User talk:Nathan Obral/Archives/2011/February

This talk page is archived.
To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view.

2006 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Possible article on Schafitz?

We both seem to be finding quite a bit about Sanford Schafitz-mostly because of his extensive legal battle. I thought I would float the idea of possibly making a page about Schafitz himself. I even ran across a biography on the internet today (the URL is posted in references on the WLOA page). I would be willing to help develop such an article, and possibly move relevant information from the WWIZ and WLOA articles regarding Schafitz to a new article, and thereby making the articles more focused on WWIZ/WLOA for readers who may not be as interested in learning a detailed history of Schafitz and his station ownership scandal. I really don't know where to start though, and I don't want to do it all myself either. What do you think of this idea, or do you believe things are fine in its present state? Joski1624 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analog

Since when is (frequency) HD-1 the convention? Please provide something to back up that claim. Until then, consider the following:
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. And to say it's redundant is nonsense for the reasons mentioned above. Analog and HD are two very different means of transmission. It might be redundant to list the two on two separate line. Something like "Analog: X format; HD-1: X format; HD-2: Y format". Using a slash conveys two things: that there are two different means of transmission, and that the first two are the same. How else are readers unfamiliar with HD supposed to comprehend the difference? Levdr1 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on (frequency) HD-1 "convention": the Radio WikiProject gage says nothing at all about how to enter format into a station's infobox. Levdr1 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]