Talk:WMMS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of previous morning shows

Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of the previous morning shows and the dates and or years they were on WMMS?

Here is what I have so far (Not much.)

Sean, Cristy, and Hunter ??? ?, 200? - June ??, 2006

--Josh 12:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole

"By the late 80's, WMMS was "tinkering" with a hybrid Top 40/Rock format playing the likes of Tiffany and Whitney Houston along with classic bands like Yes and local favorite Michael Stanley. Obviously, a confused and angry audience rebelled and new programmers were brought in to restore The Buzzard's rock image. Around the time of the first Gulf War, WMMS regained it's status as Cleveland's number one radio station burying the competition with it's best ratings ever." This isn't true. Kid Leo ran the station still when they started their top 40 stint. WMMS started slowly leaning top 40 from 1982-84 and officially switched in 1985. WMMS enjoyed its best ratings from 1983-87 when it would often get a now unheard of Arbitron rating of around 25. Some referred to WMMS as being a CHAOR at this point...meaning Contemporary Hits Album Oriented Rock...as they combined the two radio formats together. In fact, by the start of the Gulf War in 1991 WMMS was no longer near the top of the Arbitron ratings. This is the reason WMMS started to lean 'Alternative' when that become the fashion in 1992 and fully adopted the format by 1994. The ratings improved and WMMS returned to the top five ratings wise, but the owners thought they could bill higher with an Active Rock/AOR type station as the 'Alternative' format had a competitor in WENZ "The End" and also the Alt. format is usually teen and early 20s heavy and a harder sell to advertisers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.85.217 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mmsbuzzard.gif

Image:Mmsbuzzard.gif 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 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMMSlogo2.PNG

Image:WMMSlogo2.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 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 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMMSlogo.jpg

Image:WMMSlogo.jpg 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 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 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mmsbuzzard.gif

Resolved

Image:Mmsbuzzard.gif 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging Maxwell Show with this article

The article covering Maxwell's show falls way short of being notable, useful, or up to Wikipedia standards. As such, it has been suggested that it be merged with this article and reduced to a blurb. Anyone?Wtbe7560 (talk)

• Merge but redirect the Maxwell show article here; do not reduce it to a blurb. If it's worth an article, it's worth an article, not a blurb. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Event: Maxwell Show Cancellation

Because the Maxwell Show has recently been canceled, and a new show is currently debuting, should the article be marked as a "current event" and that the contents are subject to change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.4.1 (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Reads too much like an advertisement

This article is written very much like an advertisement for the station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.4.1 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To unregistered user-- No justification is given for claim that article is "written very much like an advertisement for station." Much of the article's info has been recently cited (some 30-35 new citations in just the past month); more citations are on the way. Also, please add new talk sections at the bottom of this talk page rather than the top. Iwascuredallright71 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The ad-like parts of the article are mainly near the top. Use of terms and phrases like "rich history of broadcasting" and "its peak of popularity" sound like marketing bullet-points, and are neither fact-based nor encyclopedic. It's almost as though the station's program director has been doing most of the edits himself in an effort to promote the station.

"long and rich history"-- Rarely do radio stations, especially those on the FM dial, last so long (40 + yrs). Since the late 60s/early 70s, the station's callsign, name, branding and format have remained the same (compare this to Radio 92.3 Cleveland). WMMS dominated Cleveland radio in the ratings in the 70s and 80s (at that time, among the nation's most competitive markets) and helped launch some of the biggest acts in the business (Bowie, Rush, Springsteen, etc.). WMMS, along w/ area political leaders, helped Cleveland beat out New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Memphis (among other major American cities) for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and at a time when the city was in far worse shape than it is today (burning river? "mistake on the lake," anyone?). A WMMS DJ was named by Playboy magazine as the Best DJ in the nation. When Cameron Crowe decided to make a film about a touring rock group and the young Rolling Stone reporter assigned to cover them, he went straight to WMMS and its personnel for research. Yes, WMMS infamously stuffed Rolling Stone's readers' survey for "Best Radio Station" in 1987, but that would've been its ninth consecutive year on top-- by then, most original WMMS staff members (those from the station's "peak of popularity") had gone elsewhere, many of whom openly admit their suspicions of the corporate-culture management types that followed. Moreover, the radio industry as a whole dramatically changed during the late 80s and on through the mid 90s-- federal deregulation, e.g. the Telecommunications Act of 1996, allowed for the likes of Wall Street to turn a once cherished medium into a cash machine for New York bankers and their mutual fund clients. The fact the WMMS still exists today, and as a rock station -- and that even the mighty Clear Channel mega-empire has failed to convert this station -- is both notable and unique. I suggest the person who left the above unsigned comment try searching the Clear Channel database. I would estimate that some 90% of Clear Channel rock stations in the U.S. (which likely accounts for 90% of all rock stations in the country) fall under the brand "The Fox". Cleveland's rock station is still The Buzzard. Even those who criticize the current state of WMMS (excessive commercials and too little musical variety are common complaints) still refuse to let the uninformed trample this station and its legacy.

