Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2009

Wikilink Updates

I'm in the process of eliminating the improper "K***-AM" and "W***-AM" links for US stations across Wikipedia. As always, help is always appreciated. In this case, anyone who is willing to help out by eliminating those pointing to KILT-AM [1] (properly KILT (AM) in this case) would be helpful. JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the individual pages, but it looks like it was only in Template:Houston Rockets, and just transcluding to the other pages. Mlaffs (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what happens when I don't look closely and just see a long list and don't have the energy to look any harder :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

All done - one article left that's transcluding the template and not responding to a purge, but it'll clean itself up in a day or two. Mlaffs (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or just few minor formatting fixes and, presto, it's resolved. - Dravecky (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I gladly eliminate any -AM suffixes I see for U.S. & Canadian stations. I know the Mexican stations did have the -AM suffixes in their articles but I think that's just someone literally interpreting the S.C.T.'s website where ALL stations have band suffixes. I don't know if their licenses really say that.Stereorock (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual pattern for México is to give XE-- calls to AM radio and XH--- to FM and TV; there are a few exceptions (like XETV 6 Tijuana) but not enough to justify giving -AM suffixes to XE-- stations, I'd suspect. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Big JAB

This is a reasonably frequently-edited page, so I didn't want to just make the move without discussion. However, per the standard naming conventions, shouldn't this article actually be at WRED (AM) (which is currently a redirect)? Mlaffs (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the orginiating station is (the main station) that is what it should be named. If that is WRED (AM), then it should be that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:47

WP:COMMONNAME. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not really possible in this case to say which is the "originating station", since the programming for all of the stations comes from the same studio. And since J.J. has a history of swapping call signs around on a regular basis, I would oppose moving this page. 121a0012 (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like what we need is one article for "The Big JAB" as a notable regional radio network and a series of separate articles about the individual radio stations that happen to currently air that programming. If the programming hops around, the individual station articles will be stable anchors for the long, storied history of the facility. - Dravecky (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Station names with same callsign & frequency?

Hello. I came across the article DXRR NASIPIT today, and the title doesn't seem quite right per naming conventions. But on further investigation, I realized that the creator probably titled it that way because there's already another article titled DXRR. They're both FM stations, so it wouldn't work to disambiguate by adding the FM to the title of one. Any suggestions how to disambiguate one from the other in the titles? Also, is a disambiguation page needed too? Thanks in advance for your help. Raven1977 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation by city of license would probably be the best solution, at least for a US station. JPG-GR (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, they're stations in the Philippines. Should I still disambiguate by city? Raven1977 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Often stations like these have some sort of legal callsign suffix, ie CITE-FM, CITE-FM-1, instead of the same calls being given to two different stations. Not sure what the situation is with Pinoy broadcasts, though. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WPPJ

I'd like to get some more opinions on the notablity of WPPJ. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPPJ (2nd nomination). --Rtphokie (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Radio market templates where a shortwave station is in market

Is there a policy regarding shortwave stations being included in market templates. They're not really market stations but have their studios/transmitters within a market boundary. If we are including them is there a policy regarding where S.W. stations go in relation to A.M. & F.M. stations? If there isn't, then I suggest between A.M. & F.M. so that the template goes in ascending order of frequency. So A.M. 1st, S.W. 2nd, then F.M. stations.Stereorock (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In which country? It makes a difference; U.S. shortwave stations are licensed as "international broadcasting stations" and are prohibited from serving a domestic audience. In some other countries, shortwave forms (or formed) a part of the domestic broadcasting service (e.g., CBC North shortwave services in Canada, if any still remain, or the former(?) Australian stations VL8A and VL8T). 121a0012 (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, U.S. stations. Would they even be included? I guess a domestic S.W. station would be included in a "market" if they have them.Stereorock (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, U.S. shortwave stations are not permitted to serve a domestic audience, and the nature of HF propagation is such that many shortwave stations can be heard in nearly every market. I don't think they belong. 121a0012 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. JPG-GR (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed to an extent, if they were included the only template they should be added is their home base market (where they broadcast from). They're similar to the clear channel stations, just licensed to broadcast internationally. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 20:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, I've seen them in their "home" market (I've added 2 as well: WBCQ & WRMI). So, for WRMI which is licensed to Miami it's listed in that box. I originally added it inbetween A.M. & F.M. because it would go UP in frequency that way & someone else put S.W. after F.M. (maybe alphabetical?). Technically they don't broadcast TO a market (WRMI doesn't broadcast TO Miami) but broadcasts FROM a city that the market encompasses. Therein lies the problem. Do we keep them there or do we remove them & maybe make a shortwave template? I think an S.W. template for the U.S. would be good & needed anyway because our stations aren't supposed to broadcast domestically. Other countries have S.W. stations that DO broadcast domestically (Canada for example). Also, if we do keep them in a "market", then I'd like them listed between A.M. & F.M. because it is consistent in terms of ascending frequency.Stereorock (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Our stations"? JPG-GR (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to list them in the home market for two reasons; one is because a WP reader might be interested in a given media market not his own and wants to know if there are any clear channel, shortwave, or free-to-air satellite stations that he could receive, and the other is while I don't know about about shortwave not being intended for domestic listeners, but I'm sure those broadcasts can be received in the home market. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Classic Hits FM

Found Classic Hits FM at WP:PRODSUM. The proposed deletion says it reads "like a brochure" or directory. Or, is it simply a merged list of many related radio stations in Australia which ought to be catalogued but which we don't have enough cites for individual notability? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an excellent start at an article, but there needs to be at least some attempt made in the direction of WP:V. Probably the listing of air talent may be considered to violate WP:NOTDIR, but the editors have done an admirable job in providing useful, relevant, non-directory information about many of the local stations on this network. It just needs some references. I don't think the prod is appropriate. 121a0012 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag, added an unref tag, and agree that this article requires improvement instead of deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Radiohog template created by Radiohog

I just found this account created a new template called Template:LIVE, which allegedly shows the song information from radio stations on a site called RadioHog, which seems to be an iPhone-optimized page. However there are a couple of red flags on this;

• The template was created by Radiohog. Looks like a clear COI.
• The creator added the template already to several stations. However quite a few of them, like WRRD, KBZU, WHID and WXTR are either talk stations or sports talk stations. Obviously the only music they play is the Sportscenter update theme or bumper music, yet music information is being updated. But in that example right there...WRRD is updating right now (at 1:40am American CST). Even though it's a daytime-only station, airs ESPN Deportes, and is off the air right now. This station meanwhile is a Wisconsin Public Radio talk network station which does not have regular music programs.

Does this look like something useful or can we do much better as far as a 'now playing' template provider? Nate • (chatter) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's debatably useful but it's definitely spam from a single-purpose account. I've carefully removed the spam link from the 50 or so articles on which it had been spewed. - Dravecky (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And, I've sent it to WP:TfD. JPG-GR (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• This issue is being addressed here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohog (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And the template has now been deleted. - Dravecky (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Radio station old logos.

An administrator deleted a logo gallery from the WYGY article and even deleted one of the images claiming "invalid justification for non-free use". When I questioned him on it he restored everything and listed the two logo images for deletion on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion here and here. I figure since this decision could effect a great many station articles it should be discussed by project members. RobDe68 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, your standard fair-use deletionist crap. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do. It is probably going to get deleted, even if it has a FUR and everything. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 12, 2009 @ 01:17

Well, I put my 2 cents in. If they decide it should be deleted then get ready for them to start hitting all the other radio articles. What I don't get is his reasoning for nomination is pretty generic. How do you prove whether it helps the reader better understand the article? Why wouldn't this reasoning apply to just about any logo for that matter? RobDe68 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown my 2 cents in as well. The one editor !voting delete is citing two guidelines that clearly do not apply to this or most other radio station articles and I outlined the reasons for my belief using the specific language of those guidelines. - Dravecky (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ratings data

Did we ever come to a conclusion as to whether or not Arbitron-provided ratings data in the U.S. was usable in articles, and if so, to what extent. I've come across a few articles that not only have summer 2008 data, but all the way back to fall 2006. JPG-GR (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the experiences of the Television Stations project, I'm shying away from any raw use of ratings data in tables or infoboxes. That said, I think ratings data can be used in the narrative text as it relates to station history as a reference or basis for claims about station performance. - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How does an editor put a claim in the text without attributing it to a source that another editor can verify without violating Arbitron's restrictions? Radio stations touting selective ratings are a prevasive industry practice. When I find "My radio station "X" kicked the butt of the other stations in the market", I remove that language. Articles are about a radio station, not about the radio market in which it competes.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

__________

Arbitron did allow the use of 12+ ratings information, overall, total week in virtually any publication such as newspapers, magazines, etc.. Anything past that was verbotten unless you were a subscriber and paid them their due. They made specific exceptions (allowing 25-54 overall numbers, for instance) for certain industry publications or a few other situations (knowledgeable columnists who received permission). Other numbers "leaked", of course, but except in flagrant cases Arbitron didn't pursue remedy. That may have loosened or tightened up since I was in the business 10 years ago. Generally speaking, most ratings claims are irrelevant and should be deleted unless they have significant meaning to the article. Saying KDKA had a 24 share in morning drive and the next closest station had a 7 demonstrates its one-time command of the market. Saying "We were #1 in middays in the 1997 Spring Arbitron" does not. Rick Starr71.203.217.81 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also one more data item in the article that needs maintenance to keep from getting out of date. Many of the articles now show ratings from 2007. Radio & Records - the source being linked to in these articles is owned by Nielson. The pages contain an explicit notice "May not be quoted or reproduced without prior written permission from Arbitron." and the site's terms of use say "The contents of the Service are intended for your personal, noncommercial use. All materials published on the Service (including, but not limited to news articles, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips and video clips, also known as the "Content") are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by The Nielsen Company or the party credited as the provider of the Content. You shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information, or restrictions contained in any Content accessed through the Service." Despite your understanding, that seems very clear to me.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of terrestrial sports team networks

Okay, I'm needing some help from both this project, and WikiProject Television Stations on this. Anyway, I nominated the articles for the Detroit Lions radio and television networks for deletion because I did not think they were notable on their own (then the page's creator blasted me for alleged "systematic bias" because I was doing it first on the articles on the worst team in the NFL right now...but we'll leave that for another time). Anyway, for terrestrial television or radio networks for a specific major league sports team, what would it take for a network to be notable, and could any of our existing policies/guidelines fit this bill? ViperSnake151 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

At least in the U.S. for the four major sports (baseball, football, basketball, & hockey) I believe that their broadcast network is generally notable. There is usually a history or other info that can't be covered in a couple of paragraphs and while there are often good sources available (like in Los Angeles Lakers radio networks) as a spinoff article some notability is inherited from the parent article about the team. - Dravecky (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Same problem now with Tampa Bay Rays Radio Network. There's a user questioning the notability of the network.Stereorock (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And, that is yet another violation of WP:NOT#DIR which, after being corrected, isn't deserving of more than a section in the parent article. JPG-GR (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As the Tampa Bay article stands now, it's not notable. It needs a list of stations, a history and some sources would be good. I have no problem adding every radio network in the US, as long as it's sourced and doesn't violate WP:NOT#DIR. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it violated WP:NOT#DIR by having the affiliates list. I read it & the closest guideline seemed more concerned with current schedules, Wikipedia being the white or yellow pages, Wikipedia being used for business promotion. As it was before it had a list of stations which was VERIFIED & the communities of license shows which had to be cross-referenced against the F.C.C. database. I'm going to put the station list back in soon. Anyone else who wants to ADD information (such as the announcers, etc.) may do so @ any time, of course.Stereorock (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The main purposes of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is to discourage spam (catalog like lists of products are only going to get spammy, not encyclopediey) and to discourage content that is only going to get out of date quickly. Tampa Bay Rays Radio Network seems notable me and not spammy and not likely to get out of date quickly. It should be enhanced with more history and the station list restored and updated if necessary. It would be a good place for some biographic information on the on-air personalities as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Affiliate lists change constantly and DO get out of date quickly. They also are misleading - many times being an affiliate may only mean they carry the "Coach's Corner" show at 2 AM - not the actual games. Trust me on this - I made an effort to build a list like this - my database of radio sports team affiliations has 5910 entries, and is far from complete and much of that information IS inaccurate. Wikipedia should not strive to duplicate information that is more accurately maintained in another centralized place (the operator of the network). That's the point of the "Not a directory" guideline. Taking affiliate lists and making them "more accurate" than the original source would be original research, wouldn't it?StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WCAS/WJIB merge

