This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

JournalismLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofjournalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. New York CityLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNew York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe 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 asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Television:StationsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Television stations task force (assessed asLow-importance). BaseballLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbaseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

This article has been moved from WNBC-TV to either WNBC (sending a disambig toWNBC (disambiguation) or WNBC (TV). Seems as though that the people that move to WNBC or WNBC (TV) believe article names are dependent on FCC call letters, with the move-backs to WNBC-TV believing thatall of these articles need suffixes. Who is correct and where does it say so? --WCQuidditch☎✎23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be WNBC-TV, which is the standard, some people keep moving it. --CFIF23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record it should be eitherWNBC orWNBC (TV), neverWNBC-TV perWP:NC#Broadcasting. The FCC callsign isWNBC, there is noWNBC-TV. —A07:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be WNBC. The standard is to use the calls, and this station is not WNBC-TV, but WNBC.

Yes, the name should remain WNBC. I believe that -TV comes in when their is a second instance, such as a Radio station.Kahm116:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a radio station, which is nowWFAN.NBC left the radio business years ago. --carlb (talk)14:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one answered this question from an unsigned user, the answer should beright here. --azumanga23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one answered this question because it has nothing to do with WNBC. Only on-topic messages about the article should be posted. Wikipedia is not a open discussion board.TheGoofyGolfer (talk)21:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny... on September 13, 2006, WNBC started broadcasting in HD... but I'm sure that a while ago, they came in the worst of all the NYC affiliates, kind of fuzzy. If someone can find some review or something that says this, we could add this.aido200221:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the HD programming started, WNBC was ranked 3rd behind WABC and WCBS.Kahm116:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened to the NBC 4 New York Logos of the Past & Present? Their Gone for good and How can We Know About the NBC 4 New York's Images Past to Present.

The 1st Logo of WNBT Channel 1 New York (NBC-TV Flagship Network Station) used from 1941 to 1946.The 1st Logo of WNBT Channel 4 New York (NBC-TV Flagship Network Station) used from 1946 to 1950.The 2nd Logo of WNBT Channel 4 New York (The Earth & The Transmitter & The Identity of the Station) used from 1950 to 1954.The 1st Logo of WRCA-TV Channel 4 New York (Features Nipper the Dog "The Mascot" of RCA for WRCA-TV Channel 4) used from 1954 to 1960 "Also used for both WRC-TV & KRCA-TV".The 1st Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (NBC 4 Square) from 1960 to 1965 "Also used for WRC-TV & KNBC-TV".The 2nd Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (NBC 4 in Color) from 1965 to 1969 "Also used for WRC-TV (through 1970) & KNBC-TV".The 3rd Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (WNBC4) from 1969 to 1973 "Also used for KNBC-TV."The 4th Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (TV NBC4) from 1973 to 1975.The 5th Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (NBC4 "Bicentennial N/The Station of...") from 1976 to 1979 "Also Used for both WRC-TV & KNBC-TV."The 6th Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (Channel 4 "Proud as a Peacock") from 1979 to 1980 "Also used for WRC-TV (through 1982) & KNBC-TV (through 1981).The 7th Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (News 4 New York-1980) used from 1980 to May 1986.The 8th Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (News 4 New York-1986 & The New NBC-TV Peacock) used from 1986 to 1990.The 9th Logo of WNBC-TV Channel 4 New York (The New News 4 New York-1990) used from 1990 to 1992.The 1st Logo of WNBC Channel 4 New York (News 4 New York/-1992) used from 1992 to 1993 "Also used for KNBC."The 2nd Logo of WNBC Channel 4 New York (WNBC 4 New York) used from 1993 to 1995 "Also used for both WRC-TV & KNBC."The 1st Logo of WNBC NBC 4 New York (NBC4 & Newschannel 4-The Tri-State's Newschannel) used from 1995 to 2003 "Also used for Both WRC-TV & KNBC."The 2nd Logo of NBC 4 New York (NBC4 & Newschannel4) used from 2003 to 2006 "Along with WRC-TV & KNBC."The 3rd Logo of NBC 4 New York (NBC4HD & NBC4) used since 2006 "Along with WRC-TV & KNBC."

