Talk:WKOF

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WTVH. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WTVH. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WTVH. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

WTVH and WKOF

This is a bit of an explainer of what I plan to do on December 1.

Sinclair has announced on December 1 that it is moving the CBS programming from WTVH to WKOF. WKOF, which Sinclair won at an FCC auction, went on the air in July. The real purpose of this is similar to changes done in other markets where Sinclair provides services to a station like WTVH. Essentially, Sinclair wants to put major affiliations on subchannels it owns as much as possible. Normally, this results in subchannel changes, e.g. KGAN absorbing Fox from KFXA. WKOF is 3.0, so technically there won't be much of a change except 5.1 to 15.1 for CBS programming (WTVH is the "host" for WKOF already). In this case, this is what I intend to do:

  • This article will move to WKOF. Now that the station is the network affiliate, it is probably the primary topic.
  • It will be this article, covering the history of WTVH and WKOF together. It will cover them almost as one unit, except for information about the license win.
  • It will contain two infoboxes (not a child infobox situation) and the subchannel information for both stations.

It will have a lead that reads something like so (more detail likely as I write more):

WKOF (channel 15), known as "CBS 5", is a television station in Syracuse, New York, United States, affiliated with CBS. It is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group alongside WSTM-TV (channel 3), an affiliate of NBC and The CW. The two stations share studios on James Street/NY 290 in the Near Northeast section of Syracuse; WTVH's transmitter is located in the town of Onondaga. Prior to December 1, 2025, CBS programming in Syracuse was supplied by WTVH (channel 5), which is owned by Granite Broadcasting and managed by local marketing agreement (LMA).

WTVH began broadcasting as WHEN-TV on December 1, 1948. It was Syracuse's first television station, owned by the Meredith Corporation; it broadcast on channel 8 from 1948 to 1961. Meredith owned WHEN alongside WHEN radio; when it sold the radio station in 1976, channel 5 changed its call sign to WTVH. While WTVH was initially the dominant station in Syracuse television news ratings, the market became more competitive in the 1980s.

Granite Broadcasting acquired WTVH in 1993 and grew to own three network affiliates in Upstate New York. WTVH's news ratings continued to decline under Granite ownership. In 2009, amid the Great Recession, Granite entered into a multi-city agreement with Barrington Broadcasting, then-owner of WSTM-TV, to combine operations. Sinclair acquired Barrington in 2013, while Granite retained the WTVH license, among its last assets. After winning the authority to build a new Syracuse TV station at federal auction, Sinclair built WKOF in 2025 and moved WTVH's CBS programming to that station.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Separate articles for WTVH and WKOF

I would like to revisit this discussion, as the previous decision does not appear to have had broader input, and I think there are additional considerations that are worth discussing. It appears that the WTVH article was repurposed into the WKOF article, which may not align with the usual format for documenting separately licensed stations. Maintaining separate articles would likely provide a clearer and more consistent presentation of each station’s history.

WKOF and WTVH are separately licensed FCC facilities with distinct histories. Wikipedia typically reflects this by maintaining separate articles for each station and documenting any affiliation or branding transitions between them, rather than combining them into a single narrative. Maintaining separate articles would improve clarity, as it avoids combining the histories of two distinct licensed stations into one page.

In similar cases, such as KJCT-CD and KLML in Grand Junction, stations remained separate articles even when affiliations and branding shifted between licenses. It should also be noted that, since WKOF already has a standalone article following this move, maintaining consistency would suggest treating WTVH the same way and giving it a separate article.