The WCAS and WJIB articles both mention "merging" them. I don't understand why. They have nothing in common except they broadcasted on the same frequency in the same city 30 years apart. Should the history of AOL not have its own section, or should it be subsumed under a Time Warner article? Some things exist in a particular place and time, and WCAS was one, as is WJIB today, both of which have singular stories to tell in the history of the industry (WCAS for its unusual place in the counterculture of the 70's, WJIB for its unique listener-support structure for a commercial license.) Both stories are brief, but complete. Perhaps I don't understand how you are trying to organize things, but I see no advantage to combining subjects which are, at very best, peripherally related by a used piece of transmission equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.217.81 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They are the same station. That's why they should be merged. WCAS did not cease to exist; it simply changed its programming. Stations are defined by their licenses, not by their formats. 121a0012 (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the WCAS article should @ the very least be moved to "WCAS (defunct)" if it isn't combined with the WJIB article. Yes, WCAS & WJIB ARE the same license dating back to WTAO in 1948. In that respect, WCAS & WJIB ARE the same station but have a decade inbetween them. WCAS as it was in terms of programming & callsign no longer exists. I am torn about this. I can see keeping both articles & putting links to the other article in their files (e.g.: on WJIB's page, put a link to "For further history of WCAS, see...") but I can also understand merging the 2. I am also confused as to articles of defunct "stations" but whose licenses still exist. For example, WNBC radio. That license is still active, albeit as WFAN. BUT, its history as the flagship of NBC I think warrants a separate article. Maybe a better naming convention for stations like WCAS & WNBC would be "CALL (historic)." So WCAS's page, if it remains separate, would be "WCAS (historic)." I don't know if I've helped or hindered the situation.Stereorock (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WCAS probably should never have been created according to WP:WPRS naming guidelines. I think we really need to stick to the convention of organizing information based on the station, rather than the callsign. Sure it means some maintenance as callsigns change but the quality of the articles will be much higher over time this way. Readers go looking for information based on the current callsign but they should also find all available information about previous calls that station has used over the years. WNBC is a very special example in my mind. Its popularity and contributions to radio history makes an article focusing on its history make sense (with a small section in the WFAN article pointing to the larger historical article). Only in those special cases should naming conventions be strayed from. With that in mind, WCAS just isn't special enough to warrant its own article and should be merged to WJIB. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They are entirely different phenomena, with stories all their own; it seems to me that merging the articles is illogical. About all WCAS and WJIB have in common is a frequency and a transmitter location. It is one thing to mention in each article any other callsigns a given frequency might have had, and link them to the other article(s); it is quite another matter to appropriate (& attempt to tell) the history of former stations licensed to that frequency. The family history of former owners of one's house may be of interest, but it is distinct from one's own family history. If writing a history of the frequency is the goal, the proper title, strictly speaking, would be neither WCAS nor WJIB, but, perhaps, "AM radio 740, Cambridge, Massachusetts". Hertz1888 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What he's saying, I think, is that the LICENSE is the same one (which it is) for both stations. It's not like WCAS turned in its license & someone started a new station on 740 which evolved INTO WJIB. WCAS is a direct ancestor of WJIB. WJIB is a 61-year-old radio station which was called WCAS from ~1967-1981. In a sense it is the same story. The stories are just in different chapters. But, is WCAS notable in & of itself? It very well may be. Some could argue that it's as significant as WBCN was. It may be significant due to the people that went through there such as broadcast historian Donna Halper (who is also credited for something helping the band Rush). With that, I have no problem with the status quo.Stereorock (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize there is continuity through the license, as there would be through the deed to any property. What you say about different chapters is perfectly valid if one is writing a history of the license, which also would demand chapters about the other "occupants" prior to WCAS and between it and WJIB. Was WCAS notable in its own right? Definitely. I think a lot of people would back me up on that. It was a very popular phenomenon, with many passionate devotees. Because it was a very different and exceptional culture, unlike anything preceding or subsequent, I have no trouble saying it deserves its own article. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the previous comment. To put it very simply, anyone who cares about WCAS would almost certainly look for it under those call letters (JIB at the time was known as a beautiful music FM station). Its link with the current JIB may well be important to radio historians, but that's not who would be most interested in a station that was something like an underground magazine in its time (what conglomerate now owns the Village Voice? Would someone looking for the Voice look under whatever octopus ultimately consumed it?).69.231.9.38 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have redirects. 121a0012 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe due to concurrent edit histories, a history merge would be near impossible. It looks like both articles could use some cleanup. Perhaps we could better incorporate the WCAS history into the WJIB article (after some rewrite) since it's a major part of the station history and redirect WCAS to that section in the WJIB article. A good example of this would be the CKLW article which has a major section describing the "Big 8" era.RobDe68 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

previous logos

I'd like comments on adding the following to the logo section:--Rtphokie (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When stations change logos, the old logo should be moved from the infobox to the section of the article describing the history of the station while that logo was in use. If no such section is available, consider writing one or move the old logo to the end of the history section and use gallery tags to organize the previous logos.

That sounds eminently reasonable. - Dravecky (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I second Dravecky. The old logos should be retained for posterity & as an aid to help the reader more clearly identify the style of the station at the time (because that IS one point of a station logo-to reinforce the style & feel of the station at that particular point in time), especially the farther away from a logo we are. A 1970s or early-1980s "92PRO-FM" logo looks entirely different from one now.Stereorock (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the logo has historical significance (like perhaps demonstrating Group W's distinctive typeface), It's my opinion that old logos are a distraction from the article and inconsistent with the "Wikipedia is not an archive of images" policy. I certainly won't be making any effort to maintain those sections. We have articles with 20 month old ownership changes that having been updated. This project needs to think about prioritizing its limited resources.StreamingRadioGuide (talk)

I hope that a little common sense by editors could satisfy your concerns here. The purpose of "Wikipedia is not an archive of images" policy is to prevent meaningless clutter. That's why I suggested including the old logos in the section of the article that deals with that segment of the station's history. If a logo change is minor (type face change, color change etc.) then it probably doesn't need to be retained in article. However most logo changes go hand in hand with historically significant events in a station's history. Format changes, frequency changes, ownership changes, etc. The problem that needs to be addressed is that when a logo changes, editors simply remove the old one and replace it with the new one. The fair use bots tag the old logos as being unused and are deleted within days if no one notices. --Rtphokie (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DXing reports on AM/FM stations - appropriate content?

The KXOL (AM) article contains a sentence and a reference to a site in Arizona that maintains a DX log of radio stations "heard". (DX'ing is people who have an interest in hearing radio stations far away from their intended service area - often using high cost receivers and directional antennas). Typically, a DXer will send a signal report to the radion station and may (at least in the olden days) get a QSL card back that documents the report.

I have two concerns about this. The first is that DX'ing is a "niche" special interest hobby. Wikipedia content is supposed to focus on content that is of interest to the general public.

The second concern regards the sourcing of this specific item, and in more general terms what would constitute an acceptable source - if you accept the premise that the generel public is interested in the DX reporting history of a radio station? This source contains a list of DX report dates (with no times), and it isn't clear who the actual person(s) are that "heard" the station, nor does it contain the normal signal strength indications used by DXers(S1-S9). This appears to be original research, and was used to justify the claim that the station's signal was "widely reported", which I've already removed - as the source doesn't back up that claim.

I've no objections to a sentence or two that discusses the signal coverage of the radio station as it can add both context and flavor to the article. I have just significantly expanded and improved the KXOL (AM) article but left the sentence under discussion intact so as not to interrupt the conversation. In this specific case, the source only claims that that station was received in Flagstaff so the other parts of the claim are unreferenced. - Dravecky (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that, unless a station is known (as documented in reliable third-party sources) for its long-distance reception, or markets it in some way, it's probably not relevant. I can document that WLGI has been heard in Prince Edward Island, but the relevance of that fact is of little relevance to either article. On the other hand, WBZ used to promote itself as serving "38 states and the best provinces in Canada", which clearly makes the signal's reach relevant. 121a0012 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that except in a few very unusual cases where something notable happened as a result of DX reception, such as the station adding DX-derived claims to its own promotions or DX reception being a documentably significant factor in a news event, it's not particularly significant. And using a radio hobbyist club's web-posted DX log as a source doesn't really suit the demands of WP:RS, either. So, at least IMO, we shouldn't mention it at all unless the DX pickup actually has a documentable and verifiable impact on something. Without that, it's just meaningless trivia. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A great many of the DX reports (TV as well as radio) that I've seen on WP appear to be blog-like, with no standardized format—and frequently written in very poor English—and would be difficult to edit into any kind of coherent shape. This is probably not the best place for them. On the other hand, I agree that room must be made for significant exceptions. Some notable historical records come to mind, such as the celebrated reception of early BBC television on the East Coast of the U.S., when lower frequencies, more prone than today's to "skip", were in use. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this seems to be part and parcel of a growing phenomenon I've noticed on here in recent months: the stricter Wikipedia gets about proper sourcing, the more people who are truly determined to add their own pet trivia to articles seek out sources like blog entries or local hobby club logs, under the misapprehension that any source that supports the desired information is acceptable whether it actually meets WP:RS or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If by "stricter" you mean "ridiculous", then yes. I'm often at RSN trying to placate people who want to exclude even newspapers because they don't like the political bias, etc. WP seems to be getting into a bizarre situation where no cite at all is preferred to a semi-reliable cite. When we should be mining the print and electronic corpus for all the knowledge available. I have no problem at all with using hobbyist/professional community sites, i.e. bostonradio.org for uncontentious claims. Personal blogs are a different story. The real question is whether DX reports are trivia or not. We can't possibly include them all, especially the rare ones caused by meteor burst, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting into any kind of broad debate about WP:RS, outside of determining whether this particular source meets it or not, is rather outside the scope of what this discussion can reasonably be expected to accomplish — though, for what it's worth, I'd consider bostonradio.org to be a reliable source, not just a hobby club log: it's a well-established reference site that's been around for at least a decade, whose maintainer publishes his name and contact info, and it's read widely enough by a broad range of people that new information will get added, and errors corrected, quickly. But yes, DX reports are pure trivia that we shouldn't be documenting here at all unless they actually have a documentable and significant impact on something. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WZKW

While cleaning up badly-stubbed, uncategorized, and orphaned radio station articles, I found WZKW which claims to be a low-power FM in Ohio. However, the FCC database has no such station at either full or low power and none of the stations at 106.7 in Ohio seem to fit. Any thoughts, ideas, or clues? - Dravecky (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The link to the website is dead, but I did find a LiveJournal profile for it, where the station is described as a "very low-power FM". Screams pirate radio to me. The article was originally created by an IP — I'd bet it's never been licensed, if it's even still in existence. Mlaffs (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead? http://www.edgeradio1067.com/ worked for me two minutes ago... - Dravecky (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's weird — didn't work for me at work, but it's coming up now that I'm home. Must have been a firewall problem. Mlaffs (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a Part 15 station, which like Low Power stations has a small broadcast area, but is unlicensed. The wikipedian in me says delete, but the radio geek in me says keep. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 00:56

Requested move

There is a discussion here to move a station article to a name that does not follow the project naming convention. Feel free to participate if you are so inclined. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh what a silly move discussion. That ain't ever going to happen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 00:54

You need to follow those discussions more closely. There are a lot of moves or not moved results that are questionable. Never is common over there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rare indeed is the issue that can get so many WPRS members to agree so strongly. - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

KQTM

How much advertising is allowable in a radio station article? I don't want to get into an edit war with some IP over this, but there are elements of the article that I think go too far. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That page read like an advertisement, so I removed some of those sections, rewrote another into one sentence and removed the schedule entirely per WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 04:29

Thanks. I wasn't sure about the schedule, and your link to WP:NOT#DIR answered that for me. I knew someone here would know what to do. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Former Names

Would "Former Names" on the radio info box be suitable, indicating the former titles of that station ? Jonny7003 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That could be a long list in some cases, I would still with adding the "former names" to the article section in sentence/history form, per usual. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 20:56

Yes, weaving the branding changes into a narrative with ownership and callsign changes, properly sourced if possible, would make an excellent addition to most radio station articles. - Dravecky (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. That's the kind of thing I wish the proponents of slogan lists would do more of! Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who are crazy and have time to kill...

... I've got four pages listing every possible US radio callsign with the improper "-AM" suffix. (Hopefully) all our AM stations are now located at proper locations without the "-AM" suffix, which just leaves a load of redirects. All of the redirects should be scrubbed of any incoming links at which point these wrong links can be deleted, hopefully preventing people in the future from using the improper suffix. So, if you want to do some de-linking: 1, 2, 3, 4. JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like something right up my alley — I'll take on some of that challenge. I can confirm that all of the AM stations in existence as of December 16th that have articles are located at the correct name. I've been doing a walk through the FCC database over the last month-and-a-half. I'm already finished all the AM stations, so any that were still with a "-AM" suffix (and there weren't many) have been moved. I'm about a third of the way through the FM stations, and moving those as necessary as well. Mlaffs (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've knocked down a couple so far since, while I certainly meet criteria #1, I've been a bit short of criteria #2 this week. - Dravecky (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to be of the opinion that because many of our potential users don't realize that there isn't actually any such thing as an -AM suffix, perhaps they should exist as redirects to the properly titled articles so that non-radiogeek readers don't think they're "missing" articles. I'm not strongly wedded to the idea, but I put it out as food for thought. I think sometimes we tend to let our certified radiogeekness blind us to what's actually most helpful to the non-geek audience who aren't so familiar with intricacies like this, but YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Page 2 is all done — only links left are to non-article space, and straggling "What links here" links from changes to templates. Only outlier is KZKZ-AM — that's an article name rather than a redirect, and it's about a station from the Philippines. Mlaffs (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And, true to form, the proper callsign is "KZKZ". I've moved it to KZKZ (defunct). JPG-GR (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

KMIA-AM is the only K left. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• N.B. The redirects were restored per this disccussion. –xeno (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

Could someone please comment on the appropriateness of a list of a station's slogans, programming and presenters. I have maintained that a list of slogans and presenters are not encyclopaedic and do not contribute to the article's meaning. I have also tried to describe the programming rather than have a list but all of this keeps being reverted on 96.4 The Wave just to be reverted by an editor who is showing an attitude of ownership of the article. Feedback would be most appreciated. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered something similar with a person who insists on inserting unsourced slogans on CHRO-TV. I would say no to slogans, no to program schedules. Personalities and programs are okay if they are notable enough, (ie The station produces a national radio program).

