Talk:The Weather Channel (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Georgia (U.S. state) Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

for older discussions look here: Archive

[edit] Australia

Was the Australia Weather Channel part deleted? There is no seperate page for it. I think it should be added/readded to this article like many articles which merge countries. Mike 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

I'm as much of a fan of red links as the next person, but do all these meteorologists merit articles? If so, certainly keep the redlinks. But I'm guessing that not all of these people are notable enough, despite being involved with the weather channel. I don't know much about meteorology, so could someone who does go through and de-link the least important of these? Thanks, Mak emi 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I am going to gut all red links on -past-. Should we remove the rest for current or should they stay on? Binarypower 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have cable, thus I don't watch the Weather Channel (except in hotels), so it's hard for me to say who is likely to merit an article and who isn't. If you have any knowledge of the WC, I'd suggest that you use your discretion on the current people. Mak emi 20:08, 4 March 2006

They don't really know there was the program called Charlie the Red Dog. Oh, there is another show featuring a red dog called Clifford, but that is a PBS show and he is mostly a giant-sized dog. What I particularly mean is both of them have the same long ears and the same color of their fur for good measure. I know The Weather Channel ran this show from 1982 until 1991. That's enough for right now.

--65.54.154.151 16:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physical location

The Weather Channel's offices and studios are now north and east of the I-285/75 interchange; that area is not considered Vinings by locals. It is in unincorporated Cobb, and is closest to the city limts of Smyrna and Marietta. Most locals consider that particular area to be part of Marietta, and refer to it as such, more than anything else. The more-or-less formal boundary for Vinings in that area is either US 41 or Interstate 75 (though Vinings is pretty much an informal designation that is more a part of Smyrna than anything else any more).

They moved from the Cumberland Blvd. location (which IS in Vinings) several years ago. --Mhking 16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the TWC schedule?

Looks like TWC is now back to almost 24/7 live weather, I believe it started on June 12th and they probably have canceled all those old specials, but I am not sure. The channel could have changed their content of probably giving more airtime to meterologists and the weather.

What happened to List of Current Programming on The Weather Channel schedule? It redirects back to article of the channel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.98.109 (talk • contribs) 01:59, June 14, 2006 (UTC).

The list was at List of current programming on The Weather Channel. As for the redirecting, it was getting hard to maintain -- that page was on my watchlist, and so I saw the edit that did that. Everything else will be ignored here per Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know if there is any comfimation on the new OCM scheduel..

[edit] Past

Whats up with all the red links on the past? This is not needed as was removed previously. Binarypower 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed a lot of unnecessary fat from the article. Mostly red links and commercial schedules Binarypower 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking of red links, I removed (delinked) most of them overall due to the fact that it was mostly redundant (especially in the "programming schedule" section as well as this one). --Moreau36 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lexington crash

Does somebody want to either modify or delete the bit of info relating to the ComAir crash in Kentucky? The english is faulty, and I'm therefore puzzled as to how it even relates (but I am intrigued by a possible connection). --{{SUBST:User:Coryma}} 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased?

What is up with alot of people from TWC dieing? Is someone just adding this to be an idiot or are the people at TWC old,brittle, things? I mean look hereand you'll see what I mean. -24.92.41.95 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Welsh is now deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.148.124 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is up with the new Weather Channel Line UP?

I am really un-happy with the new TWC line up!!! What happend to Hillary Andrews!?!?! The new Day Planner anchors are really boring!! I really wanted Jeff and Vivian to host it!

