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

Television: Stations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision 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). New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Be advised that user BlueboyLINY has engaged in chronic editing of this page without cause. He has previously been banned by moderators for a week because of this behavior.--Vipersage (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This station vacated channel 55 because they were paid to vacate it early not because they were forced to. There is nothing that prevented them from staying on channel 55 analog broadcasting. They were PAID to leave early. 4.142.78.5 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Eric[reply]

I don't mind the feud with Cablevision being pointed out, but shouldn't it be worded better?

Yes...good point. This person has added this type of junk all over this article thats misspelled, has poor grammar and just makes no sense. I just wanted to make a point...probably not the best way to do it... Eklapper 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this station has been scrolling a message that it is "temporarily off air" for the last 3 or 4 days. can't find anything online explaining why. anyone have any info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.240.111 (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps putting upcoming shows in 2015 is considered Crystal Balling. Also, there is a five show limit per article on a television station article. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WLNY-TV. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161017031109/http://www.mdtvsignalmap.com/ to http://www.mdtvsignalmap.com/

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) 08:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueboyLI edit summary: "restored digital channels template; removed diginets from affiliate box, these are not traditional networks; the station no longer broadcasts a mobile tv signal"

• no "digital channels template" - I can only guess that you are referring to the wiki link from the infobox to the digital channels, which I understand to be not recommended on WP.
• "removed diginets from affiliate box, these are not traditional networks" - so neither is an independent station a "traditional network" and affiliation also applies to individual syndicated shows, but those are not the main affiliation of a channel. While a programming service or diginet are major/channel wide as My Network TV, which is a programming service (as has Fox and may still be) which might commonly still be considered a network. Diginet also implies network.
• "the station no longer broadcasts a mobile tv signal" - using the fact that the station longer broadcast mobile TV signal to remove information that they no longer do so. You should not wipe out historical information like that. Yes, it isn't in the best place, but we don't have the time frame information.
• Lastly, the change of when the third subchannel started. Given that RabbitEars.info doesn't give the launch date, the most correct is the state "By" the date I check it as it could have been March, April or May (or even further back), thus "late May" is not correct. Spshu (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, my edits are done in good faith, with the goal of imrpoving an article. These lists of subchannels & affiliations tend to be redundant and clutter the infobox. That is the reason I've linked to the digital channels box in the same way translators are wiki-linked on a radio station's page. If you could, please point me to the WP:MOS that made you "... understand to be not recommended on WP", I'm always looking for input on becoming a better editor, as we all should learn from each other. I removed the mobile listing as the reference now points to a porn site, and the archived site has nothing to do with the original website where the information was posted. BlueboyLI (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some help with this issue as I don't want to incur another block. @Vipersage: keeps reverting my edits on this and other articles, despite my attempts to get them to discuss on the talk page. For instance they added: "Later that year, the duopoly abandoned the Melville facility altogether." The year meaning 2014, is false. As I posted on Vipersage's talk page, "The facilities were operational until 2018 when the FCC Main Studio Rule was repealed, allowing WLNY's operations to fully consolidate with WCBS-TV." In that same post I explained why they did not provide a reliable source: "To ensure accuracy, please rely on reliable sources. Websites like huntingtonnow.com contain user-generated content and should not be considered a reliable source. Specifically, huntingtonnow.com simply reproduces press releases without fact-checking. Regarding the claim made in one of their press releases: "The 3,000 square footage space had not been used for six years", it is incorrect. As of Vipersages most recent edit, the erroneous information is back. I suspect Vipersage might be a WP:SOCK, but as of now I have no proof. - BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As evident on this talk page, this user has made no attempt to engage in a dialogue on this or any of his other unnecessary and/or inaccurate edits. Huntington Now is a reputable news site serving the community in which this facility is located. It doesn't contain anymore user-generated content than letters to the editor, all of which are clearly marked as such and have been a common practice in reputable news outlets for hundreds of years.

If this user continues to attempt edit wars with destructive and unnecessary edits, I will continue to escalate this issue to the appropriate moderators. Vipersage (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Ivey (talk - contribs) 19:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:WLNY-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ivey (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
^[4]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes

1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Reads well	Pass
(b) (MoS)	went through each section of MoS and the article complies	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	refs are formatted properly and extensive (2 seemingly dead links that need archive links)	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	sources are reliable	Pass
(c) (original research)	each paragraph is well-sourced, does not seem to be original research	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	copyvio 16.7%	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	covers all the major points regarding history of the station as well as current formats and ownership, and technical details	Pass
(b) (focused)	doesn't wander, all info is focused on the station	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
yes	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
seems stable	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	all free/PD - wish there were more	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	yes	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	this is a good article! since I am new to GA reviews, I'll get someone to sign-off before I pass it, but I expect to do so within a day or two

Discussion

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.

@Ivey, can I get the names of the two dead references? A comment from me in re the review: it's always helpful to show which references you reviewed on spot check. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sammi Brie I just posted an edit w/ them archived. And thank you for that feedback, I can do that. For this one I looked at a few of the newspaper PDFs, the FCC PDF, the TV news check links, and the rabbit ears info.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that when CBS bought a TV station on Long Island, it received a membership to the exclusive Sebonack Golf Club? Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-01-24/cbs-tv-station-deal-wlny-peter-dunn-sebonack
  • ALT1: ... that a CBS executive reportedly talked of "the acquisition of our golf membership—I mean TV station"? Source: same
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Just Say Yes (Ted)
  • Comment: ALT1 has some fun angles but also don't know if it'd meet BLP

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 769 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article became a GA the same day it was nominated for DYK, everything is cited, Earwig returns no issues. Backlog-mode was not enabled at the time this nomination was created, so I'm assuming that a second QPQ isn't required for this nominator. Both hooks are interesting, but I personally thing ALT0 would be more appealing to a general audience. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]