User:A Man In Black removed it, but itshould be there.aido200220:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical TV logos are being deleted by this admin because he believes they violate policy. Although he claims the issue is settled, there is an ongoing RFC atWikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries. Please contribute to this discussion and help determine what to do about this.DHowell22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those get restored, we need to find one of that "Octagon 4" used briefly in late '79 or early '80.WAVY 1015:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or that "zig-zag" precursor to the die-cut 4 of the '80s?WAVY 1001:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "4HD" logo is only used during promotion of their Newscasts and during them, right? It should be placed somewhere alongside the normal logo.ViperSnake15101:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "4HD" logo is now the main branding of the station. You can only find the regular logo during promos that have not been re-created with the new logo.Kahm116:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Helicopter Crashes" sub-section, this sentence follows the mention of the 2004 crash of the WNBC-TV news helicopter:

"WABC-TV's news helicopter was covering the same news story when they saw the WNBC helicopter clearly having trouble. They called for help and also gotexclusive footage of the actual crash, for which they won anEmmy Award."

The fact that WABC-TV -- and**NOT** WNBC -- won the Emmy, the mention of the award is trivial to this article. In the wider scope, the helicopter crash is notable to WNBC's history, but another station covering and winning an award for WNBC's crash really is totally trivial. I feel it should be removed, and have done so pending further review. Comments?Rollosmokes08:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely unofficial (non-admin) point of view, I agree here: I can't seewhy the winning of an Emmy award byanother station needs to go in this article on WNBC, though I am open to reasonswhy it would should go in this one.Firsfron of Ronchester22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was WNBC's competitor winning anEmmy for capturing WNBC's crash makes it clear that it is as relevant as anything else. Let me put forth my analogy again: If Person A was to have a heart attack, and Person B was to call an ambulance to save them, wouldn't that be relevant to a discussion about the incident?aido200200:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the rivalry between WNBC and WABC is something that is discussed much in both this article andABC's. This is as important as any other part of that discussion.aido200220:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point. Using these comparisons have nothing to do with the issue -- a trivial mention of an award won byanother station, regardless of the work that resulted in that award being won. It's still trivial from jump street, is still irrelevant to the WNBC article, and still has got to go.Rollosmokes02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local Emmys are a dime a dozen, anyway: hundreds or thousands are awarded every year.May be notable, or not, but the fact that they won an award for the coverage certainly doesn't belong on arival station's article.Firsfron of Ronchester19:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of images not in compliance with ourfair-use criteria or our policy onnonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. —Moeε21:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On September 11, 2001, the transmitter facilities of WNBC, as well as eight other local television stations and several radio stations, were destroyed when two hijacked airplanes crashed into and destroyed the World Trade Center. WNBC broadcast engineer Bill Steckman died in the tragedy, along with six other engineers from other television stations. After resuming over-the-air transmissions, the station broadcast from a radio tower originally built by Edwin Armstrong in Alpine, New Jersey. As of 2005, WNBC-TV is broadcasting its signal from the Empire State Building.

Something is missing here. Like the fact that during the1993 World Trade Center bombing those same transmitter facilities were disabled, and thatWNET inNewark, New Jersey allowed WNBC to broadcast from their station. ----DanTD12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wasn't it six broadcast engineersin total, including one from WNBC, who were murdered as part of theSeptember 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?

After the 9/11 attacks WNBC actually broadcast from a low power facility that it co-share with WPXN in Essex County, New Jersey and not from the Alpine Tower.Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk)04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NBC operates a auxillary transmitter facility inWest Orange, New Jersey which is in the former offices and studios of Channel 68 (WBTB/WTVG/WWHT/WFUT) after they moved to a new studio on West Market Street in Newark.TheGoofyGolfer (talk)02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... and I am seriously not joking, at around 10:27 pm tonight on the NBC channel in the New York City area, there was an advertisement advertising the local news and you could clearly hear a woman (presumably Sue Simmons) saying "What the f**k are you doing," UNCENSORED. Seriously! I just called a friend who was watching the same show (Medium) and heard this. I have it recorded it on my DVR, so I could play it back. I know this seems like a lie, but it seriously isn't. I hope I'm not alone.
Thanks,Kermit1234 (talk)02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She just apologized at 11:07 p.m.Kermit1234 (talk)03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although he is frequently anchoring Today in NY, he has yet to be named as co-anchor of the show, so the title 'weekday mornings anchor' is inappropriate. What should his title be? 'weekday mornings (temporary)?'