All of this and more is cited in the Reference section of the article, and as someone with no official connection to the station (professional or otherwise), I can tell you that I and others like me have barely scratched the surface of the station's lasting influence in terms of appropriately cited encyclopedic content. MillenniumScavenger (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Be all that as it may, the article has still managed to be updated appropriately, demonstrating that a sizable consensus agrees with at least the sentiment of my concern. And now, even I, the original poster of the complaint, will admit that the overall quality of the article has dramatically improved. As an enthusiastic and informed listener of WMMS, I'm glad these changes have come to light and commend the recent editors' work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.4.1 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article size

Editors of this article may encounter the following:

"This page is (article size) kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."

From Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues:

"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed."

"Readable prose" size as of July 26, 2010:

Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5388 words) "readable prose size"

(obtained using User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js)

Although many new citations have been added to this article in recent months (thereby increasing the article's overall size), the "readable prose" still falls within Wikipedia guidelines for a single article. Splitting up the article at this point would be premature and should only be considered if the "readable prose" ever approaches 10,000 words. LVClb1 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing redirect of Maxwell Show.

The Maxwell Show is now known as MWL-The Maxwell Show and is on 92.5 WNCX. Since it has been determined that Maxwell Show gets redirected to WMMS, I believe that now it should be redirected to the appropriate page. Weatherman05071 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Callsign meanings; format

1. The overwhelming majority of radio listeners use analog devices. The infobox format should reflect this.
2. Over the years, the station has adopted various "official" meanings for the "WMMS" call letters. This is not the first time a radio station has listed multiple meanings in the infobox. Levdr1 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• More on analog format in infobox:
  • Only 2,000 of the 13,000 analog AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have converted to HD; of those that have converted, all still broadcast via analog as mandated by the FCC. Moreoever, the first HD channel of every HD Radio station is a simulcast of the analog signal -- again, as mandated by the FCC.[1]
    
  • 239 million analog radio listeners in the U.S. vs. only 3 million HD Radio units. By far, analog is still the preferred choice among radio consumers.[2]
    
  • Clearly, the infobox should reflect that analog technology is still the dominant form of transmission. It's also no secret that the radio industry has been heavily promoting HD Radio; by including only the HD Radio formats, one begins to question the credibility of this article's content. Levdr1 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak for people that I know, but most of them don't have HD radios. While personal experience doesn't count as an indisputable source, the common sense side of things indicates a trend. Unlike HDTV, HD radio isn't as popular. For that matter, unlike previous era's of media (e.g. 1950's) radio is less popular than TV in the first place. Coupling that with the cited info above, it is virtually undeniable that HD radio is the minority. WMMS began (as most stations) as an analog format, and being that HD radio is not in the majority, the HD info listed in the infobox is noteworthy so far as the availability, but not as an overriding rule. There is no wiki-format that is set in stone (some station articles list HD info one way, some another). Edit wars on the other hand are pretty much wiki-formatted: they are to be avoided. Given that there is no standard format for the info-box issue, if we can't come to an agreement via diplomacy, then take a vote. Bear in mind that WMMS is one of the biggest FM stations in Ohio and has a lot of listeners. Let's keep the article both readable and utilitarian. Also, particularly in the spirit of keeping it utilitarian, bear in mind that HD-1, HD-2 etc. mean nothing to people who only have used a regular old radio (e.g. plenty of people over 30 like myself). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I believe both Analog and HD Radio should be included (not analog in place of HD Radio). And yes, let's keep the article utilitarian -- for readers who want to know what really is broadcast (format) and how (analog/hd), it's necessary to have both. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavor, not a brochure for iBiquity. Levdr1 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)