While there are examples of past precedent, additional input from other editors would still be helpful to determine a consensus on whether maintaining separate articles for both stations is the most accurate and consistent approach. Falcopunch145 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash my arguments which are at User talk:Falcopunch145, but I do want to incorporate them into this discussion by reference. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I’ve reviewed the points on my talk page, but I think it would be helpful to address them here so that other editors can follow the discussion and weigh in.
The argument raised there doesn’t appear to address the points I’ve outlined here, and instead focuses on a more subjective rationale that may not align with how Wikipedia guidelines typically approach article structure for separately licensed stations. Also, the fact that WTVH is no longer affiliated with a major network does not justify combining it with a separate licensed station. Many other Roar affiliates maintain their own standalone articles, and WTVH remains a distinct FCC-licensed facility. Falcopunch145 (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Separate articles for WTVH and WKOF

WTVH and WKOF are separately licensed FCC facilities with distinct histories. One position is that they should remain separate articles, with any affiliation or branding transitions documented within each article, consistent with how similar cases (e.g., KJCT-CD and KLML in Grand Junction) have been handled. Another position is that the histories should be combined into a single article due to concerns regarding notability or narrative. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated to determine the most appropriate structure. Falcopunch145 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC question: What is the most appropriate article structure for WTVH and WKOF: separate articles for each station, or a single combined article? Does WTVH remain notable on its own, or should it be listed in the WKOF article? Falcopunch145 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Completely oppose. WKOF on its own fails GNG. See above comments on this talk page as to why they deserve to be a combined article. There is nothing to debate here. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 02:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Also I find it particularly insulting that you are choosing to ignore the views of the editors who choose the article structure, moreso one editor who already has several hundred GAs and seven FAs in this topic field. I would be careful not to violate WP:CANVAS. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 02:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I will simply oppose and restate arguments I have made elsewhere:

What Sinclair did in Syracuse is a bit unusual in that it involves a station that had not had a notable history otherwise but which we now must cover because it has a network affiliation. (They have moved network affiliations like this before, but not to a station with no other history to speak of.) Conversely, the history of WTVH after losing its affiliation looks to be not very notable, but the same cannot be said for it as a CBS affiliate. There is also the fact that the brand name of the station was ported over to the new license.

As someone who has touched thousands of broadcasting articles and on multiple occasions made calls about this to the point I had to write an explanatory essay, User:Sammi Brie/One or Two, I feel like I have a good grasp of when to do this. The main reason I have done it like this is because WKOF, aside from all the WTVH context, is pretty much unexplainable. If it did not get the CBS affiliation (by subsuming WTVH), it would likely have failed the WP:GNG and not been an article.

