Talk:KGW

Oregon High‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
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 Mid-importance).

"The Tower"[edit]

I have removed the note about the tower by 615 Music because the theme has changed in the last week. I will browse the clips at 615's website and try to find the new theme.67.189.71.133 05:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KGW.png[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Logo released today in conjunction with HD inagural broadcast...[edit]

I just want to not that KGW got a new logo today, along with their HD Newscast broadcast that started today....

Just letting you know that this article is now outdated unless new logo is added.... Bentoman (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic information discussion[edit]

This article has sections that appear to be unencylopedic lists per article guidelines (WP:NOT#DIR), I've asked for comments here because this affects a number of stations. Unencyclopedic information discussion TV project.Awotter (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what needs citing? Myhousemf (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Notable former staff" determined?[edit]

There are no obvious criteria used to determine membership on this list. For example, you could say "The following broadcasters left KGW to eventually take a job with a national audience" (or something like that but better worded). The clincher would be to then add a ref for the bio of each member in the list, a bio that mentions they used to work at KGW. That way you have both proof of former employment and proof of notability. Thanks. 72.244.204.159 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely need a ref indicating they've worked at KGW, but the notability is covered by being a bluelink. It could definitely use some wording, though it's similar to "notable alumni" in the educational articles. tedder (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually answer that, based on removal work I've been doing from other TV stations. The key, based on WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:NLIST, is that the people listed need to have notability proven; the easiest way to do that is to have their own wikipage (since those people have presumably passed standard notability guidelines at their own article). Alternatively, a good reference from a reliable source that both confirmed the person worked at KGW and is also notable in some way (not necessarily notable enough to have their own article, but in some way more special than any other employee) could be included. Note, though, that this can't be, say, a link to another station's bio page (like if the person moved to a new station), or a LinkedIn or other social networking site. If you look at Talk:WHDH (TV)#Significant trimming of Former Staff section, you can see the full rationale. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag at the top of that article, because the specific criteria are pretty well established. Interestingly, I just recently came across a the criteria for notability as a school alumni, which is listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Alumni. Note that their guidelines are even stricter than being used here, in that they require anyone on school alumni lists to meet WP:BIO notability standards, which is very close to saying the person should have their own page. If I thought I could get consensus for it, I'd move that we use the same criteria for tv stations... Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like turtles[edit]

Should a reference of the I Like Turtles video be added to the page since that viral video is from this news station?--Starman15317 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is no--it's not notable enough in the long history of the television station. It's essentially trivia. The only time I think a news story should really be noted would be if the station was the first for a major news story, and then only with verified sources (and maybe not even then). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think (in my opinion), a simple one sentence reference would be sufficient. beepborp (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cable channel information[edit]

It looks like the article used to list digital subchannel information for cable companies (Comcast and Frontier), and it was removed way back on 24 July 2012 (with no explanation) by an individual who, it seems, was later banned for vandalism. I'd like to restore this information to the table in the digital channels subsection, as it is useful.

Does anyone disagree? If so, why? 1980fast (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Widescreen[edit]

Why is KGW is in widescreen? It is not in full screen anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.58.134 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on KGW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KGW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on KGW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter is irrelevant?[edit]

Hi @Mvcg66b3r:, can you explain why you consider the ownership of a helicopter by a TV station irrelevant? It seems like entirely encyclopedic comment; it's a nontrivial investment. tedder (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have in my library an entire hardcover book, The Newsroom Dragonfly, about the Oregon Journal's helicopter. That was the first news helicopter in Oregon, and while I can see that it's a somewhat less substantial investment in 2020, I agree with Tedder that it's still significant. The finances of any news organization are germane to an encyclopedia article, and if they are sharing a resource with another news organization that's something I'd want to know about as a reader. P.S., it's a great book. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]