I would also remove the coverage area, music policy and relocate the studio relocation under history. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists of slogans, programs and presenters need to be either solidly sourced to reliable sources (i.e. not the station's own web page) or shitcanned; there's no in-between on this. You're right that such lists add very little encyclopedic value to the article — presenter lists mean absolutely nothing to anybody who doesn't already know who the people in question are, unsourced and unexpanded programing lists impart absolutely no information about what a station actually sounds like, and especially in 2009 most radio slogans are so hopelessly generic that they give stations identities which are about as distinctly individual as coloured faceplates on iPods. Wikipedia articles on radio stations need to be written from the base assumption that the primary audience is people who aren't already station insiders — we can describe a station's programming in greater depth, for example, but there's no value to the average reader in simply listing it. There's no value to the average reader in saying that Julia Rockchick hosts the morning drive show if the average reader doesn't have the vaguest clue who the hell Julia Rockchick is. And on, and so forth. And I'd also note that such contributions have a marked tendency to get written in a distinctly unencyclopedic "Julia Rockchick brings you the morning's hottest hits!" marketingspeak style. My bottom line, personally, is "no lists of anything or anyone that couldn't actually have separate articles under WP:N/WP:RS." Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been dealing with an editor who insists on keeping a list of slogans, programmes and presenters on radio articles in Cardiff and the rest of South Wales, despite claiming he's a member of WPRS, but he's starting to come round now. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Template question

Do we really need templates which group "stations of a particular format in state/province"? Personally, I hate them with an unbridled passion, but I haven't been prepared to tackle the US contingent's determination to have them — but now, somebody's created one for hot adult contemporary radio stations in Ontario, and it's one of those things I really don't want creeping into Canadian stations. Not to assert ownership or anything, but there are really only three or four members of this project who pay particularly comprehensive attention to Canadian radio stations. I just don't find them useful or valuable, personally, but I suppose YMMV. Any input? Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've come to appreciate them if only to reduce the number of stations outside of the major markets that can get tagged as "orphans". Once they're properly propagated, they should be no more difficult to maintain than any individual station that sees a format change. - Dravecky (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is really a need for a template for Hot AC stations in Ontario, Canada. Considering that there are only 81 pages in the Hot AC category, a template for all of Canada, but broken down by provinces is okay with me. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Emarsee, I don't think there's much sense in making a template for Hot AC stations in Ontario, Canada, i'd rather have them broken down by provinces as well. Webfan29 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Radio station articles

Lately, i've been creating and updating radio station articles across Canada, such as adding the Canadian Communications Foundation links just to give readers more information on that radio station, i've found a few articles that have the recnet link missing so i've added them as well and references from the CRTC (Note that CRTC broadcast decisions archives, etc. only date as far back to 1984). Does anybody know why there's no archives on the CRTC website prior to 1984? I had sent the CRTC an e-mail a couple of weeks or so ago and I haven't received a reply as of date. All I wanted to know if the CRTC website is going to add any broadcast decisions, etc. dating as far back to about 1970, or so. If this ever happens, i'll be adding them to the radio station articles as well! :-) Webfan29 08:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Another question

There seems to be a bit of a slow-moving edit war across a lot of articles over how a radio station's transmitter power should be expressed in the infobox. Is there any actual requirement that we use the format "50,000 watts" rather than "50 kilowatts"? And if so, why? Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't encountered the edit war yet but I've always used the basic unit watts since it's clearer and in more common usage. - Dravecky (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The FCC has standardized upon expressing powers in "kW" (note the abbreviation), with few exceptions, if any. I'm not saying we must follow them, but that is their practice, and the way U.S. station power levels will be found in the official databases. It might be logical and convenient to follow suit. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we convert kilowatts to furlongs per fortnight, just that we use the base unit for clarity. The FCC database also uses meters to the exclusion of feet in expressing HAAT (a no-no on Wikipedia) and prints the names of licensee in all upper-case so their style choices for display should not necessarily be our style choices. - Dravecky (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discernible difference in clarity between "50,000 watts" and "50 kilowatts" — anybody who doesn't know what "kilo" means most likely doesn't know what "watt" means either, frankly. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that whatever the power is should be expressed in watts from 1-999 & kilowatts from 1-999, then Megawatts from 1-999. Anybody running more than that I wanna see that operation!Stereorock (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I recenctly changed one article which had capitalized Watts. Watts is a section of Los Angeles. Watts (when spelled out) should not be capitalized unless any word in its context would be (like being the first word in this sentence), per the Wikipedia article on watt. [notice that I also used its and not it's] StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Claremorris community radio

I found Claremorris community radio at PRODSUM. Appears to be a licensed station in Ireland, but article has very little information, not even frequency or callsign. Perhaps someone who knows Irish radio better than I will step in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Just a heads up that earlier today, a user attempted to have List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates speedy deleted as a copyright violation. How a list of radio affiliates would even be remotely copyrightable is pretty much anybody's guess, but we should probably all keep an eye on this one. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR & WXYT-FM

I'd like to "poll" the regulars and see if this is a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Other than the general nature of the list as a directory, I feel that the additional subsections for "executive personnel" and "weekends" further show this. JPG-GR (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Violation - Since it is in sentence form and not a general list, I think it isn't a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 6, 2009 @ 04:30

Help with an article in AFD

Resolved

 – Page moved to correct location.

I want to move the article 98.5 The Stream to their call letters of KAAI, but it's already been created as a redirect to the Air 1 network (the station is now a former affiliate of Air 1); however 98.5 The Stream's article is up for an AfD currently. Can I have mod assistance to make the move, please? Nate • (chatter) 06:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Decision on the AfD was Keep/Move, article was moved to KAAI (its call sign). - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 07:09

KOIL/KMMQ Call sign swap

NRG has swapped the call signs for KOIL and KMMQ in Nebraska[2]. The current article for KOIL is describing the programming, power, license, etc.. for the station that is now KMMQ. Logic would suggest that the way to "fix" this is to move the article from KOIL to KMMQ, and start a new article for KOIL (Which is a News/Talk format), but not wanting to be yelled at if there is some nuance to this, I leave it up to the Radio Project to sort out.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the old KOIL article to KMMQ and the KYDZ article to KOIL, added logos, updated the infoboxes, added categories, added references, and significantly expanded both articles. The "History of KOIL" section in the KOIL article is largely in the shape I found it so it too is in need of expansion and referencing. - Dravecky (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AM Radio stations with FM translators

This is only a U.S. issue as far as I know. The FCC last year made it clear that it wants to encourage AM radio stations to broadcast their programming on low power FM translators, primarily to improve coverage in dead spots and after sunset.

In my own web site I'm now starting to encounter these types of stations and this is going to become a source of confusion. I'm not so much suggesting any solution or answers, but at least alerting the editors who may not know this is happening and fix articles that "look wrong" and start creating edit wars over the "right" way to describe this situation.

In most of the cases I've seen so far, when the station starts using an FM translator, they "rebrand" their AM station using their FM frequency, or at least make it look like an AM/FM simulcast, essentially using the AM callsign as the "brand" for their FM "Station", which is really just a translator.

Just because an owner has an FM station and an FM translator in the same market no longer can be assumed that the translator is carrying the FM station. Some stations are starting to push the boundaries using HD2/3 channels to provide programming to their translators. In some cases (may be non-profit only), a station owner will lease out its FM translator to another owner to broadcast its AM signal.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WICB

There has been a reversion war going on with WICB today. IT's been reverted back to its original form and the copied WICB (radio station) marked for speedy deletion. A hat note has been placed on the article pointing to the other article in question. Since this article has been in place for over 1 year and this is the first anyone has brought up its use as an acronym, the DAB page seemed a bit drastic to me and 1 other editor. I'd appreciate it if some other editors could take a look and give their opinions on the best course of action.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote is certainly appropriate since the call sign is a primary identifier and the sporting association is an abbreviation and, therefore, a secondary identifier. Also consistent with many other similar situations. Mlaffs (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Mlaffs; the current situation is an entirely valid and legitimate way to handle a two-item conflict. For that matter, even if we did want to move the radio station to a disambiguated title, per naming conventions that title would be "WICB (FM)", not "WICB (radio)", and the move would have to be done through the proper proces (i.e. use of the move tab), not by cut and paste. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suffixes and naming conventions

Disambiguation pages for what amounts to a list of former call sign uses and an airport acronym.

User:Radiojon seems to have created quite a few of these, moving the original page to a (FM) type suffix. He even contested one of my speedy deletes. I nominated that particular dab page for deletion but I mean, where do you draw the line? If you make a disambiguation page for every former use of a call sign you might as well just name every article with (FM), (AM) and (TV) suffixes and make them all dabs? Anybody from the project care to chime in on this? RobDe68 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary topic should be clear and is most likely the current station in most cases. Hatnotes and WXXX (disambiguation) pages will suffice for the rest. JPG-GR (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree — the dab page shouldn't be necessary for former call signs unless it's a very recent call sign change or it had a particularly notable history at the former call sign. Mlaffs (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Case for standardization

There are certain cases in Wikipedia where a class of information should be disambiguated for the sake of consistency. Tropical cyclones are one case where this has been well-established on Wikipedia for years now, with all non-retired names having the year as disambiguation, like Tropical Storm Alberto (1994). This includes storm names that were never used before or since, like Hurricane Beta (2005). Broadcast station callsigns are inherently another such case, where in this case it has been well-established for decades by the FCC in its rulemaking proceedings. The FCC always uses the format WXYZ(AM), for example, and the only difference between that and Wikipedia is that they fail to put a space between them. In turn, the broadcast industry also uses this fairly consistently in its trade publications and website articles.

Like tropical cyclones, there is a high likelihood that a callsign will be reused. (Some have been traded several times between the stations that Clear Channel owns.) There is also an excellent chance that it will mean something else, be that an ICAO airport code like Kxxx, or some acronym. By putting all unsuffixed stations at a title with (AM) or (FM) [or (TV)] disambiguation after the callsign, this creates an accurate, logical, and predictable system, which complies with both FCC and Wikipedia practice. If this is done consistently, redirects will normally carry users to the current location of the article they are seeking.

This in turn also allows for unsuffixed and undisambiguated four-letter combinations to have proper disambiguation pages. While a callsign may be the primary meaning for most of us, this is not likely to be the case for most Wikipedia users. By following this format, users will almost always end-up at the right page on the first click for current stations, and be able to find former stations and unrelated acronyms quickly as well.  –radiojon (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: www.recnet.com has an AM/FM/TV query that gives the past use of callsigns for all stations.

Ridiculous. There is no reason to disambiguate when disambiguation isn't necessary. If it works for Tropical Storms and Hurricanes, good for them. Radio Stations are not Tropical Storms or Hurricanes. JPG-GR (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say it any better than that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 21, 2009 @ 18:49

Indeed. - Dravecky (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alert bot

Did anyone else know about this? Mlaffs (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, but how could it help WP:WPRS? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 22:59

It's a subscription-based notification about things that are happening with articles that have the RadioStationsProject tag. It would send a summary every day of those articles hit with a prod tag, taken to Afd, nominated for or under discussion as good or featured articles, requested moves, etc. Mlaffs (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, then I like this idea. Would it alert us via this talk page or our own? Either way, I think it is a good idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 00:00

New Task

We here at WP:WPRS are known more for our cookie-cutter articles and navigation templates. For a change of pace, how about some article building?

WolterBot has just updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/Cleanup listing with lists of all the problems all of our articles have. Let's see if we can whittle this page down from its rather long 53k, k? JPG-GR (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question on KLTE and other Bott Radio Network stations.

I'm a newbie at this so please forgive the stupidity, but I have a couple questions I've not seen covered here yet. 1) KLTE, Kirksville MO is listed as owned by Salem Broadcasting. However, staff verbally told me they are owned bt the Bott Radio Network group and that its only their programming that (mostly) originates from Salem Broadcasting. Does anyone else find this to be a confusing contradiction? 2)I question why KLTE and other stations are redirected. In my opinion, KLTE at least offers enough local programming and community involvment (local news breaks, local staffing, "community calendar' items, local commercials) to avoid being considered a 'zombie station' and deserving of its own wiki page. What are the guidelines on determining this? Also, just for my future reference, is there any set Wiki policy on dealing with stations involved in LMA's (Local Marketing Agreements), etc. -- whereby a station may have an owner, but a competitor/different owner actually supplies the programming and advertising sales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector001 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1) KLTE's licensee is Bott Communications, Inc. [3]

2) If the station originates any local programming, it can have it's own article.

3) You'd have to be more specific as to what you are referring to in relation to LMAs. JPG-GR (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The owner and license holder per the FCC database should go in the infobox but if the station is being operated under an LMA and this information can be reliably referenced then I see no reason why that couldn't be mentioned in the lede paragraph after the ownership/license info. Something like "KTNY is owned by the Teeny-Tiny Radio Corporation and the broadcast license is held by KTNY Partners LLC. The station is operated under a local marketing agreement by ConHugeCo Media, a division of Vast Corporate Entity, Inc." - Dravecky (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That should have went "ConHugeCo, a division of Vast Corporate Entity, Inc., owned and operated by Clear Channel Communications, a subsidiary of Borg Co." :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 27, 2009 @ 21:54

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Considering that any radio station which has a streaming webcast is also going to have its own webpage, which will invariably have its own link to the streaming webcast — usually via a big, unmissable "LISTEN LIVE!!!" button — anyway, is it really necessary for Wikipedia articles to provide direct links to the webstreams? At least to my mind, the direct link feels like a yet another unnecessary bit of the eternal "turn Wikipedia articles on radio stations into extensions of the radio stations' own promo departments" battle rather than a genuinely necessary addition to our articles, precisely because those webstream links are invariably already available directly from the existing external link. But I'm willing to listen to other opinions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally see no problem having a link to a station's webstream. Most stations have a link in the infobox. It is a small link just above the website link. It is my opinion that all pages should have such a link. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 19, 2009 @ 16:47

Before moving forward with this, you may want to read this Press release from Streamaudio titled "StreamAudio Thwarts Hijackers of Internet Radio Streams" about their efforts to shut down sites that deliberately bypass their player (and revenue stream). I would encourage Wikipedia's legal minds to investigate the copyright implications of "deep linking" and establish a firm policy on what is and isn't acceptable conduct. (My policy is to not bypass a station's player unless there is no other reasonable alternative, and immediately remove links if the owner of the stream objects to the link).