Google her name and you'll find out why. Bob Stokes is involved with this also. Leon harrison (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Clean-up

I have cleaned up and revised the "Local on the 8's" section. Feel free to remove the tag from the section at your earliest convenience. It should read a lot better now. --Bdj95 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristina Abernathy "merge"

That's not a merge, it's a delete/redirect. I propose that a real merge should be done, since that was the result of the AfD. Valrith 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Heidi Cullen affair

We have an anon IP who is continually inserting right-slanted edits into the section on the 2007 blog controversy. For what it's worth, while conservatives seem to be trying to make this into a cause celebre (and there is some indication that this may be an astroturf campaign), the vast majority of the scientific community considers it to be a right-wing temper tantrum and therefore a tempest in a teapot. It also does not help that said anon clearly lacks the scientific background to be making knowledgeable contributions to this section -- no, you're not required to have a PhD, but a back-of-the-envelope understanding of the basic issues involved (as well as a firm grasp of the scientific definition of "theory") would go a long way towards knowing what is needed to comment knowledgeably.

As it is, the article fails to reflect both that anthrogenic global warming is in fact the accepted scientific consensus, and that the vast majority of Dr. Cullen's critics are coming from the right side of the political spectrum. Thoughts? Haikupoet 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

- - I noticed that the erroneous allegation in the Trivia section that Dr. Cullen had claimed that the "job" of the TWC was "not to report the weather" has been removed. The article still does not mention that Dr Cullen's views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are well within the mainstream of professional climatologists, and may impart the notion that AGW is still somehow "controversial" in the scientific world.bluetaco 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just that I am not too smart or my English skills not enough (both things are possible), but the thing is that neither from the article section nor from here I am able to get whether Heide is backing the theory that human emissions are behind the globate warming or exactly opposite....maybe a clearer wording would help the not that smart guys like me? Mountolive 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ps. I would open a new section called "criticism" or something like that, including, at least the following

exaggerated emphasis on the catastrophic dimension of weather vs the educational: of course I understand they have to sell and that forecasting a week of sun and a few light showers is not that exciting but, mate, last season they looked like they were eager for the bigger hurricanes possible, by the end of the season I think they were a bit dissappointed! Since this is very subjective, we can quote all the "it could happen tomorrow" stuff...

as I said above, I really don't get whether they are generally speaking backing the theory that global warming is emissions related or not ~~but I suspect they don't. I am not saying it is, I don't know, but the consensus amongst meterologists is that yes there is a connection and this is very rarely heard, if heard at all, in TWC~~. It would be maybe interesting to rewrite this section to put the story in more plain words. Thanks!

Mountolive 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the section still notable? The "controversy" was invented by the political right; Matt Drudge linked to her article and distorted her point of view. Instead of pretending to be appalled at her opinion, why don't we criticize the people who anonymously left all sorts of nasty comments to her blog after this piece was published.

Plus, Wikipedia seems to be inconsistent at times. For some articles, a blog isn't considered a reputable source but apparently for this it is. I'm confused. This doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant mention in the article. King Leonidas of Sparta 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weather Channel is boring

I am not sure The Weather Channel will survive for 24 hours, it is also a problem for other people who still don't watch the TWC. Since there are many internet sources for weather, nowadays, including local TV stations. --4.85.128.184 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Weather Channel personnel left in 2007 ?

Why are three weather channel on camera personnel listed as having left in 2007 ? All three, Cheryl Lemke, Sarah Libby and Warren Madden are listed on the weather Channel web site as being current …… [1]

BrianGV (Talk) 01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to put those three back in the listing for current personnel and delete the category for former personnel entirely. Seems like it was vandalism....

BrianGV (Talk) 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm sick of replacing Warren's name in there too, it's about the third time in a month I've had to do so. His biography is still on TWC, so that's good enough for me. He's part time on camera as he is a Hurricane Recon Hunter this time of year. Whoever the vandal/troll is needs to be blocked. Thanks Hdayejr 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As of 7/8/07, I see Warren on the air around 2:30 pm EDT. Therefore, the trolling vandal should be blocked. Thanks! Hdayejr 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just a case of trolls not reading the bio site, not all personnel are listed for some reason. TWC does appear to be a bit ignorant in not have all their bios listed. Leon harrison (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is no joke, no lie...

