Talk:WPIX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AM or FM station[edit]

True or false: Somewhere in the United States (the state doesn't matter) there also exists a WPIX-FM and/or a WPIX-AM. 66.32.143.38 19:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this person has found out the answer in the nearly 2 years sence the question was postulated, but if not, you can find the answer for yourself at one of the following links. As of this date, there are no AM or FM radio stations with a callsign containing WPIX. —A 05:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't think there ever was an AM station with the WPIX calls. I did, however, see a reference to "WPIX-AM-FM" in the 1965 (or was it 1966?) New York Times Index, however it may have been an error. –Wbwn 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WPIX in the FCC AM station database
  • WPIX in the FCC FM station database

Byron Allen named in talks to Buy WPIX[edit]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/08/byron-allen-seriously-interested-in-buying-tribune-media/

https://deadline.com/2018/11/byron-allen-interested-in-buying-tribune-media-1202499138/

As of 2018 there are rumors that Byron Allen is in talks to get the Tribune owned stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:8869:83C5:E072:AE42 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kids WB end date[edit]

I noticed recently that there was an edit war concerning the end of when the Kids WB weekday programming ended. I searched a forum, and according to this thread, they stopped airing weekday cartoons at the very end of 2005. So January 2, 2006 was the first day without Kids WB weekday cartoons. ErikNY 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station Branding[edit]

Currently, WPIX is branded "WB 11," but what will the station be called when it begins affiliation with The CW? —HG707 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

CW 11, of course. At least, I would imagine. Morgan Wick 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Picture and WPIX[edit]

For much of the 1960s until about 1970–71, WPIX ran the U.S. Army–produced The Big Picture prior to sign-off on weekends (alternating between Saturdays and Sundays, but not to the best of my knowledge on both days at the same time). I noticed, reading Les Brown's Encyclopedia of Television, about the 1969–79 license challenge, that he mentioned "footage from military training films" shown on late 1960's newscasts with the words "Via Satellite" emblazoned on screen. Since The Big Picture aired on channel 11 at the time in question, could such footage have come from that program? – Wbwn 03:02, 12 August 2006 (EDST)

WWE Smackdown on WPIX[edit]

It should be noted that WWE Smackdown is moving to WPIX three weeks before the launch of The CW. My Network TV is launching two weeks before The CW, providing interesting choices for the new My Network TV stations on what to do with those final two weeks of UPN or WB programming.

Some My Network TV stations will be airing their UPN/WB programming in late night, while others, including WWOR and the Fox stations will not show it at all. WWE Smackdown, which never has repeats (although they occasionally have clip shows) has a special situation, since its still a UPN show for the next three weeks and WWOR is not showing it. It is a station issue AND a network issue, that a special deal was made to air UPN's final three weeks of Smackdown on WPIX (and other Tribune WB-CW stations) in advance of the CW launch. Yes, Smackdown is going to be on The CW, but until the new network launches, it is still WB11 and Smackdown still is a UPN show. This is certainly something worth noting.

Now for your opinions.

Milchama 11:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia at best. Try to think through a historical perspective: would anyone remember or even care five or ten years from now? Morgan Wick 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines, but wasn't sure how to classify it. This is, more or less, a decision made at the CW network level and any written mention of it belongs in the CW article. Rollosmokes 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, the decision to show it during the two weeks before CW start was a Tribune level, wasn't it? Morgan Wick 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WB Closedown[edit]

That was so sad! I grew up with the wb! Anyway, they flew through all the logos previos to the cw. The CW 11 News is almost exacly the same. I'm so sad!!Seamus215 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: What A Montoage, They Should Instead Play The Backround Music For The WWE Theme (The Current One, Revelent To The "WPIX Transforms To The CW11" Montoage)

Frank0115932 17:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It's all smooshed now,and I don't know how to fix it.Seamus215 21:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better question: why was the logo picture changed? The previous CW 11 logo picture was fine. The one currently in the article is awful. Rollosmokes 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It looks compressed and ugly.Seamus215 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was before I changed it in favor of the one taken from the website. I'd like to bring back the previous one (with the green background) and plug it into the logo gallery unsmushed. Rollosmokes 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "smooshing" has to do with the image being uploading under the same filename as an older image. This can be fixed by clearing your browser's cache. Another suggestion: wouldn't it just be better to use this logo? —Whomp (myedits) 02:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding History?[edit]