Also, you will learn that it is more difficult to create a link than you might think - that listen live button is often invoking 1000s of lines of javascript code, doing things like detecting which browser you are using, if you're linux/mac/pc user, whether you have javascript enabled, WMP installed, AJAX support, abacast plugin support, Quicktime, Flash support, the size of the display - and processing the request differently. The more advanced sites are generating one-time keys with authentication to make it impossible to reuse a link. Merely copy/pasting the link after the stream starts will not necessarily create a reliable link for other visitors. and be thinking about the event that happens every month or so when one of the major owners switches streaming providers and 500 links break the same day. Some things are better done with databases.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WWBA/WMGG/WHBO mess

This is a three way call sign/frequency swap deal that I don't want to "fix" - I'll leave it to the pros.

WMGG's article points to WWBA's information and describes the coming swap. How it got in its condition is moderately clear if you understand what happened. How to 'fix' it isn't so clear.

WWBA was on 1040 kHz. Genesis bought the station on 820 kHz (WMGG) and "moved" WWBA to their new frequency of 820 kHz (the WMGG article mentions this move is pending FCC approval, which has in fact been completed). 1040 kHzA was given WHBO (which the article for WWBA describes!) WMGG was the call sign that had been on 820 kHz, which they bought from Mega Communications[4] and is now on 1470 khz.

I don't know for sure what is on WMGG(1470) - that's what I came here looking to find out.

Okay, all three station articles are now matched to their proper callsigns and frequencies. I've done a bit of cleanup, category addition, infobox fixing, and such. There's plenty of work still to be done to get these up to snuff but this will get you started down the proper path. - Dravecky (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How to un-defunct WCKL

WCKL redirects to WCKL (defunct) which then states the station is no longer defunct. From the talk page, it sounds like the FCC deleted the license, then reinstated it (it is active in the FCC database). Rather than be accused of doing it wrong, I'll leave this to the experts to fix. - StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 18:40, February 28, 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup and completed the move, as requested. From the opinion column in Black Star News from last year, this sounds like an... interesting situation. - Dravecky (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WJZZ (callsign)

While doing my periodic sweep through the stub categories and doing general cleanup, I came across WJZZ (callsign) which is an amalgam of a history page, a disambiguation page, and a station page and I'm of several minds on how to proceed. Break up the info to the target articles? Expand as a history of WJZZ in all its incarnations? Reduce to a disambiguation page? I need fresher eyes on this one and invite any interested editor to have at it. - Dravecky (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote dabpage. JPG-GR (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambig page is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 07:51

Town FM

I just removed this article from the {{db-spam}} queue to give you guys a chance to look at it before it gets deleted. What should I do with radio stations that show up in the queue? Do you guys want to have a chance to see them before they get deleted? If so, do you still want to see them even if the tone is promotional and there are no references? Is there some list of radio stations that I could use as a reference to say, "Okay, it's on this list, so at least I know we don't want to speedy-delete it, I'll pass this along"? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please pass them along. Significant efforts will be made to "rescue" any radio station articles in danger of being deleted or redacted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I was hoping you'd see this and respond, I remembered how conscientious you were about radio stations from your recent RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I know very little about UK radio but I've taken a whack at the prose to remove the promotional and peacock language then gave it a little bit of formatting work. The article needs additional referencing and more work so perhaps one of our more UK-savvy editors can give it a try? - Dravecky (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge — KYMS and KALI-FM

Anyone with more article writing experience than I have interested in taking a crack at merging the content from the KYMS article into the KALI-FM article, in order to make room for the article on the station currently holding the KYMS calls? Mlaffs (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interim, I've moved this article to KYMS (defunct), done a bit of cleanup, fixed the one inbound link, added a hatnote to the KALI-FM article, and added KYMS (defunct) to {{Los Angeles Radio}} list of defunct stations. - Dravecky (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also taken the time to correct the ownership, add a template, add several references, plus significantly expand the article now at KYMS. Based on that research, there may be as many as two dozen stations that changed hands twice towards the end of last year and now belong to that California church. - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

archiving this page

Anyone have a problem with upping the automated archival frequency on this page? It's getting a bit unwieldy Currently its set at 700k or 60 days. How about 500k or 30 days?--Rtphokie (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on either one. JPG-GR (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this "station" worth even an article?

"WXIN", the Rhode Island College on-campus station has its own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WXIN_(FM). It has no license nor any real right to use that callsign. So, should it be merged with the Rhode Island College main article or bumped altogether. I don't think it deserves its own page. I vote for merge with R.I.C.'s article.Stereorock (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are requested...

... regarding a new proposal to merge Template:Infobox Radio station. Please see this. JPG-GR (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge - KZAM (defunct) and KQMV

I've added merge tags to these two articles — thought it was worth throwing up here to get discussion going if it's going to be contentious, or to solicit a volunteer if it's a no-brainer. Mlaffs (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks mostly that it could be part of KQMV except the little mention of KZAM (AM), erroneously listed as KZAM-AM. If there's enough history on both stations then KZAM (defunct) could technically cover both. Or the info could just be absorbed into other articles. I'm voting weak keep.Stereorock (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Univision Radio redirect

This is not the first time this topic has come up.

There is ongoing confusion (disagreement) over how to handle individual stations that operate under common ownership or that "carry no locally originated programming" (Bott Radio, Moody Bible, EMF)... rather than sticking with the template which is station-centric (where is the transmitter, how much power, when was it licensed, did it have previous call signs/owners, etc...) the stations get redirected to a central page which may or may not have the information that would have been on the template pages.

Well, Univision Radio seems to be lumped into this pile, at least partly. I was looking for information KMAK (100.3 - Orange Grove, CA), and it has been made a redirect pointing to the article on Univision Radio, which is a "Radio Company Ownership" article... it isn't even asserting that Univision is a programming service.

This station is not owned by Univision. I suspect it may carry (or may have carried) some Univision's programming at some point. There are a couple message board posts that suggest this is an LMA.

LMAs by their nature are temporary - they are contracts to lease the station for a fixed period of time. Moving an article (or deleting it) based on a LMA seems inappropriate Is it more appropriate to have the normal article, and just a statement (if it can be verified with a reliable source - message boards are not)... that it is an LMA and a link to the page describing the entity with the LMA?

Looking at the incoming links to that article, this is not the only redirect to the page. Perhaps an item for the project to "clean up".

If you reply to this with "KMAK is fixed, next issue", then you have missed the point.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Univision falls into the same pile as Moody, Bott, etc. It's not about ownership, it should be about the programming provided. If KAAA and KAAB simply rebroadcast all of KAAC's programming, KAAA and KAAB may technically be radio stations in the eyes of the FCC, but aren't they really just powerful, far-flung translators? I think we all agree that translators don't need their own pages.

We need to also consider what readers come to these articles looking for. I think they are looking for whats going on with the station now and the station's history. There just isn't that much to say about stations which are entirely remotely controlled or maintain only a limited staff consisting of an engineer to keep the transmitter going and a board op to keep the network feed flowing, just isn't that valuable. If the station has no history then all that's available to put in an article is whats going on now which is whats going on with the network and/or flagship stations. If KAAA and KAAB do have some history then I think everyone agrees that any redirect to parent rule doesn't apply and the history should be presented in the article.

Whats interesting about Univision coming into this discussion is that it can help us focus on whats the right thing to do for the articles. Previously the networks involved have been mostly religious and there have been some POV problems as a result. Some editors (outside of WP:WPRS) have been very passionate that their local Moody/K-Love/Radio Maria station is notable because of the content and any discussion of redundancy has been pretty much lost on them. Having a secular example to point to will be helpful. One editor assured me that I would have my maker to deal with if I even thought about doing anything that would "lessen the importance" of his local religious radio rebroadcaster.

These discussions are good ones and these redirects can lead to the articles being improved. I recall a station (I think it was in West Virginia) that appeared to be nothing more than a rebroadcaster. I added a merge tag there and it was immediately met with protest from an editor who felt strongly about it. Further discussion and research revealed a Sunday morning local broadcast of church services that had a long history. A little more looking found some reliable sources for it. The article was updated with this history and the merge tag removed.

I think this process of placing a merge tag on any article for a rebroadcaster with zero local programming and zero history is the way to go. Leave that tag there for a week and if there are no objections, the article should be replaced with a redirect to the parent network page. This is assuming that there is an affiliate list on the network page somewhere. This approach is clean and easy to revert if some history is found at a later date. If it is a temporary LMA situation, presumably the station has other history which can be used to improve the article and the redirect wont be necessary. As a licensed radio station, deletion shouldn't really be an option.--RadioFan2 (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unless the station's has a history. If it's got sources then it should have it's own article. With the non-comms,the groups (EMF, Moody, etc.), tend to apply for stations solely for their networks, so the station has no history other than being part of whatever network it's owner programs. Those just need a redirect, the ones they buy usually have history.

Also, mainly on the non-comm religious stations, the ones that aren't owned, just affiliated with the networks tend to cherry pick what programming they carry or have some sort of special contract with a network, but the O&O's are usually 24/7 network and have little history behind them. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WBKM.org

Are you guys interested in internet-only stations? This is in the db-spam queue. This one from Burlington Vermont gets a fair number of Google hits, although they're fluffy hits. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Interested? Yes, but this one was pure spam with solidly promotional text, no wikification attempt, no real assertion of notability, and nothing apparently useful in a basic Google search to try and rescue it. If the author returns with a better written article and a few reasonable references from third-party sources I would have no strong objection to a new article being created. Failing that, I have completed the speedy deletion process for this bit of spam. - Dravecky (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ILR Radio pages (UK)

I don't think GCAP Radio stations should have been updated to became hearts on here. why not keep all the old names as they are and add that they ceased on the date Heart took over?

An Example of this would be

Wester National does not rediect to First group ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.168.17 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What. JPG-GR (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a protest that some articles for stations under new ownership have been updated to reflect the new name and ownership but the poster wishes they had just been marked defunct and new articles created for the renamed stations. But that's just a guess. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

KCFF, Clifton Forge, VA?

Anyone know anything of the history of this construction permit? Why the K callsign east of the Mississippi? Is there some history there or did someone at the FCC just screw up?--RadioFan2 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In one exciting day, Ron Elmore Ministries received callsign assignments for construction permits in Clifton Forge VA (KCFF), Licking MO (KIKG), Storm Lake IA (KOIA), Oketo KS (KOKN), Crook CO (KOOW), Louisville MS (KOUI), Bovina TX (KOVA), and Paragonah UT (KRRA). That Mississippi station is pretty far east of the river, too, and should clearly be a W--- callsign.

My bet is that like the former "KCBE" (now WEGB) on Long Island, New York, these too will be corrected in the fullness of time. However, for now, that's what the FCC has assigned so we just need to keep an eye on it. - Dravecky (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frequency swap

If a station changes its broadcast frequency, but retains its call sign and programming, are they still considered the same station covered by a single article? If yes, does the same apply when two stations swap frequencies?

For example station A broadcasts its programming under call sign X on frequency 1 and later broadcasts that same programming under the same call sign on frequency 2. At the same time, station B broadcasts its programming under call sign Y on frequency 2 and later broadcasts that same programming under the same call sign on frequency 1. Should the article on station A titled "X" include information on that station's history both before the swap on frequency 1 and after the swap on frequency 2 (and similarly or article "Y")?

This is what happened with WTAR and WNIS.

WTAR began broadcasting in 1923 on 790AM continued on that frequency until 1992 when it moved to 850AM in a frequency swap with WNIS. It continues to broadcast on 850AM. All of the programming that was being broadcast on 790AM at the time moved to 850AM along with the call sign. WNIS and all its programming moved from 850AM to 790AM at the same time. Since these articles is titled with the station call sign, I think they should reflect the station's history under both its old and new frequencies following the call sign across the swap.

The current articles seem to mix this up treating this more like a call sign change. For example, the WTAR article shows a first air date of 1952 rather than 1923, while the WNIS article gets credit for a 1923 start. Also, the predecessors to WNIS are listed on the WTAR page. I'd like to clean this up, but would like your opinions first. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a supporting change to the {{Infobox Radio station}} template here. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very rare for stations to actually "swap frequencies". More commonly, stations swap programming (if they are under common ownership), or owners swap stations. The FCC Facility ID Number is a permanent, unique identifier for a station which can help you disambiguate these cases. (Sometimes there may be three or more parties involved, as when Nassau Broadcasting bought the programming of WCRB (102.5 Waltham) from Charles River Broadcasting and the facilities of WKLB-FM (99.5 Lowell) from Greater Media, while Greater acquired the facilities of WCRB from Charles River and an unbuilt construction permit from Nassau.) 121a0012 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. Looking at the FCC database the facility ID for WTAR is 60472 while the facility ID for WNIS is 4671. However, looking at other 1923 stations such as WTAM, I get large facility ID numbers (59595 for WTAM). So, it's difficult to know if there is any correlation between facility ID and original air date (at least for those earlier that when the facility ID system was implemented).