If anything, his title as General Assignment reporter should be more according.—Precedingunsigned comment added byKahm1 (talk •contribs)01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the new logo under the Digital TV section. If anyone wants to upload a better one, I will be hapy with that!--I AM WATCHING YOU^{All the time...}12:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first, paid, official television commercial was, indeed, the Bulova Watch placement on NBC flagship station WNBT New York on July 1, 1941. However, it is a widespread and often misquoted piece of misinformation (including Bulova's own site, and many "TV history" sites) that it was a map of the USA or a watch face that was televised that day as the commercial. It was, in fact, a placement on the WNBT test pattern, which was modified to look like a clock, with the phrase "Bulova Watch Time" in the lower right hand corner. That was, in fact, the first paid advertisement on the very first day of commercially licensed telecasting, broadcast by any television station in the United States. The test pattern was seen just before the start of the Brooklyn Dodgers telecast at 2;29 PM. The Early Television Society of Columbus, Ohio has confirmed this report by unearthing a photograph of the test pattern/clock itself as evidence and confirmation of the recollections of surviving NBC crew members and viewers of the telecast.http://www.earlytelevision.org/images/rca_bulova_ad-1.jpg24.252.242.230 (talk)02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source: New York Times, July 6, 1941. Article entitled: "Imagery For Profit" by R.W. Stewart. This is an article about television going commercial five days earlier, and some specifics about WNBT and what they did on that first day. Quote from the article:

"As last week's lone starter under the new rules, WNBT began its commercial career with four sponsors, all of whom presented programs to mark the first day of television as an advertising medium. The station, located atop the Empire State Building, received the first license for business operations, since NBC made early application for commercial standing, indicating its ability to go into immediate service under the new status. No transmitter problem was involved because the station has been on the air experimentally since June, 1936. The first attempt to attract prospective customers was made under the sponsorship of a watch manufacturing concern, which paid $4 for the privilege of having a test pattern resembling a clock face flashed on the screen. The pattern remained on the air for a minute, while the second hand traced its way around the dial"24.252.242.230 (talk)03:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please keep the discussion in one place, i.e.,Talk:Bulova. Thanks,ProhibitOnions^(T)10:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that 70.23.185.131 is vandalizing this article by deleting integral information about the WNBC digital signal by claiming "no one cares about this" and "no one cares unless you area geek". It's not his place to decide who will be interested or not, especially when the AFD flag is an important technical aspect of WNBC's digital signal, just as the sub-channel numbers and aspect ratios and resolutions WNBC is broadcasting in are.

03:28, 29 June 2009 70.23.185.131 (talk) (31,742 bytes) (→Digital television: WNBC turned off the nightlight on 6-26-09; once again removed trivial info about AFD (no one cares unless you're a geek)) (undo)

--207.38.163.124 (talk)19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing the N.Y.C. edition of TV Guide from the early 1980s. As I recall, WNBC-TV simulcast on a UHF frequency at that time. Can anyone confirm this?—Precedingunsigned comment added byJab73 (talk •contribs)06:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page. This is believed to be the current consensus atWP:WikiProject Television Stations. The rationales are as follows:

1. Most importantly, perWP:NOT, 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. Secondarily, perWP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I'm not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
3. PerWP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages 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 info, 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).Qwyrxian (talk)01:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....but how did someone know that WNBC is changing its newscast title fromNews 4 New York toNBC New York News?Don-Don (talk)20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, more to the point (for me at least): Why doesn't that editor tell us likethey're supposed to so that we can judge whether it's true? Now that I look at it: there are a lot of things in this article that areWP:OR with no sources. Time for some cleaning. --Closeapple (talk)02:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WNBC-TV did not broadcast from the Armstrong tower, in fact they along with PAX network affiliate WPXN broadcast a low power signal from a transmitter facility in West Orange, New Jersey which is the former studios and transmitter for Channel 68. Scott Fybush's Northeast Radio Watch website did a 9/11 article on TV stations and that it was the original reference included here but unfortunately it looks like the NERW website went through a recent update and the article is no longer posted.TheGoofyGolfer (talk)03:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WNBC-TV →WNBC – This article was formerly titled "WNBC" until very recently, when it was moved to WNBC-TV, and the old title promptly redirected toWNBC (disambiguation); no explanation was given in either step. However, pernaming conventions, article titles for U.S. broadcast stations reflect the official call letters — WNBC-TV changed its call letters to simply WNBCtwenty years ago. Since it is already impossible to revert the move, assistance is needed — but out of an abundance of caution, I'm starting this discussion as the redirection brings up the concern of whether the TV station should be the primary topic, even though several other stations have been some form of "WNBC" over the years, even though this has been the only "WNBC" of any kind since 1988. (That the station even changed from WNBC-TV to WNBC may or not play into this.) This article could alternately be moved toWNBC (TV) if it is decided that it should not be the primary topic, since that side of the situation does not change the fact that for twenty years, this station has been simply WNBC rather than WNBC-TV.WCQuidditch☎✎00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speed Procedural Close Please consider closing this discussion. I was the one who made the move because I think the topics should be separated.Bob Mono (talk)00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your move was inappropriate and has been reverted.
  The television station is the primary usage of "WNBC". But even if itweren't, the correct title would be "WNBC (TV)",not "WNBC-TV" (call letters no longer in use).
  Your redirection ofWNBC toWNBC (disambiguation) was improper too; it created amalplaced disambiguation page. (When no primary topic exists, we redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo",not the inverse.) This caused a bot to repair the 20 resultant double redirects by retargeting them toWNBC (disambiguation).
  You also neglected to update more than 800 incoming links (which should have been donebefore changingWNBC's target, as noted atWikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguated topics), thereby causingthem to lead toWNBC (disambiguation) as well.
  Then you cited "procedural" grounds as the basis for speedily declining a request to undo your undiscussed (andprocedurally incorrect) changes. —David Levy02:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wouldn't mind if I may interject my opinion here, most TV stations through their top of the hour identifiers now use the prefix DT, i.e. WNBC-DT, WABC-DT, WCBS-DT etc... to identify they are transmitting from a digital signal, I believe that there are no television stations in the U.S. which uses the -TV prefix anymore as I think it was per a FCC rule when all of the stations converted to a sole digital signal. Thanks for hearing me out.TheGoofyGolfer (talk)20:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This fall,The Michael J. Fox Show will be premiering on NBC, and it shows the title star portraying a reporter on WNBC. Surely, the station has been depicted in popular culture through the years. Should there be a "In popular culture" section, and if so, where should it be placed?JB82 (talk)20:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be crowded with personalities (current and former). Could we fix this some how, either creating a new article with just the alumni etc or some other method?ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •Talk •_{I DX for fun!}01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of just keeping them on the page. How about hiding the former staff, and keeping the current staff shown? If you want an example of what I mean, I can show you. 🎄Corkythehornetfan 🎄01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links onWNBC. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080405183748/http://gothamist.com/2008/04/01/wnbc_does_the_t.php tohttp://gothamist.com/2008/04/01/wnbc_does_the_t.php
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080407203505/http://gothamist.com/2007/05/08/the_return_of_w.php tohttp://gothamist.com/2007/05/08/the_return_of_w.php
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20071019040346/http://members.fortunecity.com/tvnetworks/nbc/ tohttp://members.fortunecity.com/tvnetworks/nbc

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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)05:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onWNBC. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20110714161504/https://www.nbcunetworks.com/Webpage/Techspecs/ViewPublicTechSpecs.aspx?NetworkId=MTg= tohttps://www.nbcunetworks.com/Webpage/Techspecs/ViewPublicTechSpecs.aspx?NetworkId=MTg=

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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)04:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weekdays

• Today in New York – 4:00-7:00 a.m.
• News 4 New York at 11 a.m. – 11:00-11:30 a.m.
• News 4 New York at 4 – 4:00-4:30 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 4:30 – 4:30-5:00 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 5 – 5:00-5:30 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 5:30 – 5:30-6:00 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 6 – 6:00-6:30 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 11 p.m. – 11:00-11:34 p.m.

Saturdays

• Weekend Today in New York – 6:00-7:00 a.m.
• Weekend Today in New York – 9:00-10:00 a.m.
• News 4 New York at 6 – 6:00-6:30 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 11 p.m. – 11:00-11:29 p.m.

Sundays

• Weekend Today in New York – 6:00-8:00 a.m.
• Weekend Today in New York – 9:30-10:30 a.m.
• News 4 New York at 6 – 6:00-6:30 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 11 p.m. – 11:00-11:35 p.m.
• News 4 New York at 11:30 – 11:35 p.m.-12:00 a.m.

Even though he was notable for working at WNBC, I want Shimon Prokupecz’s name to permanently and immediately be removed from the Alumni Section of the WNBC Wikipedia page, no questions asked. Once it’s removed, you’ll have to deal with it.— Precedingunsigned comment added by174.225.143.24 (talk)00:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask a question anyway: why should we? Anything that amounts to "because I said so" is not a valid answer.Crboyer (talk)00:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the firm opinion that the maintenance template on this page should be removed due to an abundance of citations. However, it appears that 68 citations is not good enough. Why?100.7.36.213 (talk)21:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• C-Class Television stations articles
• Low-importance Television stations articles
• Television stations task force articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class Baseball articles
• Low-importance Baseball articles
• WikiProject Baseball articles