It's already a long article, but I'd like to see one aspect of WPIX history at least touched on -- in pre-satellite days, WPIX was distributed on microwave throughout a lot of New England, enabling it to be carried by a lot of cable systems, and giving many communties an independent alternative that would not have been available off-air. Someone with more time than me ought to look up the details of the extent of that network and add it to the article.StanislavJ 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Should I put in a Controversy Section because it was critisized for its coverage of the London Attacks a few years ago by several newspapers? In the Daily News they did a comparison of all the TV news reports of it and it showed that the WPIX was the most irresponsible because they talked about it for a total of 5 minutes and went to 15 minutes of Bowling. And there were several on-camera , live, walkouts of some of the traffic people. Angelocasio 13:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I was thinking that there should be a separate page created for the 1969–79 WPIX license challenge, given all the twists and turns that took place then. Old New York Times articles, and one from Time Magazine, all dating to 1970, can be the ultimate reference for such a page. That plus the impact on the TV industry in the early 1970's and beyond, including an equally bruising license challenge for Spokane, WA's KHQ-TV (channel 6), in another famous example. –Wbwn (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/05/08/sinclair-broadcast-to-buy-tribune-media-for-3-9-billion-creating-nations-largest-tv-station-group/

Apparently some outlets are saying that WPIX will be the new flagship station for Sinclair when the deal is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.47.45 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Won[edit]

Didn't they win some Emmy awards for a few years?

This was on Linda Church's page:

National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (Emmy Awards)
Best Morning News Show (WB11 Morning News) - 2000, 2004 --70.111.218.254 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have uploaded the official logo of WPIX used in media kits and on-air. Instead, a user is trying to replace it with an image from the station website. --Liradio 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this the official logo when it isn't on the website? And, furthermore, the OFFICIAL CW 11 logo is WHITE, not GREEN. For these reasons, I asked you not to change it back, and as I will now seek admin help as I promised. Rollosmokes 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BUT...on Wikipedia's page for The CW in general, specifically the logo, "Note that while the logo usually appears white on green, these colors have been reversed here, so as to not appear out of place on light backgrounds." Hello? Anyone paying attention here? ViperSnake151 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria[edit]

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LATV on 11.2[edit]

Rollosmokes keeps on reverting the digital tv section back, saying there is no source for it. All I had to do is google "LATV WPIX" on google, and I found a source, very easily: [1] In addition, all I had to do is turn on my television to channel 11.2, and LATV is there. Please stop reverting for no reason, Rollosmokes.71.183.53.9 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is true, then why isn't WPIX listed on LATV's website ([2]) and why aren't they listed on WPIX's website in return? TV Guide and Zap 2 It doesn't list LATV on WPIX-DT2 either (instead, it reads "To be announced"). TitanTV doesn't list WPIX-DT2 at all. So again, it needs a written source. Until then, it's coming off. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I can turn on my tv, and LATV is indeed on 11.2. I also provided you with a written source. Here is another source:[3] I think that's quite a valid source, in addition to the fact that the channel is actually being broadcast. I undersand that you would like a validiated source, but I'd appreciate if you would not label me as posting false information, and calling me a vandal, just because I added a little piece of information.96.250.204.12 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please disregard. This is a shared IP address apparently, and the vandalism warnings don't appy to me. I will create an account to avoid confusion in the future! Sorry!96.250.204.12 (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the information for one main reason -- the subchannel is scheduled to begin carrying LATV later in 2008. None of these articles mention when LATV will begin on the subchannel, and I can't verify that it's on the air myself, as I don't have access to any DTV signals at home. When LATV puts WPIX on its affiliate list, or when WPIX plugs LATV on its website, then those official sources should be credited. But, if it isn't officially launched yet, let's not be presumtive. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you don't want to put it up, but it is currently being broadcast, so I wouldn't call that presumptive.Deemers (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then someone needs to tell WPIX that and promote it the same way they promoted the Tube. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIX PIX PIX PIX PIX[edit]

Will someone please write some history about how in the 1970s kids could call in during afternoon programs and play a video game to win prizes? To fire the gun you had to say PIX. And some kids would just say PIX PIX PIX PIX PIX. Kingturtle (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.retrothing.com/2006/06/tv_pow_70s_vide.html -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.28.94 (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"CW" vs. "The CW"[edit]