Even so, the Wikipedia station articles are named by call letters not facility ID, and do not even mention facility ID, so it makes sense to me to follow the history in terms of those call letters. In contrast, if a station changes ownership, call sign, and programming, but possibly retains the existing facility ID, guidelines would call for creation of a new article, not continuation of the existing one. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no correlation between facility ID numbers and original air date, except insofar as very new stations were assigned numbers in sequence after the system was instituted in the late 1990s. The facility ID identifies the station, permanently (and it should be listed in the infobox if it isn't already). The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this: "If a station changes its call sign: Move (rename) the article to the current call sign". Here you have a case where two stations changed call sign, so you move both articles. (This probably requires going through an intermediate step; MediaWiki will not allow you to "swap" two articles unless one of them is a redirect.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree at categorizing this as "a station changes its call sign" situation. If all they changed was their call sign, I'd agree, but virtually everything that makes up the station's identity – offices, studio, staff, programming lineup, listener base, and probably the bank accounts, business license, and IRS tax ID – stayed with the call letters, only the transmitter and its facility ID became disassociated from the rest. I suspect if I visited the WTAR-850 studio today, I'd might find 1920's and '30s WTAR-790 memorabilia on their wall, not so in the WNIS-790 studio. From an FCC licensing perspective, it would make perfect sense to call it a call sign change, but from the public's point of view (station audience, Wikipedia readership, local historian) it was frequency change, not much different from a street address change.

But I'm starting to ramble and repeat myself, and suspect that each of us are fast in out opinions and each correct from our chosen perspective, so perhaps other opinions would be useful. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the the naming convention guidelines suggests moving both articles, I've seen it done both ways. I think historic call signs, as is the case here, deserve special consideration. This particular case isn't all that complicated though as we're just dealing with article content (the "frequency swap" was in 1997 so no article moves obviously). Personally I feel that the article "edit history" should stay with the facility ID as was already stated by 121a0012, but I see no problem with the majority of the call sign history sticking with the calls while also including a brief history on previous formats/call signs on the new frequency. YMMV RobDe68 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on a possible bot task

As I've been going about various radio-related cleanup tasks, I've come to realize that a lot of articles are still using the separate {{AMARB}}, {{AML}}, and {{AMQ}} templates rather than the consolidated {{AM station data}} template that's recommended at the project page (or their FM equivalents).
I thought about making that my next cleanup, but then realized that's a perfect job for a bot instead. So, I wanted to ask whether there'd be general agreement with — or, alternatively, any opposition to — my putting in a task request with AnomieBOT to have all uses of the individual templates in article space be replaced by the consolidated templates? I can't see any downside to this, but perhaps those of you with more article creation experience than I might know a wrinkle that I've overlooked. Mlaffs (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no real benefit to a mass change since the consolidated template simply invokes the three individual templates. Also, the potential for chaos is high if the bot is not very carefully crafted. It's sometimes acceptable and sometimes necessary for the FMQ template to be fed a callsign appended with -FM so as to distinguish it from a -LP in the FCC search but that same -FM would break both the FML search (and there's a whole separate LPL template for the -LP stations) and the FMARB search. I do create new articles using consolidated template and often convert existing articles to it but only while performing other editing tasks and only after careful evaluation of the current functionality. - Dravecky (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See, and this is why D is my favourite letter in BRD. I figured the primary benefit of the consolidated templates were that they ensured none of the individual ones were missed, but I hadn't thought through to the unique cases you've so nicely outlined. Based on that, yep, bad idea. Of course, that turns my mind to two new questions:

1. Is there value in adding some of that detail to the article creation guidelines? If I'd been creating an article from scratch, I wouldn't have known about needing to handle the FMQ differently from the FML or FMARB in some cases, although I'd like to hope I would have figured it out when I tested the links before saving them into the article. I think that's valuable information.
2. Maybe a better idea than the template replacement is a toolserver report analyzing the intersection between articles linking to the three individual templates, to uncover articles that are using one or more but not all three? Or do peoples' experiences suggest that I'm looking for a unicorn (something that doesn't exist)? Mlaffs (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a unicorn hunt—there are plenty of articles with one, two, or none of these three templates and every US radio station article should have all three, in one form or another. - Dravecky (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I use the seperate {{AMARB}}, {{AML}}, and {{AMQ}} templates rather than the consolidated {{AM station data}} template as I personally dislike the consolidated one. I like to be able to manually put in the information and be able to correct the information that the consolidated one sometimes gets wrong. I have actually considered nominating the consolidated one for deletion as unnecessary that I dislike it so much but haven't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 22:59

Well, then I think I've made the acquaintance of just the toolserver savant that can help with that. I'll give him a ping and see what he can put together. In case anyone's interested in seeing it, I already got him to modify one of his existing toolserver reports slightly so that it's possible to identify most articles that are using the radio station infobox but that haven't been tagged with the project template on their talk page. I say "most" because the talk page has to exist to see that the templates not there — it's not able to find the situations where the talk page hasn't been created at all. Mlaffs (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have pointed to the report, which is here. Just put Infobox Radio station in the Template field, WikiProject Radio Stations in the Category field, and click the inverse box. Mlaffs (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Feasibly, I might be able to help with that, on a very basic level. *ponders* JPG-GR (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Got the queries back — there are about 2600 articles that are aren't using either of the consolidated templates, and that aren't using all three of the individual templates. There are some false positives — unlicensed stations, for example — but I see much gnoming ahead! Mlaffs (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Callsign vs. brand name

In what special situation should a radio station article go at its brand name?? (See the requested move at Talk:99X (Atlanta). Georgia guy (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we always go with the call sign no matter what. I don't know of any special situation where we have gone with the brand name....ever to be honest. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 22:18

I don't know if it's a special situation or not, but most European station articles are named for the station branding. But for North American stations it's always the government issued call sign. RobDe68 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from, according to what many Wikipedians think, 99X (Atlanta). Georgia guy (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is ongoing but it will most likely wind up on the -HD2 call letters as an article name with the translator and 99X (Atlanta) as redirects, the way that Seattle's "Radio Hankook" is a redirect to KSUH. - Dravecky (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus, and so there was no move, and the article stayed at 99X (Atlanta). Georgia guy (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion but I think it was closed a bit too early. Just added my $.02 there. Based on the conventions that have worked well for WP:WPRS for years, it should be moved to WWWQ-HD2

Inspiration FM

Declining speedy deletion; anyone want to have a look? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

KBXZ

Is it possible that a Fox Sports Radio affiliate — purportedly #3 in its market among its target demographic? There's an active website.

99X (Atlanta) , WPRS feedback needed

The discussion continues at Talk:99X (Atlanta)#Requested move further discussion and is desperately in need of input from WP:WPRS. Please visit and share your thoughts. There are several ideas swirling about but the one that has any chance of gaining concensus first is that 99X (Atlanta) is not an appropriate name. Several editors are looking to WP:WPRS to update its guidelines based on this station and I'm personally not convinced that this is necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The #Policy proposal above is not for this one station. Several other stations are popping up with the same thing, which only recently became an issue.  –radiojon (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ROAD DOG RADIO

I DONT KNOW WHY YOU ARE ON THE RADIO AT ALL.. TRUCKERS WONT TO TALK ABOUT TRUCKS FUEL MILLAGE TRUCK UP DATES NEWS THAT INVOLE US NOT THE GARBAGE YOU TALK ABOUT NOW. WHAT HAPPEN . AND ROAD DOG WHAT KIND OF A NAME IS THAT. TRUCKERS ARE NOT DOG. COME ON. ROAD KING THATS A NAME. I CANNOT BELEVE THE JUNK YOU PUT ON AS NEWS . IM A WOMAN TRUCKER AND CHANGING UP THE CHANEL LIKE YOU HAVE IS NOT GOOD . I HAVE HEARD ALL I CAN STAND. AND I MUST TELL YOU YOU LOST ME AS A CUSTOMER. I WONT TO HERE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME NOT COOKIN IN THE TRUCK OR WHAT KIND OF SHOES TO WHERE IF I WONTED TO HERE THAT I COULD GO ON OVER TO MARTH STEWART.. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE WAY YOU WHERE IF YOU WONT TRUCKERS TO TUNE IN TO YOU. IM GOINT SOMEWHERE ELSE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...IM SO MAD AT WHAT YOU DID .I CANNOT THINK STRAIGHT GOOD BYE SANDY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.242.116 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We apologize for the inconvenience. - Dravecky (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do what with the who now? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 28, 2009 @ 01:50

My bet is that Sandy is talking about Road Dog Trucking. How she wound up here to make the comment is a mystery beyond comprehension.- Dravecky (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Radio Locator

Is anybody else able to bring up a station's page on Radio Locator? I can go all over the website but whenever I try to run a search or bring up a station's page, I get this "The page you requested could not be displayed because of the following error: Cannot check IP: Permission denied". This error is new (to me) and any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Got the same error message. My first thought was they blocked anything coming out of Wikipedia's servers, but I get the same error message when I enter radio-locator.com manually. So, it is obviously something wrong with Radio Locator's software. I would give it 12 to 24 hours, then take it from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 28, 2009 @ 08:11

Yep, I was getting the same error message last night — quite annoying while I was adding missing look-up templates to articles that I couldn't check those ones were working properly. I've just checked again now and the site is still broken. Mlaffs (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be working again now. Mlaffs (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Top Charts

Hey guys. We have recently released a charting feature on our main site RadioHog.com. It shows the most 100 played songs (in respective order) of the past 7 days. To check it out: http://www.radiohog.com/top/KISS.txt. We will not be posting any links to ourselves on any other pages because of the obvious conflict of interest. Just letting you know that this feature is out there and you guys can use it however you see fit. Thanks, --Radiohog (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for HD channels being broadcast in regular FM

There is a discussion taking place on Talk:99X (Atlanta) about the new name of the article. The station was WNNX for 15 years, but was then moved to WWWQ-HD2, where it stayed for 15 months. During this time, the 99X (Atlanta) article described the station as no longer existing. Since then, however, the station has begun broadcasting at W250BC. The station, however, remains at WWWQ-HD2, so it is being broadcast at 97.9 FM (W250BC) as well as 99.7-HD2 (WWWQ-HD2). What is the correct naming convention for this situation? Some believe it should be at W250BC, since that is how it is usually heard. Some think it should be at WWWQ-HD2, since that is the originating signal, where the station actually begins. Others believe it should stay at 99X (Atlanta), since that is how it is known, particularly since nobody thinks of it as W250BC or WWWQ-HD2, but rather by its old call letters (WNNX, now Rock 100.5). Any input would be helpful; thank you! --Evil Eccentric (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it originates from WWWQ, it should be WWWQ-HD2 and a redirect on W250BC to that page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 04:57

I first read about this station launching a few days ago and was going to move the 99X article but thought I should look into the matter a little closer instead of performing a hasty move. It turns out that technically W250BC is still considered a translator for WNNX broadcasting the HD2 channel from sister station WWWQ (still within the FCC definition of a translator). And since the WP:WPRS guidelines for translators states "... Translators should be included in the parent station's article and should not have their own page.", I would say that there should be a mention of 99X on the WNNX article regarding its translator signal with a link to the main, mostly historic, 99X article (perhaps with a better name). That's my 2 cents. RobDe68 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an example where I think it's reasonable for the HD2 program service to be given its own separate article. This case isn't even the only one in Atlanta -- there's a company leasing out the HD2 on one of the rimshot FMs (I forget which one) that has, or is planning to, put the programming on an analog translator from one of the tall east-side towers (I forget which one). There's also one like this in Manchester, N.H. (The other case, where the HD2 is simulcast on a primary station, should continue to be listed under the callsign of that primary.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The WP:WPRS guidelines are pretty clear. Now if we wanted to go about changing the guidelines regarding translator signal broadcasting separate programming than its parent station, then that's a different matter. RobDe68 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a very minor change could resolve this. Change Translators should be included in the parent station's article to Translators should be included in the initial transmitting station's article or Translators should be included in the originating station's article, or anything similar. I think this is the intent of the guidance which was written before the issue with HD channels was widely know. Another option would be to include it in both to the extent needed. Clearly if the owner is not providing the material being broadcast, then that article should only list this as a translator that is owned along with the source of the the broadcast feed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy proposal

I propose that the addendum be made that analog FM stations simulcast by an HD-only channel on another station be treated as separate stations (including locating each article at its "translator" callsign) in Wikipedia, the way they are treated by stations and listeners, for the following reasons:

• These stations use the FM "translator" frequency as their branding/moniker/identity. Even without other factors, this fact makes each its own separate and distinct radio station in this situation.

• The signal has been majorly altered, therefore it is by definition not a translator (regardless of what the FCC wants to call it).

• The idea that they are "retransmitting" another station is entirely a technicality and a loophole that gets them around the anti-origination rules.

• They are essentially super-LPFM stations (which also have their own articles), although being unlimited in height and having a higher power limit (250W, vs. 10/100W at only 30m), many actually have the broadcast range of class A stations.

• It is clear that these stations are considered and are used, both by the licensee/owner and listeners, as the primary station.

• Almost nobody has even one HD Radio receiver, and many have no idea what it even is. It may never even succeed. Therefore it is irrelevant for the vast majority of people, like a subcarrier.

• Almost everyone has multiple FM receivers. Millions of people can hear the FM, while maybe thousands can hear the "HD", which was the whole point of putting it on an FM "translator" in the first place.

• The alphanumeric broadcast callsign may be unusual for FM, but it is common on LPTV stations (which do not have a differentiation based on translating or originating programming), so it would by no means be outside of the standards.

• "HD" channels do not deserve their own articles, but unique FM stations do, including these stations.

