Talk:WWDC (FM)

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Radio Stations

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations 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.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Original article was nominated for deletion on May 31 (though not actually listed on VfD), and then corrected by the nominator. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WWDC-FM. Bearcat 07:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia Beatles-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles) it was not WWDC who played the Beatles first on American Radio. Could this be corrected?

The Gender Bias information needs something serious to back it up, not only factually, but on the idea that it is discriminatory. Radio station playlists can consist of any particular genre, vocal style, timeframe, that they want to. Our freedom is to listen if we enjoy it, don't listen if we don't like it, and complain only if there is discriminatory or derogatory action which manages to offend you. A lack of female lead songs shouldn't fall into this category.

Seriously Skewed and Un-Encyclopedic statistics

By way of comparison, women make up 4.1 percent of national parliamentarians in the highly patriarchal government of Iran.[7]. In the US Senate, an all time average of 1.85% of the women in senate has existed.

Say what? What does this have to do with anything? I understand the point that this person was trying to make, but it's not the type of comparative information you put in an encyclopedic entry. A good piece of comparative information for an encyclopedic entry would be, after having said that of this list of 500 songs, that only 3.8 percent were female led, would be to include the percentage of nationally recognized mainstream modern rock acts are female led. Besides that, the information quoted above is extremely skewed, as it is designed to make you compare the numbers 4.1% and 1.85%, but there's no basis for comparison, as 1.85% is an average over time, but 4.1% is a measure of women that are national parliamentarians at a given point in time. Just to put things into perspective, According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate

16 of the 100 members of the Senate are women.

and, according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States_Congress#Gender

74 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are women.

that's a total of 90 out of 535 members of the US Congress. That's right around 16%, a much more appropriate figure to compare with the Iranian 4.1%. But then again, this little factoid shouldn't even be on this page in the first place.

Kronos o 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WWDC (FM). 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/20080227005742/http://www.radioandrecords.com:80/Conventions/con2007/awards/indexFinal.asp to http://www.radioandrecords.com/Conventions/con2007/awards/indexFinal.asp

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) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Format Change

WWDC 101.1 and 104.7 have changed formats to conservative talk radio - WONK FM as of Jan. 9, 2019. WONK-FM will broadcast on WWDC-FM 101.1 HD2, simulcast on W284CQ 104.7 and is available on iHeartRadio.com and the iHeartRadio app.

https://capitolcommunicator.com/iheartmedia-washington-d-c-launches-wonk-fm/ https://radioinsight.com/headlines/173571/iheartmedia-launches-wonk-fm-washington-dc/ https://radioink.com/2019/01/09/iheart-launches-the-wonk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former frequencies and call signs and whether or not they should be included

I’ve reverted edits that removed some of the former frequencies from the Infobox.

Stating that it is improper to imply that the station operated on any of these frequencies is arbitrary and nothing more than the opinion of one particular editor, unless a reliable third party source can be cited proving that the station never used them. The FCC permitted the station to use them; maybe the station used them, or perhaps not.

There are no rules or guidelines on WP, WP:WPRS or Template:Infobox radio station regarding the inclusion or exclusion of former frequencies or call signs. Since this information is available in the FCC History Cards, it is fair game for inclusion since the FCC is a verifiable third party source.

Further, the first air date of this station is unsourced, as is its original format. I therefore removed both per WP:OR. If someone can find this content from a reliable source, please re-add it and cite your source.

If there is an argument to be made for not including former freqs or calls in the Infobox in certain situations, I invite my fellow editors to comment.

Pageographer (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original construction permit, issued 26 Sept 46, was continually extended through 1948, as well as a request to change to 94.5 and an involuntary reassignment to 98.7 in 1947. When the license to cover is filed 15 Sept 48, it references the original permit as modified. There is no other license to cover, test authority, or any special authority between those dates. Therefore, yes, it certainly did not operate before September 1948 - it would have been illegal. This is in contrast to, for example, WASH, which has a ton of clearly documented special operating authority from temporary facilities for several years before its 1951 license to cover.

No, I don't think it's proper or useful to document every frequency change from the construction permit phase in a part of the article that is meant to be a brief at-a-glance summary. It is fine to stand in the text. I have, in the past, added these dates to the infobox with a "CP" appended. I don't think this is any clearer to the average reader, though. Xenon54 (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. I've looked at WASH, and yes, I do see the STAs issued prior to the license to cover. I reviewed the Cards for WWDC/WOL-FM again, and found the first STA after the reallocation to 98.7 as you described. I also looked at the Cards for a few other stations (WMGK, WROZ and WKSB), and found some kind of authority on record for all of them before they were issued/granted their first licenses to cover.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a station can only broadcast on a C.P. if it has been explicitly granted authority to do so by the FCC--either with an S.A., an S.T.A. or similar. Correct?

This still leaves the question of what to do with the Infobox. A consensus should be reached so we're all doing the same thing. My preference--until now, at least--has been to list all assigned frequencies because they are a part of the station's FCC record. I would be fine with appending "CP" to the freqs during times of non-operation, something you mentioned you've previously done. I'm open to other ideas as well. Pageographer (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, a construction permit is not permission to broadcast anything, it's permission to build. In most cases, stations go on the air on the day they apply for a license to cover – they are granted implicit temporary authority to begin broadcasting as a "test" while that app is processed (program test authority). I am fine with the CP notation, I suppose if it isn't clear to the reader what is going on the link is enough. Xenon54 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]