Rollosmokes has once again been trying to force his opinion that any usage of the term "The CW" or "The WB" is incorrect. He has been informed before (here and in the following section of that page) that in infoboxes, the title or proper name is the correct usage - which means that "The CW" or "The WB" is proper. Rollosmokes has tried to claim that this is bad grammar, but that only applies to usage in a sentence. The consensus at the WGN page was to remain with the full capitalized usage in infoboxes, and on that page he was left it alone - although overnight he went on a wholesale revert campaign when I tried to correct it across several pages. Thoughts? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"CW" on its own already has a specific meaning in radio communication - as Morse Code. That's been around for a lot longer and therefore really shouldn't be re-purposed to be a network name. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? There was no consensus reached at WGN-TV, just a few folks throwing around their opinions. This was never put to a real consensus decision. And as for you Carlb, you should know that proper Wikifiying will eliminate any "repurposing". This has nothing to do with you, so stay out of it. Rollosmokes (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is a non-issue. The company is called The CW. To call them something else amounts to POV-pushing and original research on your part. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Telling people "stay out of it" as soon as they express opinions which differ from whatever agenda you're trying to force is not the Wikipedia way of doing things. Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing and consensus requires the ability of others to have input and express opinions. You have already been banned three times for assorted revert wars and this is your fourth WP:ANI incident. Please make an effort to hear out other editors who disagree with what you are doing instead of attempting to pass off your unilateral position as "consensus". --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask that you stop removing comments made by others on this page. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whatever beef you have with me away from talk page articles. Your comment was a personal attack -- a cheap shot at best, and that's why I deleted it. Repost it and not only will it get deleted, I'll report you again. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that everyone discuss article content respectfully and avoid phrases such as "force his opinion", "stay out of it" or "you have already been banned"; please consider striking out such phrases if you wrote them but it's usually best not to delete others' comments. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Coppertwig! A voice of reason - hopefully, it will be listened to... :) --an interested but uninvolved party, aka 4.88.61.245 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed at some length on WP:ANI, the network calls itself "The CW", so that's what its name is. It is not the place of a wikipedia editor to tell The CW what they can call themselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Ok everyone, WPIX is using two logos, the CW11 and the WPIX Circle 11 logo. Since their in the two-month transition to the new logo, please keep the CW 11 logo up until all graphics on WPIX have changed to the circle 11. Thats including program bugs, station IDs, and newscast (the new logo is only being used for promos). This might not happen till December but when the move happens, it will be the time to change the WPIX logo. --Liradio (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transition not over as of 11/18/08[edit]

Whoever edited the page to say that the transition ended early is wrong. The station is still using 'CW11' on-air, including the bug during programming and their newscasts. The new logo is still mainly seen in promos. The station did have a Giants pre-game show on 11/13/08 that did showcase the new logo for 30 minutes but the main newscasts still sport the old logo for now. BiggieFats (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPIX & WPSG[edit]

WPIX is claimed to be the flagship of The CW but the WPSG entry says that WPSG is the flagship. (Unless CBS buys WPIX) --Meteorman7228 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both stations are flagships. WPSG is the largest O&O (it is owned by CBS) while WPIX is in NYC, the largest market in America. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Team[edit]

Seems as if Lolita is covering general news as a reporter and Glen is gone. Sports news has been reduced to a minute or so read by the news anchor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.182.206 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

  1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
  4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the names have references, why don't we hide every name that does not have a reference and they can be un-hidden when someones takes the time to add a reference? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that we can keep people if they have their own wikipage, because 1) having their own page means we can presume they are notable; and 2) their own page should have some sort of reference to verify that they worked at WPIX. However, technically, if I went to one of the people's pages, and did not find a valid reference to show that they worked at WPIX, then I could remove it here. The practical matter is that we rarely do, only because of the significant amount of time that would take. Basically we (here, I mean Deconstructhis, myself, and one or two other editors) get rid of those people we know for should be on lists like this, because better is, well, better. It's relatively easy to "fix" the BLP problem of redlinked + unreferenced people; actually tracking down each wikilinked page would take more time. Essentially, we could say that that's the second step, but its a step that will probably be a long way off given how much time even the first step takes. As for keeping people we remove hidden, the information's still in the history, so anyone can retrieve it (or, if they just find a new person, add it without having to mess around with comments).Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status: notability?[edit]

Does it make sense to limit new additions to the lists of people associated with this television station? This thread is an arguable step in a process for developing consensus opinion.

Is it appropriate at this stage of the article's development to initiate a standard for names added to this article, including:

(a) those who already have Wikipedia articles Per WP:NLIST, the standard basically says they 1) have to have their own article OR 2) have a valid reference proving that they both worked at WPIX and "have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)." In other words, they don't actually have to raise to the level of "notable enough for an article"; they instead need to meet the lower bar of "notable enough for discussion in the text of the article".
and
(b) those who are notable for something other than being associated with WPIX -- compare, e.g., Navy Cross edit history and/or Talk:War Artist#Status: notability? If a person is notable strictly based on their work at WPIX, that would be sufficient for inclusion. For example, if there were an ex-reporter who worked at the station for 20 years and who was the feature of multiple, independent, reliable sources as being notable (i.e., not just mentioning them, but talking about them), then they could be on the list. WP:NLIST doesn't require a secondary source of notability.