• -HD2 and -HD3 are not a part of the callsign, therefore putting these stations in that title format is inconsistent with the policy of using the legal callsign.

• WP:WPRS was written well before the HD-to-FM issue came about. While the policy still makes perfect sense for stations that are actually translating another FM, it does not make sense in these new cases for the reasons outlined above.

 –radiojon (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some feedback about this? This is becoming a more relevant issue daily, and definitely needs some consideration. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is... where's the proposal? Yes, something needs to be done. I think we all agree on that. We need to develop some verbage to add to our naming conventions and then discuss it. JPG-GR (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also see no proposal here, just a list of issues which noone seems to disagree with.--RadioFan (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is at the top. I proposed that the addendum be made that analog FM stations simulcast by an HD-only channel on another station be treated as separate stations (including locating each article at its "translator" callsign) in Wikipedia, the way they are treated by station owners and listeners.  –radiojon (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Responses

Oppose Just as an AM station might use its FM translator frequency in its branding (see WSYA) it's not the ephemeral branding that rules the day—it's the base callsign. If these are HD channels then I guarantee you that they're using the KAAA-HD2 callsign in their legal ID or they'll be facing big FCC fines. I'm all for a redirect from the translator callsign and/or from the branding to article properly named for the base callsign. - Dravecky (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. An AM station is a real station, an HD subchannel is not (especially since almost nobody can hear it), so that is not applicable to the situation. Also, there is no such thing as a callsign with an -HD2 or -HD3 suffix. While it must be mentioned as part of the station ID, so must the city of license, which is not a part of the callsign either.  –radiojon (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll support something along the lines of; if a station originates its own material on an HD sub channel, then a section covering this should be included in the main article. If there is a need for splitting out this material, any resulting article should be named callsign (HDn). So in the case below, the article would be located at WWWQ (HD2). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ratings data (jump)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations/Archive_2009#Ratings_data

Concern that using ratings data is copyright, particularly quoting from Radio & Records magazine, which contains stern copyright language. FWIW, "fair use" obviates that language, but it's irrelevant anyway, since the primary data and source is Arbitron, which allows a limited blanket license for use of their data, here:

http://www.onlinepressroom.net/arbitron/

From that page, posted by permission: "Arbitron posts 12+ Estimates for Monday through Sunday, 6AM to Midnight for each of the quarterly surveys on http://www.arbitron.com/home/ratings.htm

At Arbitron's discretion, additional estimates may be provided. Reporters who need additional local market radio ratings for a news story should call [phone deleted] or e-mail a request to [address deleted] To understand what we provide to news reporters and what constitutes "fair use" of our copyrighted estimates, please read our guidelines below.

Arbitron is willing to grant to newspapers and other publications that write about radio a nonexclusive license to publish a limited, newsworthy amount of copyrighted data. (continues at link)

Arbitron ratings data is publicly available at the Arbitron.com website

Agree that most articles should not include ratings data, as it goes out of date quickly and only in rare instances is it meaningful to an encyclopedic effort ("Howard Stern rose to #1 in the market after only 3 months, dethroning long-time market leader blah blah blah"

Station ratings entered by exuberant DJs or station managers should be deleted, or this will quickly become a contest of competing claims like "We're #1 among women, 18-34 on Tuesdays between 2-3PM." 71.203.217.81 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Rick Starr

Chiming in on this, I have no idea about any of this copyright stuff, but the Radio Station Infobox template has a field for Arbitron ratings, If this is true someone needs to remove it or people like me are going to assume that we can use the ratings. --Gold Man60 Talk 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should pass this off to legal and let them get a hold of Arbitron and see if using their ratings information on Wikipedia is OK. We already removed the Arbitron market information from the radio station market templates after the Nielsen copyright mess last year. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

99X (Atlanta)

After a while of being at WWWQ-HD2, Radiojon moved the article back to 99X (Atlanta). I'm very sure there will never be a consensus on what the article will be. Georgia guy (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a page move from 99X (Atlanta) back to WWWQ-HD2. That is where the station orginiates from and that is where the article should be located. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the move only because no consensus, or even a majority of any opinion, was reached. Regarding where it should be, consider that -HD2 does not exist as a legal suffix for any radio station. Also, the station always identifies as "99X on 97.9", which is W250BC, legally assigned to parent station WNNX, not WWWQ.[5]  –radiojon (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that this is not an acceptable name based on the naming conventions here. If you disagree with the move, it should really be discussed at Deletion review, which I think is the best avenue. The other option would to to relist at WP:RM I'm likely going to move it back pending additional discussion about the proper name. Since move to 99X (Atlanta) is controversial, it should not have been done without some discussion. Also discussions are not votes and decisions are made by consensus and the strength of the associated arguments. Also, did you even bother to discuss this with the administrator that did the move before you took action? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Vegaswikian for notifying me of this thread. As I noted when I closed the discussion, there hasn't been a clear consensus on the general rules here. However, in that specific case, consensus was that 99X was not the appropriate title, and that WWWQ-HD2, while also not perfect, would be the least-controversial alternative. I also explicitly noted that the move as implemented could very well be temporary; what is needed is a convention on how to treat this category of articles. Until this project has agreed on a naming convention, it seems pointless to argue and re-argue the point about one particular radio station. The article will stay at WWWQ-HD2 until a consensus emerges to move or merge it elsewhere, and I have move-protected it to ensure this. If any editor feels that I mis-read the discussion (I am willing to admit that I am not perfect), then they may seek the opinion of other editors and admins at WT:RM or WP:AN. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While nobody's perfect, in this case you're perfectly correct. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

KEC80

The Atlanta station box has NOAA Weather Radio KEC80 listed among normal AM & FM stations. When did policy change to add NOAA? If it has, I'll add WXJ39 to Providence.Stereorock (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WQKE308

Another one I've downgraded from speedy deletion to proposed deletion; check it out. Btw, I notice you guys don't subscribe to WP:Article alerts (that I can tell from your project page); that's an easy way to get bot-listed notices of proposed deletions, AfDs, speedies, etc. that have your project tag. Just adding your project tag would be easier for me than posting a notice here, and it might be useful for you guys, too. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We were talking about Article Alerts somewhere above, but it never went anywhere. As for WQKE308, I would say that since it does technically have an FCC license (of sorts), it is protected under the standard radio station notability that is given to all radio stations. Other might disagree with me on that, but that is just this editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the page as best as I possibly can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, I've deprodded. Does anyone object to adding {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription|display=none}} to your project page? This won't add anything to your project page, it will just result in the creation of the page WP:WikiProject Radio Stations/Article alerts, which will get updated daily with the status of deletion and review process. You don't have to look, of course, but that's easier for me than having to post here every time I prod an article and look for your input. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no objections so far so I'll add it. I'll stop reporting proposed deletions and AfDs; that's the page to watchlist if you want to keep an eye on those things. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to add it or I would have done so myself :) If you want to add it and then add it to the project page, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I was the one who brought this up back when it was first launched. Dan, we have to stop meeting like this! I've added the parameter for the name of the project banner, as it's different from the project name itself. One thing to keep in mind is that it'll only include articles that are tagged on the talk page with the {{RadioStationsProject}} banner, so much of the new stuff that you come across in your patrolling, Dan, won't actually get reported. I think this is a good add anyway, though. Mlaffs (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the Alerts doesn't report speedy deletions. You can find the full list of what is reported at WP:AALERTS. I would also (if you decide to keep hiding the alerts) suggest making the link a bit more prominent (for example, a mention near the top of the page) so it gets more visibility (and therefore more eyes). Last thing is that you need to show bot edits to see it updated in your watchlist. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New Proposal?

More of a question than a comment! Where can I find the information concerning the new play and pay strategy for the predominantly black stations that would lead them to go out of business? - Alabar7 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are refering to pay-for-play system that will affect all radio stations, not just black radio stations. To my knowledge, I don't think we have an article yet on that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reference to the proposals floating around that would make analog radio stations pay the same copyright royalties as digital radio stations? 121a0012 (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More or less....give this a read and it will explain the Radio Performance Tax (the actual name of the thing) a little better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rational Alchemy

Article about this radio show was redirected to KRFC, its parent radio station, as a result of an AfD more than a year ago. Appears to have since been recreated. Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the axe to the worst of the article and it's not speedy-eligible (too different from the version that went to AfD) but I'd not object if a PROD tag found its way onto the article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't PROD it because it's already gone through an AfD; I think the only option would be to take it back there, or else just be bold and redirect it again per how the first AfD was closed. Mlaffs (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given its unreferenced, orphaned, and neglected nature along with the AfD result and the seeming conflict of interest of the editor who recreated the article, I have boldly redirected the article to KRFC. - Dravecky (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

REC Networks ("Recnet") for USA stations

Any reason why there isn't a template (or just overall support) for REC searches for USA stations? REC is not strictly a Canada tool. Actually, it was a USA FCC tool for years prior to Canada support being added. The input format is http://www.recnet.com/cdbs/fmq.php?call=KREC where "KREC" is the call sign. For USA stations, the FCC Facility ID number can also be used... http://www.recnet.com/cdbs/fmq.php?facid=126554

Also, the appropriate name of the search is the Broadcast Query at REC Networks. "recnet" is just the domain name.

Thanks for your support! Recnet (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I can answer this question. The reason we use RECNet for just Canadian stations is that Canada doesn't have a website for CRTC (their version of the FCC) like the FCC does. So, for license information and the like, we use RECNet. If it is shown that RECNet's coverage maps are better than Radio-Locator's, one day coverage might be added to US stations (I am not sure if that is something coming down the line or not). Hope this answers your question. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Canadian government does have a call sign database similar to the FCC's — it just isn't structured in a way that makes it possible to use it in an {{AMQ}} or {{FMQ}} equivalent template (i.e. searching for a particular call sign doesn't actually produce a distinct URL that can be used as a direct link to that station's information page.) Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologizes. I was under the assumption that there wasn't one at all. My goof :S Thanks for the clarification. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The radio-locator site is great for coverage maps and REC is not in the business to provide coverage maps. The REC site has coverage maps based on various parameters. However, the REC site does contain a lot more significant information on the license and applications as well as more historical information. This is a very distinct level of coverage compared to radio-locator. REC and RadioLocator should be offered side-by-side. Also, REC's coverage is non-commercial where radio-locator is commercial and contains pop-ups. I do appreciate the use of REC for the Canadian records. Recnet (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see RECnet used here on Wiki on US stations. Anyone opposed to its use? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see it, too — YMMV, I find it far easier to use and far more comprehensive than radiolocator. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Apologies if it's a stupid question, but since I don't know the history, I'll ask anyway — what's the rationale for categorizing down to the 'Radio stations in (city)' level, particularly if there are templates for every market? Is there a guideline to determine what size city is large enough to have its own category? Not looking to create any — I don't quite understand why a lower level than state or province would be needed — but just want to make sure what the norms are in case I run into Category:Radio stations in Podunk. Mlaffs (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just posting again here to get it pop up on watchlists. For concrete examples, I'll offer Category:Radio stations in Dickinson, North Dakota and Category:Radio stations in Minot, North Dakota, which are cities with populations of approximately 16,000 and 36,000, respectively. Is that fine a categorization really necessary? Mlaffs (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is "no" but past discussions of this topic failed to reach any sort of consensus beyond that fact that (almost) no article should have more than one such geographical category. If it's in Category:Radio stations in Portland, Oregon then it should not also be included in Category:Radio stations in Oregon. - Dravecky (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons it's useful is that if a city-level radio stations category doesn't exist, then each individual radio station has to go directly into the city's main category, which clutters that one up unnecessarily if there are more than two or three stations. There's no population cutoff below which a city wouldn't deserve its own radio stations category, nor should there be — my own rule of thumb, however, is to apply a category size cutoff, by which a city shouldn't get its own radio stations category until there are at least three or four articles available to actually be filed in it, and a parenting rule, by which a city shouldn't get its own radio stations category until it has a dedicated "City, State/Province" category to parent the radio subcat geographically. A city category should also, IMO, group only stations which are actually officially licensed to that city itself, not suburban rimshotters. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Defunct stations in market templates

I'm fairly sure that I've seen it done before, but do we have a standard on whether or not we include defunct stations in the templates for the markets they used to serve? I'm not thinking on the main AM, FM, or call sign lines, but on a separate defunct line? I ask because WXND-LP is tagged an an orphan. The template for its former market is included on the page, but it isn't in the template — adding it would be an easy solution to the orphan problem, although obviously not the right one if doing so would be contrary to the project's usual approach. Mlaffs (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's generally permissible to do so — {{Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Radio}}, for example, lists CKCY and CFYN. In fact, IMO it's necessary when it comes to putting the articles in a useful and clear context. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Radio Station Articles Up for Deletion

Please see here and here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WNUA

Chicago station changed format yesterday from smooth jazz to Spanish pop but did not change their call letters; however AdamDeanHall took it upon himself to do a complicated cut-and-paste move which was wholly unneeded; thus WNUA's entire editing history now exists under Mega 95.5 (a major no-no), while the station article (which was changed to remove the calls in the lede and infobox completely and I have just fixed) exists under WNUA with only a day-long editing history. Can an admin clean up this mess if they see this (i.e. put WNUA back on it's existing EH and just obliterate the Mega 95.5 rd)? Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - JPG-GR (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Radiolicious (apparent) spammer

An IP user has spent the day adding unreferenced info about membership in Radiolicious to dozens of radio station articles. If somebody who is not typing this from a portable device hundreds of miles from home could take a look at this contribution history and take some sort of action. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done aw come on, you can edit a measly 50 articles from a cell phone? A couple of these edits were properly sourced and were left as is.--RadioFan (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Radio and Records shutting down

There goes another good 3rd party reliable source. The bible of the radio industry since the early 70s, Radio and Records announced it was stopping publication today and that all staff positions were eliminated. Some positions related to charts are being transferred to Billboard magazine. story in Media Week--RadioFan (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can still get ratings information from AllAccess.com, it is free to register. So far, that is the only other site I know of. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

R&R was also a great source for format changes, personnel movement, syndication deals, station sales, and a ton of other radio industry news. I guess the declining ad market, the implosion of the major broadcast companies, and the current economy plus the rise of web-based publications finally did it in. R&R will be missed. - Dravecky (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal re dab and radio frequencies

I'm posting this in both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

The canonical dab is reached by a user because George Foo is an eminent scientist, a hip-hop artist and an athlete. The user is interested in the scientist, the artist or the athlete, and (with rare exceptions) has little interest in the coincidence that they have the same name. In this case, a well-written dab is a simple list, organized in an obvious way, so the user can move on to the subject of interest.

