Talk:WAAF (FM) history

This article was nominated for merging with WAAF (FM) on 28 April 2019. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Split from main

Hi

I split this off from the main article as the article was over page limit and a split seemed fairly innocuous.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The article is missing a lot of references and citations, by the original writer of it. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 07:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info about the old signal / historical?

It should be noted that, in the past (in the 1980s and 1990s), WAAF DID score some rather respectable ratings in the Capital District of New York (Albany, Schenectady and Troy) due to its strong signal from Asnesbumskit (Paxton, MA)^{[citation needed]} and through the use of "FM cable" which carried the over the air signal of WAAF to local CATV subscribers for many years^[where?] ^{[citation needed]}. - This section was removed from the main article. I have placed it here, as it is completley unsourced and did not fit in where it was originally placed within the article NECRAT^{Speak to me} 02:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

confusing redirect

If you search on W1XOJ it redirects to the main article that doesn't contain the text W1XOJ, which is actually here

Merging WAAF (FM) history -> WAAF (FM)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. The EMF sale prodded us to create a substantial expansion and near-total rewrite of the combined article, which was brought into mainspace on February 27 and then placed at the new title of WBZU. Raymie (t • c) 07:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I would like to honestly know the rationale for having one article split up in two like this. There is no justification or need for it; it's the same station, same license, same everything. I would like to call for a merger of this article and WAAF (FM)... you can have a comprehensive article about a radio station with lots of history behind it, look at WMMS as one such example.

I would like to know everyone's thoughts on the matter. Nathan Obral (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This should never have been split out. Raymie (t • c) 08:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Apparently the split was because WAAF (FM) was over "size limit"… but based on the pre-split version, I think the real problems were more in terms of quality and sourcing. (For what it's worth, a fair amount of the non-history section content that on the main WAAF page at the time has since been weeded out as well, mostly for lack of sources. It's worth noting as well that a {{Very long}} tag that led to the split was within a section that wasn't even the history section!) To that end, a merger should be relatively selective; there are some details that may be difficult to find sources for and can go, and the stuff about W1XOJ/WGTR doesn't necessarily fit in any article about WAAF, given that, notwithstanding the fact that both broadcast from Asnebumskit Hill and were at some point in their histories affiliated with WAAB, WGTR and WAAF are separate licenses, operated on different frequencies (WGTR was never on 107.3), and there was an eight-year gap between the shutdown and surrender of WGTR in 1953 and the startup of WAAB-FM (now WAAF) in 1961, during which WAAB underwent an ownership change or two. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral update With the upcoming sale and format change, we may need some kind of new consensus, so...@Nathan Obral: @Raymie: @Tdl1060: @Wcquidditch: Nate • (chatter) 06:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly makes this a process with a new chapter! I mean, it's still the same license, so the outcome shouldn't change, but... Raymie (t • c) 06:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the updated circumstances. Nathan Obral (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a formality; the sale to EMF and impending format change to one of their Christian music networks should, at most, be the motivation to finally deal with this, but beyond that my earlier comments still stand — whatever EMF does with the station, it's still the same license as WAAF and WAAB-FM (and still not the same license as W1XOJ/WGTR), and it doesn't make the split any more standard — even if it brings it closer to the situation where WBCN and WWBX have separate articles (and WFNX/WBWL, and some other instances away from the Boston market), mergers are proposed in those cases too. (And to be clear: while Entercom says the current "WAAF" programming will continue on what are currently its simulcasts on the HD2s of WEEI-FM and WWBX, along with its Radio.com feed, by our present standards that still shouldn't mean anything regarding a separate article.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do totally agree; there should be plenty of cuts to the content, but now at least we have three clear delineations of its Worcester-specific era, serving the entire Boston metro (and its likely future history as an HD Radio playlist station unless HD Radio suddenly gets a large boost), then the K-Love era coming up. Nate • (chatter) 17:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The underlying reasons for the merger has not changed. The articles are about the same license, so the subjects are ultimately still the same. Both articles do have alot of unsourced content that needs to be addressed prior to a merger.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with Tdl1060... it may be best to sandbox a total rewrite of both articles and create a ceremonial merger; Raymie and I actually did that with KWKW and KFAC (radio station) a few weeks ago. @Tdl1060, Raymie, Wcquidditch, and Mrschimpf: I just set up a sandbox page where the rewrite can take place, if any of you want to assist, the invitation is most definitely open! :) Nathan Obral (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update @Tdl1060, Raymie, Wcquidditch, and Mrschimpf: because Entercom has applied to park the WAAF call sign on the former WBZU (AM), should we perform this ceremonial merger once the permanent call sign (whatever it would be) is implemented? I haven't seen EMF file anything yet, but I'd be shocked if they didn't transfer the WKVB calls from their State College station onto 107.3 (at the very least since CBS is very tough on trademark enforcement for "WBZ"). I wouldn't know if they are actually using the "WBZU" calls on-air, so it could possibly be another WRQX (FM) -> WSOM-FM -> WLVW moment, where the calls are changed to EMF's permanent choice retroactive to the takeover? Nathan Obral (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't wait for the (inevitable) call sign changes to take place; as soon as the improved article is ready to go "live", there won't be any real reason to wait any longer, no matter what call sign is on the license by then. (It's worth noting that the sale to EMF hasn't appeared in the FCC's database yet, so EMF can't yet directly request what it plans to use; meanwhile, Entercom's request to move the WBZU call sign was only filed this past Wednesday, so the WAAF call letters remain on 107.3 until at least this coming Wednesday anyway.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update @Tdl1060, Raymie, Wcquidditch, and Mrschimpf: The rewrite is finished and I'll place the move tag over to WAAF (FM). Because the call sign has been changed on CDBS (but not LMS just yet?) I already made the changes to WBZU, thus it can then be moved over to WBZU (FM), which I will redirect this article to. Also @805mike: I wanted to make sure you knew that the rewrite was already in progress; I did take as many of the changes you put in to the current WAAF onto this new article. That also explains why the lede was in part reverted to what I had drafted up. Nathan Obral (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.