

I know that WDTN, years ago, received a hand-me-down outfit from its sister station in Indianapolis (that was when WHIO-TV ran to update and upgrade theirs), but I'm thinking it didn't last long or was dropped for some other reason. Now, WDTN, as indicated by the radar sweep indicators, is clearly using the NWS NEXRAD data.

HOWEVER, WDTN appears to indicate some small radar in the Troy area that I have never been able to nail down; is there, in fact, a unit there that's theirs? Is this what the article is referring to? What is it, and where did it come from? What's its specs, range, accuracy, reliability, and reputation? I've never seen the station indicate that that's what is being referred to as "Live Doppler 2 HD." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:2240:7DAD:A1D0:A63D:39D4:B651 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:WDTN