In some cases, a dab may be more functional that simply disambiguating otherwise coincidences.

Radio frequencies are a perfect example of this phenomenon. A user searching for a particular frequency may also be interested in two dimension of the dab - various stations in various locations sharing the same frequency, and frequencies that are nearby (in the sense of spectrum) as well as nearly (in the sense of location).

Thus a good dab for radio frequencies will help the user in bother areas of interest. In fact, the well-designed dab may move from being a meta-article to an actual article. For example, if I'm interested in 1080 AM, I may be interested in the geographical spread of the various stations utilizing this frequency. If the dab had a map showing this information, it could be helpful in its own right. In addition, the map might use pogs of various color r size to indicate the strength of the station, adding further useful information (I realize a day and night version might be necessary).

Second, the user may be interested in adjacent frequencies, in the case of bleed-over (or whatever the right technical term may be). A well-designed page would be organized so it would be easy to do this.

Wikipedia is a big place. Whenever I think up a new idea, the odds are high it has already been implemented, and I just have to find it. If something like this has already been done, or is in progress, please point me to it. If not, I'll work up a mock-up of how I think such a page might work, so we can discuss whether it is useful. My current thinking (starting with just AM frequencies) is a large page, one section for each frequency - and each frequency containing a table of stations, sortable by station, city and state (separate tables by country), and a map showing the location and strength of each station. The dab redirect would bring you to the section of the page, so you can scroll up or down to see adjacent frequencies. I'd also like to do overlay maps of adjacent frequencies, but that for another day.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was interested up until "My current thinking (starting with just AM frequencies) is a large page" - as has been shown in the past, pages that aim to list ALL radio stations of any time in some way are monstrously large. JPG-GR (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose While this is an interesting way to look at radio stations, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Keep in mind that while this is an English Wikipedia and most of the articles are focused on the US, we have to consider radio world wide. In the United States alone, there are 223 stations licensed for 1080AM. There are several dozen more each in Canada and Mexico and that's just North America. As JPG-GR mentions articles that address radio as a whole are very difficult to maintain. Also there are existing resources for finding adjacent and vacant frequencies on the web. Now that you bring it up though, we could use a good article on the concept of adjacent frequencies, drift and bleed.--RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"there are 223 stations licensed for 1080AM." Yet the 1080 AM dab lists only 30 entries for the US. If all get WP entries, the existing dab page will be large. If they are listed in a collapsible table, the viewed page for ALL frequencies might be smaller than the dab for just one.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Smaller in appearance. RIDICULOUSLY LARGER in code. Oppose. JPG-GR (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Also there are existing resources for finding adjacent and vacant frequencies on the web."" By definition, there are existing resource to find everything in WP (at least everything that isn't in violation of WP:OR). The very point of WP is to put EXISTING information into a user friendly, consistent format.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I proposed this idea awhile back and I support it now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a crude mockup - hope to have something tomorrow.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Active AfD regarding KISN (Portland)

Comments are sought and welcome at the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KISN (Portland). ---kilbad (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal regarding radio frequencies

I've taken a stab at created a mockup. See User:Sphilbrick/Sandbox for proposal.

I agree it isn't really a dab, (so I created it as a new entry, rather than adding to item above). I'm thinking about making it a set of lists in a template.

Pluses

• Sortable table allows user to look up call letters easily, or the city or the state.
• Map shows locations of station ( or transmitter). I presume that the FCC attempted to create geographical separation between station with same frequency - this map helps confirm the extent that occurred.
• The pog size indicates the strength of the (daytime) signal)

Minuses

• The choice of a 48 state map means AL, HI and other US possessions don't work well.
• I haven't attempted Canada, Mexico or Spain.
• It would be an overly large page if all frequencies are on one page - looking into making it a template.

Issues

• I picked a crude metric for pog size in the 1070 map, my differentiation is <1000 watts, 5000, 10000, >10000. Someone with more knowledge might suggest more appropriate break points (I rescaled the 1080 map to linear transformation of log of station power)
• The color of the pog could be used to indicate some aspect of the station - any suggestions?
• The value in seeing an overlay of maps of adjacent frequencies, but I haven't thought of a clean way to do it. Could use pog color perhaps.
• I have decided whether the other countries should have their own separate set of lists, or if it should be incorporated into this is some way. Suggestions welcome.--SPhilbrickT 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not gonna say much - I'll let others chime in - but I want to point out two views from opposite sides of the spectrum - the use of the maps is very cool but the maintaining of these pages would be completely impractical. JPG-GR (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a dab page this would not fly for me. For a list page it is a good start. I agree with JPG-GR that the maps are problematic. I'd rather see the table expanded to include the power (day and night), status (so that defunct calls can be listed), and and maybe a few other items. If you look at List of casinos in the United States it may serve as a model. There each state has the same data and the data is also included in a single list. Here we could have a list with all AM frequencies that can be sorted by readers. Provides more options. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus, don't we already have disambiguation pages for 1070 AM and 1080 AM and such? - Dravecky (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the dab pages exist. However, the canonical dab page is a simple list. The list contains call letters, cities, and states. By definition, the list can only be sorted one way, and the choice has been alphabetical by call letter. I can imagine a user preferring to view the list sorted by city or state. Non-issue for a short list, but some of the lists are long enough that a different sort would make it better. So I converted the list to a sortable table, and it was promptly reverted, because dabs are supposed to be lists.

I decided that it was still valuable to have the ability to sort any of the three ways, so modified my proposal so that the page would be an article page rather than just a dab. Once it is an article page, one could have more content that just disambiguation information, so I thought it would be helpful to show a map of the locations, and the relative strength of the stations. I still think this would be valuable, but creating the pages turned out to be a little more work than I anticipated, so I'm working on other projects at the moment. Once I learn more about creating templates, I'll revisit the project.--SPhilbrickT 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scanradioshow

I downgraded this from speedy deletion to proposed deletion, and I've got some questions. How quick should I be to propose a merge from particular progams on a radio station to that radio station? That is, are you guys pretty quick to accept content from new pages concerning programming if it's well-sourced, or do you need to see these kinds of new pages as promotional? Also, if it's mentioned that a program on a radio station is always available online, does that in your view make it web content, and therefore deletable under WP:CSD#A7? I'm asking because I don't like to use {{db-spam}} if I can convince myself that an article might have been written by a listener rather than a producer, and it's conceivable that this article was. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not solely web content nor originated for the web so I'd say A7 does not apply here. I'm all for adding a well-sourced paragraph about a program to the radio station's article as it can improve the station article and relieve notability concerns often raised about local radio show articles. - Dravecky (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reactivating Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)

A couple of days ago, I have nominated the article WCRX-LP for deletion (discussion still active here) as the station clearly fails WP:GNG. But in doing so, I was totally unaware that, historically, any station that has a class D or higher license from the FCC gets a free pass at notability (as is the case in some other areas, for example, any building listed in the National Register of Historic Places). When that was pointed out to me from Wikipedia:BROADCAST (I have just created this redirect), I did some digging and I found Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations), a guideline page that has been marked as inactive, even obsolete, about three years ago.

My wish here is to reactivate that page, or an amended version of it, to avoid more unnecessary AfD's and get a clear consensus of what kind of stations would get a free pass at notability, and which ones would fall under WP:GNG if they fail the guidelines specific to radio stations.

Granted, once consensus is reached, a cleanup might follow with a massive group AfD (then again, maybe not), but I believe that the long term benefits of having clear-cut clearly stated notability guidelines will avoid unnecessary AfD's with keep decisions, as I have been told that there have been quite a few such discussions in recent weeks. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're on to something here, but I don't know where to go from here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• That essay is a bit of a disaster in the making and does not reflect anything close to either current consensus or reality. Even the basic premise, that there are just so darned many radio stations, is flawed on several levels. Maybe in 2006 it seemed a daunting task to create article for all US radio stations but here in 2009 that job is largely done. Moving the goalposts now could results in years of effort lost, months wasted at AfD, and serve no useful purpose to the encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about "moving the goalposts" here. I'm talking about creating an easy-to-find map to show where they are. You see, if you think the essay is a disaster, then it is time to update it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the map laid out in Notability (media) is quite clear and reflective of consensus and reality. The half-baked abandoned essay you found was never adopted, never properly vetted, and reflects only the opinion of a few editors looking to make mass article deletion easier. The essay you unearthed makes wild claims like "A conservative estimate of the entire country might be 40,000." The FCC has the real numbers, of course. In reality, there are just 14,253 AM and FM stations plus 4611 TV stations, including the LPs, as of December 31, 2008. (Translators and boosters are not independently notable.) Deciding notability by class is also a bit crazed. C3 class FM stations in western US states crank out 100,000 watts of power to serve far fewer folks than an A class FM near a major city. I'm not saying there should be no essay—I'm saying we already have one so we don't need to revive a pet project that died three years ago for very good reasons. - Dravecky (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a valid essay? Then tell me why we should not simply redirect that dead project to it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• No need for a shovel here; WP:STICK, long since dead and buried. Tothwolf (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just made a change to Template:Notabilityguide to address my initial concern. That's the kind of changes I'm talking about, and I feel there are a few more changes to make. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You're probably going to get reverted on that change (but not by me) since the Media essay is an essay and has not yet been formally accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Would moving it to "Active proposals" address your concern? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Here is the amended change. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I propose the following change to WP:BROADCAST:

...Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. Also, local affiliates of notable networks are themselves presumed notable unless they are simply translator stations (see below). For instance, even a 10-watt...

and inverting the paragraphs Radio stations and Translator stations, the latter updated to reflect the fact it also applies to radio as well as TV.

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The section on translator stations already includes this sentence: "The same guidelines apply to translator stations in radio." So there's no need to 'update' it to reflect that it also applies to radio. What do you believe the "local affiliates" text insertion would serve to clarify? - Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if that is not spelled out anywhere, you should expect a daily dose of unneeded AfD's on such articles (not from me, I should say, but from countless other users). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) is a dead-end when it comes to project pages, I propose redirecting it wholesale to Wikipedia:Notability (media). I don't see the usefulness of preserving it "for historical purposes." Dravecky, do you understand that that is the kind of change I was talking about from day one, and that is what I meant by "reactivating" it? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reactivating and redirecting are completely separate concepts. I see no benefit to the defunct essay so replacing it with a redirect is certainly an option worth considering. - Dravecky (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • A redirect as described here seems to be completely reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Presenters/Schedule

Is it true that current schedules/list of presenters, with references, are not allowed on radio articles ? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.143.136 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you can not list schedules per WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Current schedules are not allowed but notable presenters, properly referenced, can be included in a paragraph about that station's programming. It's a slightly fuzzy line but "syndicated programming includes talk shows hosted by Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz" would be acceptable but "weekend part-timers include T.J., Spanky, and Bob" would not. - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

KONK

Gotta love that callsign (Key West is sometimes known as the Conch Republic). Anyway, I just pulled this out of the db-spam queue. Someone was concerned that the article creator had COI (although I can't find it), but neutral editors would be appreciated, and a lot of work has already been done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a Part 15 broadcasting station. The standard notablity doesn't apply to Part 15s or Pirates. There are a couple Part 15s on here, but they are VERY few and far between. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that notability was an issue, I'll make sure it's got the right tags. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of references from reliable third-party sources towards notability and verifiability. No, this station does not enjoy the general notability of a licensed radio station but the news coverage so far does appear to push it just over the threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Category by frequency

Project members may want to weigh in on this discussion. I sense this has probably come up before and been judged to be a bad thing. Mlaffs (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps CFNY is not the best example...

Regarding this paragraph:

You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming (see CFNY-FM, for example) gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of.

CFNY may not be the best example, as it contains "a simple list of a station's on-air staff" in the Past Personalities section. That section is "a meaningless list of people [a reader who isn't already familiar with the station has] never heard of." (Maybe somebody more WP:BOLD than I am needs to go and change that list into prose and delete non-notable items.)