In a context informed by practices which seem to have worked out well at Navy Cross and Talk:War Artist#Status: notability?, all new additions who aren't already featured in an article could be re-redirected to this talk page section. with the following edit history explanation:

People listed here must have articles on Wikipedia and be notable for something other than working at WPIX -- see "Status: notability" on talk page

A. The name below is confirmed by a reliable source, but she does not have an article yet:

  • Carol Corbett <:ref>"Carol Corbett". IMDB. Retrieved 2011-04-15. She later hosted two NYC based kids TV shows: "The Mighty Hercules/Carol Corbett Show," which aired weekday afternoons (at Peanut Butter & Jelly time) on WPIX-TV (channel 11) in New York</ref>

B. The names of those with neither confirmation by a reliable source nor an article are listed below:

Weather team
Sports team
Reporters

In due course, perhaps all or most of these can be restored to the article. --Tenmei (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you're recommending moving them to the talk page so that people can find them and source them. That's a fine idea. However, your notability criteria don't match current standards for TV station articles. First, people don't need to have their own article, per WP:NLIST. The standard basically says they 1) have to have their own article OR 2) have a valid reference proving that they both worked at WPIX and "have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)." In other words, they don't actually have to raise to the level of "notable enough for an article"; they instead need to meet the lower bar of "notable enough for discussion in the text of the article".
In addition, your second criteria does not apply. If a person is notable strictly based on their work at WPIX, that would be sufficient for inclusion. For example, if there were an ex-reporter who worked at the station for 20 years and who was the feature of multiple, independent, reliable sources as being notable (i.e., not just mentioning them, but talking about them), then they could be on the list. WP:NLIST doesn't require a secondary source of notability. Now, it does make sense to me why you would have worked out that compromise on Navy Cross, given the extraordinarily large number of potential people on the list. Past on-air tv personalities seem to be fundamentally different to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria have been re-drafted to reflect what Qwyrxian wrote above. Changing consensus may further modify these plausible criteria. IMO, the potential usefulness of the process proposed by this thread is worth considering. --Tenmei (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion in April, there was a good discussion at Talk:WGN-TV#News team, where consensus there was found to remove everyone except for anchors and those people already found notable (i.e., who have their own WP articles). All people kept must also be explicitly listed on the station's web page as current staff. As such, I'm going to trim the staff section now per these criteria. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth noting "Channel Zero" in the article?[edit]

An episode of "Channel Zero" December 27 1948 survives as a kinescope recording[4]. Few kinescopes survive from that year and I wonder if it is worth mentioning the series in the history section. 121.214.112.230 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cablevision Channel 11[edit]

I am used to watching WPIX-TV on Cablevision Channel 11. Since 17 August, that channel is now broadcasting Style (TV network), as well as Channel 176, and I can't watch WPIX-TV any more. It appears this is just one of the Tribune Company channels pulled by Cablevision. This information should be in the article. For more information, please see Cablevision#Tribune_Company_dispute.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WPIX. 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: 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) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WPIX. 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) 02:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News Operation[edit]

I wanted to update the news operation of WPIX (PIX 11): As of October 30th, 2017:Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Changing Newscasts WPIX presently broadcasts 38 3/4 hours of locally produced newscasts each week (with 7 hours of weekdays, 2 hours on Saturdays, and 1 hour, 45 minutes on Sundays).WilliamDunphy (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that you keep trying to add program date/time information. Such specifics have no place on Wikipedia. Please click the following link and read what it says: WP:NOTTVGUIDE Jeh (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newscast schedule[edit]

Weekdays
  • PIX11 Morning News – 4:30-9:00 a.m.
  • PIX11 News at 5 – 5:00-6:00 p.m.
  • PIX11 News at 6 – 6:00-6:30 p.m.
  • PIX11 News at 10 – 10:00-11:00 p.m.
Saturdays
  • PIX11 News at 5 – 5:00-6:00 p.m.
  • PIX11 News at 10 – 10:00-11:00 p.m.
Sundays
  • PIX11 News at 5 – 5:00-6:00 p.m.
  • PIX11 News at 10 – 10:00-10:45 p.m.

MGM/UA Premiere Network[edit]

Read this news article (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/23/movies/film-studio-s-new-approach-to-tv.html), and highlight WPIX for proof. RevinCBHatol (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Narmeen Choudhury" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Narmeen Choudhury. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Narmeen Choudhury until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WPIX&oldid=1205854528"