Our readers are better served by an arrangement that is adequate to explain everything and is similar to what viewers experienced without being overwrought and supporting an unnecessary article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I opened the RfC to invite input from uninvolved editors in a neutral and transparent way. I’m not contacting editors directly or seeking a specific outcome. I’d prefer to keep the discussion focused on the article structure, and invite outside perspectives to determine a consensus. The purpose of the RfC is to gather input from uninvolved editors so a consensus can be formed, so I think it would be helpful to allow that process to play out. Falcopunch145 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Falcopunch, your stubbornness and outright refusal to listen to our perspectives, which we have repeatedly laid for you as experts in this topic field and yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge, is absolutely not helping your cause here. You're coming off as absolutely unreasonable. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 04:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate that outside perspectives are valuable and have been proactive in seeking them out on many issues facing broadcasting articles. The result is a higher standard across the board in places such as accessibility, MOS compliance, lead sections, etc.—places where our practice was misaligned with policies and guidelines. These are changes from which WKOF and many other articles have benefited in the last six years. But the constant escalation to an unnecessary RfC is unnecessary given that this topic presentation issue does not have to do with projects and guidelines. The average English Wikipedia editor does not have a background in broadcasting. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  1. Rephrase RfC question @Falcopunch145 the opening question of the RfC is not clear on the question that should be answered (what does support mean and what does oppose mean?) and is less than completely neutral in my reading of it. Please consider rephrasing it clearly stating the question to be answered and leaving out arguments that for/against either side, that will make it easier for more editors to participate.
  2. Support the merged article. It seems to me that the notable subject here is the CBS affiliate (CBS5) not the FCC license for a TV station. If separate notability for WTVH as a license can be established then a split would be appropriate.
ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I clarified the RfC question. From my understanding, Wikipedia articles on television stations are typically organized around the licensed facility, with affiliations and branding documented as part of that station’s history. In this case, WTVH and WKOF are separately licensed FCC facilities, which is why I raised the question of whether maintaining separate articles would be more consistent with how similar situations are handled. I would be interested in hearing any examples or guidance that support structuring the article primarily around the affiliation rather than the license. Falcopunch145 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
It should be noted that there is precedent for successor stations, such as Class A or low-power facilities, to incorporate the history and intellectual property of a former full-power station when that original facility has been shut down. However, that situation is distinct from this case, where both stations continue to exist as separately licensed entities. In cases such as this, maintaining separate articles is more consistent with how these distinctions are typically documented. It may also be relevant that WTVH previously had an established standalone article, reflecting independent coverage over time, and that changes in affiliation or branding do not necessarily eliminate that historical notability. Falcopunch145 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Proposals to split or merge are not a matter for RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
My understanding is that RfCs can be used to get broader input on content and structural questions like this. I opened this to bring in uninvolved editors and get more perspectives on the most appropriate structure. I chose to open an RfC rather than rely solely on a standard talk page merge or split discussion because the prior discussion didn’t really reach a clear consensus, and I wanted to invite broader input from uninvolved editors to help move things forward. Falcopunch145 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WKOF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 23:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 05:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  • No gripes in the lead
  • "From provisional facilities, WHEN began broadcasting on December 1, 1948." - The construction here feels awkward - suggest "WHEN began broadcasting from provisional facilities on December 1, 1948." as more straightforward
  • "It originated from a temporary studio" feels redundant since you just established they were using provisional facilities
  • "The DuMont Television Network followed suit by February." - the grammar here doesn't work. First sentence describes WHEN becoming a CBS affiliate. If DuMont followed suit, that would mean DuMont became a CBS affiliate. But "followed suit" is an idiom I'd suggest replacing anyway. (Maybe combine this w the following sentence?)
  • Suggest giving the full names of NABET and CWA per MOS:ACRO
  • First fullname and link of Maureen Green is after she's first mentioned by last name only
  • Speaking of Green, was she fired a second time in 2007?
  • " lowered salaries, with younger, more inexperienced employees" - was Granite cutting the salaries of the existing employees and also hiring new ones on the cheap, or waiting till oldheads left and hiring cheap new people as replacements?
    • Green said Granite started lowering salaries and hiring staff right out of college. "The veterans were not appreciated and pushed out, and that was another thing that was happening right in front of the audience's eyes. Not clear but I changed ", with" to "and hired".
  • That's it, no further gripes through the end of the article.

@Premeditated Chaos: Handled everything you spotted. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Spot checks, citation numbers randomly generated:

  • 1 - both good
  • 10 - yup
  • 25 - yup
  • 28 - yup
  • 40 - yup
  • 61 - yup
  • 73 - yup
  • 80 - yup
  • 85 - yup
  • 89 - yup

No issues here and since the other concerns have been resolved, easy pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 824 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC).

  • I'll review this. And honestly, I wasn't even particularly familiar with Tirico and Muir, even as an American. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Promoted to GA two days before nom, prose 12kB. Prefer ALT1 over ALT0 since the punchline’s not news-related. Not much to write home about. @Sammi Brie: address the issues and you’re good to go. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

    • @Miraclepine: Refs 2 and 5 are LMS autorefs. The infoboxes are current on technical information now (I checked them again and revised the HAAT for WKOF). I also fixed the other issues you found. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Now, I was concerned about the prose given the HAAT was different, but I checked and turns out two stations at the same facility can have different HAATs; also, the coordinates are the same for both stations down to the tenth-of-an-archsecond (something I was worried about since one of the stations moved). In the meantime (and considering Goldberg was still working in March 1996), the changes check out. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)