This is not a joke, nor a lie. I actually learned how to read thanks to TWC! When I was little, I read the hourly forecasts (there was no computerized voice at the time) and my reading skills actually got better! Angie Y. 10:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Twc2007.png

Image:Twc2007.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 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 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exposures

Anybody remember this program on TWC in 1995 until 1996(or thereabouts). It was on Saturdays/Sundays at Noon ET and was similar to Storm Stories. They didn't make very many episodes, but I do remember this as being a program on TWC. Does anybody have some links or such, so we can start a section on this? Thanks Hdayejr 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posted schedule

The schedule is dated for October 2007? The content is also incorrect (eg Storm Stories is not shown at 2pm in any US timezone). CosmicTDI 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)CosmicTDI

Does The Weather Channel "sign" off the air at 2:00 at night, when they are unable to pre-record the earlier hours of "Evening Weather Edition."

No, so why did you edit the schedule and put that in there? --Spring Rubber 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

- The channel is unable to pre-record the earlier hours of "Evening Weather Edition." Except when they do go live, during storm coverage, it is non-stop.

Also, the change in the schedule is incorrect.

I'm not sure what you're saying; they're always able to record Evening Edition West Coast. How are my changes incorrect? That is the current schedule, and it should remain that way until it changes. --Spring Rubber 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Will their schedule change in the future? The Weather Channel does not pre-record their own programming at 2:00 at night, they are currently live in their studios, during storm coverage. If they are pre-recorded after 2:00 at night, or else they accidentally broadcast the test pattern, when they run out of tapes.

TWC is live from Midnight - 2 A.M. ET. The block from 2 A.M. ET - 4 A.M. ET is a rebroadcast of the Midnight - 2 A.M. block. --Spring Rubber 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Programming Schedule

I'm a fan of the weather channel. But... This is Wikipedia. An encyclopedia. Right?

I looked back at some of the earliest versions of this article and I saw how easily (and explosively) these types of lists grow. Many anonymous or inexperienced users find these lists an easy way to modify an article. Soon enough, the list (in this case, a programming list. Like TV guide) becomes the most prominent feature in the article.

I suggest that we remove the Programming Schedule section altogether. It's not encyclopedic. Rather, it's covered in TV Guide... E_dog95^Hi 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea. Every time I turn around, someone is always changing the schedule to reflect rumors or complete nonsense. Even as it stands, the schedule included in the article right now is the future schedule. If anything, the article probably should have the current schedule, but like you said, any sort of programming guide serves this purpose, not this article. --Spring Rubber 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Spring...(or is that Mr Rubber?) With that, I'm going to move ahead and remove the section. The guide to what Wikipedia is not can be interpreted differently, but this, I think is firmly something that doesn't belong. E_dog95^Hi 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Madden

Any reason why people keep putting him in "former personalities"? Seems like pure ignorance, I saw him on the air yet again this weekend. 65.31.33.93 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be because weather.com does not have (or no longer has) him listed in their pull-down menu of on-camera personalities. Thus, it would appear as though, to some, he is no longer with The Weather Channel. His profile, however, still does exist on the website. It's unclear why he's not listed. --DonDC95 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, they had him in "freelance" before, why has it been changed since? This site is really starting to look like a stain to me, people reverting edits that are valid, and trying to improve this site is really a losing battle. My other beef is the WWTBAM page, that's a whole different quagmire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.33.93 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just watching him on TWC, so why is he listed in former? Duh, and why have you turned the edit feature off. Please put him back in the on air personality list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon harrison (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI, trolls are being watched

The ones who keep putting Lopez and Madden in former are being watched, and I am just waiting for you to revert those edits so I can report you. Try us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon harrison (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it even says on this link[2], that it does not include all on air personnel. Of course, if the idiots who are vandalizing would read that simple line, they'd understand why those two bios aren't there. I sometimes wonder why people even try to improve this project, it seems there are many out to vandalize this site for whatever reason. Leon harrison (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)