SlubGlub (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Even as the person who originally added CFNY as an example, I grant you that the past personalities section isn't the best demonstration of the point (and many of the people listed there will never have their own articles, so even if they were to be kept they should be unlinked). The point I was making pertained to how the station's current on-air lineup is handled with actual descriptions of the programming. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ah, fair enough! SlubGlub (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • That said, for what it's worth, I see that section has itself turned into a sludgy mess of unsourced trivia too, so I'm going to remove it as an example. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Back in March 2008, I requested some input regarding a pair of duplicate articles, European Radio Network and Euranet. They should be merged, because they're about the same thing, but at the time it wasn't quite clear which one should be the actual title and which should be the redirect. However I've just noticed that as of today, fully fifteen months after I first proposed the merger, they're still two separate articles with merge templates at the top. Could I put this one back on the agenda? Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From a quick look, I'd say merge European Radio Network into Euranet since that article appears to be more developed and has a better layout. Not sure of the name for the remaining article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

UCLAradio.com

Anyone familiar with UCLA's radio station? It appears to have a history as a traditional broadcast station, but now is internet streaming only. Was it ever licensed? Is this subject notable?--RadioFan (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio Locator templates

So I've been noticing over the last couple of weeks that the {{FML}} template seems to no longer be working for translators. Not sure what they've changed in their site, but it appears we need something new, and I think it needs to work slightly differently than what we have. Strictly from looking at their lookup addresses, it appears something like this might work:

[http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?sr=Y&s=C&call={{{1}}}&x=0&y=0 Radio Locator Information on {{{1}}}]<noinclude>[[Category:Radio external link templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude>

First question — has anybody else noticed the problem? Second question — can anyone else more adept at coding than I suggest something else that might work? Mlaffs (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it, but I tend to use Template:RadioTranslators for my pages where the are translators and leave the bottom links for the main page itself. For an example, please see KORB. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, you see, I thought that template looked like it was different when I was running into it too, and I was right. It used to have the Radio Locator links in it too, but JPG-GR (talk · contribs) commented them out back in February because of a bug — probably the same bug that I've noticed. Mlaffs (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about him commenting that out. If it is the same thing, that has been going on for about 6 months or so now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion some time back about potentially adding the REC Networks site for American stations — if there's an ongoing problem with RadioLocator, it might be worth adding Recnet now as either a complement or a substitute. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Call sign changes involving addition or removal of suffix

Please see the discussion initiated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Call_sign_changes_involving_addition_or_removal_of_suffix. Comments at that location from members of this project are encouraged, as the situation outlined could affect television and radio stations equally. Mlaffs (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned over there, universal consensus at WPRS is that call sign changes are call sign changes, even when it's "only" the addition or subtraction of a suffix from the legal call sign. - Dravecky (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Meridian, MS Radio Stations

I didn't know where to post this, so if I should post it somewhere else, please redirect me there, but I have a question. I've been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article and I'm about to put it up for GA (then hopefully FA), but before I do that, I would like the Media section updated. This area is not really my forté, so I was wondering if there were any experts here that could help me out. The radio stations listed in the section may or may not be up to date, but I don't know of any sources that would clarify which stations do or do not exist in the city, their frequencies, and their genres. Since you guys effectively "major" in the area, I thought maybe someone would know of such a source, or even be willing to contribute to the article. You can reply here if you want or drop a note at my talk page. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Weather radio stations

Is there a consensus on the notability of weather radio stations? For example WXJ-87--RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it goes to the same notability that all radio stations get. Has a license? It's notable. Isn't a translator? It's notable. Pretty standard notability there in my eyes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part, but most of these Wx stations rebroadcast on several frequencies from a single weather office. I think the "it's licensed" argument can get tricky here, because those radios they use at Home Depot (as an example) have licenses too, but how notable are those? User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument for NOAA weather radio stations is a little weaker than for AM/FM broadcast stations and, personally, would not have created KIH20 if there wasn't just so much darned media coverage of the station and the specific NWS facility. That said, while I don't strongly object to articles about them I'm not sure every single one needs an article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Whats the deal with this particular station? Why so much coverage?--RadioFan (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The NWS (stupidly) tried to shut it down and various politicians worked very hard to get it reopened. - Dravecky (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my practice has traditionally been to redirect stations on the weather radio band to their programming source (i.e. Weatheradio Canada, NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards, etc.) As far as I'm concerned, WXJ-87 doesn't look to me like it really needs an independent article — to me, at least, it's a textbook "redirect to programming source". It's not really notable in its own right — the parent organization is notable, certainly, but as they have little to no independent notability, individual transmitters should never have their own separate articles except in very rare, unusual circumstances like perhaps Dravecky's KIH20 (though even there, I'd still wonder if we couldn't just cover that in the parent organization's article anyway.)

We simply do not need an article about each individual NOAA Weather Radio transmitter. They're not independently notable as a rule, and there's nothing that can be said about the vast majority of them beyond the fact that they exist. But unfortunately, there's a whole category full of them. Ugh.

That said, I'm less certain of what to do for the handful of Canadian weather radio stations that actually broadcast on a regular FM signal in a national park. I still think those are fine as redirects to Weatheradio Canada rather than as independent articles, but there seems to be some disagreement on that point among other Canuck radiogeeks. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of radio stations?

By the way, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Now back to the question...

The Transhumanist 01:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

With countries or states, I could see the need for an outline, but with radio stations, it is kinda just "stations by state", "stations by metro area", "stations by country", "stations by format"...not enough, I think, to put into an outline. Now maybe someone could do better at an outline and make it neat looking, but I don't think there is enough for one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. I noticed that Outline of radio was missing a branch for radio stations, so I added them in at Outline of radio#Radio stations. Let me know what you think. The Transhumanist 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue of non-free logos on AN/I

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wider_issue
User:Black Kite is proposing sanctions on users who restore logo galleries.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't put words into my mouth please - I am not "proposing" anything, as sanctions are appropriate at the moment, but under-used. I was pointing out that admins need to be far harsher on users who consistently insert or restore large amounts of non-free content without explaining why such content passes all 10 criteria of WP:NFCC (and for that matter, the guidelines at WP:NFC). Black Kite 18:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no article for Radio station!

There's no article for Radio station! Just a redirect to Radio broadcasting, which talks about radio stations without even describing what they are.

You might want to take a look.

Perhaps there needs to be a new article for Radio station, or a section in Radio broadcasting for it.

What are your thoughts on this?

Does anyone here know enough about radio stations to right a good one?

The Transhumanist 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions - construction permits and lists of radio stations in "state"

Two questions on which I'd like to get some feedback:

1. Is there a general project position on creating articles for planned radio stations — that is, stations that have only to-date been issued construction permits, such as WZME. Category:Future radio stations and programming has 105 constituents, mixed between Canada and the U.S. I'd thought that the general position was that articles should only be created for fully-licensed stations, as the licensing process might never be completed. If that's correct, should we be putting these articles up for deletion? On the other hand, if the articles are fine, I'm happy to track the U.S. ones not yet created on the missing articles list — I just don't want to go to the trouble if it's not necessary.
2. In my travels, I'm noticing that there's inconsistency among the various "List of radio stations in state" pages as to whether or not they are supposed to include low-power FM stations; the language in the lede of some state pages specifically excludes them. Again, just wondering if there's a project position on this — there's no reason for the series of pages not to be consistent and I'm happy to work on making them so, but I need to know which direction to go.

Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To the first one - I'd argue that if a station merely has a CP it likely hasn't done anything yet to make itself notable. There's probably a rare exception.

To the second one - the answer is simple - when I ran the code to generate all the re-worked pages originally, I didn't include LP stations. Since then, it has become apparent that many editors wanted them included and have done so here and there. JPG-GR (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs: I think the relevant question for #1 is pretty simple: is it on the air? Stations may operate for years on Program Test Authority, or however long it takes for the FCC to actually issue the license. Some kinds of stations, like directional AMs, may spend more time in this state than others. Beyond that, I'd say to fall back on the GNG: if the existence of the CP gets covered in one or more reliable sources (not counting the regulators' databases), and there is some reliable-source information about future plans for the station, then it's worthy of an article -- particularly if the license is being held up as a result of some controversy. 121a0012 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

HD Radio Subchannels

Just thinking aloud here, but is there any way we could incorporate HD subchannels into the market templates like digital TV subchannels are included in the TV market boxes? Maybe not every HD channel, but the ones that simulcast an AM or a station that got moved to HD only (ex. WBCN or 99X) User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 12:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Call sign swaps

I just saw that the articles for KCEE, KVOI, WBNZ, and WOUF say that their call signs swapped. That sounds to me as if Pepsi swapped its brand with Coke. Why on earth (or in aether, as the case may be) would anyone do that? — Sebastian 16:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Any number of reasons:

• The station changed branding, but its owner wanted to keep control of the callsign.
• The two stations swapped programming as well.
• The station was sold, and the old owner wanted to keep control of the callsign.
• The station's owner doesn't care what its callsign us, but used it as a pawn in a larger programming change involving other stations.

121a0012 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! This sounds like article material! — Sebastian 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I may add an explanation of one I am familiar with: KCKN (defunct) was given those call letters when it was purchased by the Kansas City KansaN newspaper in Kansas City, Kansas in 1935. A new owner who purchased it in 1984 no longer saw any value in keeping the association with the newspaper. (It became KFKF-AM&FM) However, KCKN had established itself as one of the most successful country music stations in the USA in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Therefore, a station owner in Roswell, New Mexico claimed the call sign from the FCC because of the "brand name" factor in the broadcasting industry. Obviously, It is hard to associate KCKN with anything in Roswell -- accept that the brand value to national advertisers, etc. Hope this is helpful in this one instance.'''''''''''''''''''Jack Lester

Category question

Is there some reason why we have Category:Radio logos and Category:Radio station logos? They both have radio station logos in them, so could I change those in Category:Radio logos to Category:Radio station logs and have the other category deleted. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, both categories are important and serve different areas of interest. That some editors have mis-filed radio station logos in the general radio logos (which covers far more than just broadcast radio stations) is a call for clean-up, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, Category:Radio logos is the only place for the American Family Radio, American Public Media, and Grassroots Radio Coalition logos (just to pick a few obvious ones from the first page). - Dravecky (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Station moved to a heading with wrong callsign

WBCQ (SW) was moved from that page to WBCQ-SW. This is wrong but I don't know how to move pages so if anyone could move it back to WBCQ (SW) where it belongs because there are no -SW call suffixes with the F.C.C..Stereorock (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mr Radio Guy !!! 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You are Mr. Radio MAN!Stereorock (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "(SW)" an appropriate suffix here? Should we use "(shortwave)"? JPG-GR (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think either is acceptable. "HF broadcaster" or "international broadcaster" could also be used. I prefer the (SW) convention as it keeps with AM, FM, TV, etc. station pages. With that being said, the (shortwave) would instead be completely clear as to what it is. I guess it all boils down to is how well-known is the SW suffix? I wouldn't want to think someone thinks we're talking about WBCQ South West.Stereorock (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Canada uses the -SW callsign suffix officially in much the same manner as -FM -TV -DT, so it should be recognisable as something other than "southwest". This affects only a handful of stations, such as CFRX, but it is a consistent pattern. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Historic logos

Just an FYI, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK has been opened concerning the question of whether historic logos may be used in Radio and TV station articles.--RadioFan (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

proposed addition to logos section

The following was recently added to the logos section, moving it here for discussion:--RadioFan (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images must be accompanied by critical commentary. They must never be used for decorative purposes. Non-free media must not be in galleries. Inclusion of former logos must be justified by sourced critical commentary; for example, a discussion of the design of the logo, or how it fits in with the branding of any parent company.

• The original editor who suggested this change is correct that simply adding old logos with no explanation is going to bring up fair-use concerns. The above change seems like a reasonable addition to the project guidelines though some significant rewording to give practical direction to editors, especially those not familiar with the intricacies of free-use, is needed. As it reads now it's too harsh and gives the impression that historic logos are only allowed when significant prose is included analyzing the logo. Based on the discussions I've read on the topic of fair-use and old logos, they aren't outlawed as a matter of rule and as long as it's clear why they are there, it's not a problem.

Historic logos can add a lot to a station page especially when they illustrate changes such as rebrandings, format flips and frequency changes. As long as it's clear why the images are included such as years in use, whats significant about the change (format flip, etc) this should meet fair-use guidelines. Multiple logos don't always flow well in a history section so galleries make for better formatting though a brief label should be included to make it clear be why the logo was included in the gallery or thumbnail. --RadioFan (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The logos could also be added as thumbnails in an article as well. That is how I add most of mine to the page. This removes the "no galleries" complaint and information about when the logo was used can also be added before the thumbnail. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The thumbnails usually don't work if they aren't accompanied with "critical commentary", I've had several logos removed because there was no reliable source for them and there wansn't enough commentary. If anybody here still remembers User:J Milburn, he did remove a logo from the CKCO-TV article, but he didn't remove it when there was clear critical commentary and sources. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

CKCO's-TV's logo under BBS affiliation, used from 1994-1997. The logo featured multicoloured rings around the word BBS. Although under the ownership of Electrohome, the station still adopted the BBS logo. Other BBS stations used a similar logo, the only difference being the call signs. The previous CKCO logo was dropped in 1994 which featured a horse-drawn wagon and the Electrohome logo. 50% of CKCO was bought by Baton in 1996 and one year later, Baton assumed full control of CKCO. The CKCO logo remained until 1997 when it was dropped in favour of a logo featuring "CKCO" in gold lettering and the CTV logo. [1]

 єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but having something like that, that mass amount of text for a picture, shouldn't and isn't necessary. It's a freakin' picture. You don't need a paragraph and a half to discribe it taking up more space than article itself when you can just give a small blurb and move on. Also, why is a picture need a source? It's a picture. It is sourced when you upload, why source it even more? This is unnecessary rules made to prevent images from being kept, simple as that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit excessive, but apparently he wanted external reliable sources describing the logo. Apparently stating the obvious (ie stating that the logo isn't used anymore) is considered "original research". I found one from the Canadian Trademarks Database, and it seemed to work. I also did the same on CHRO-TV after he removed a variant of that logo. Generally, the Canadian articles aren't attacked as much as the American articles, and if there is an American database of trademarks that describes the logos (even if it's in legal lingo), it should be fine. If images anybody sees an image that contains simply text and/or simple geometric shapes, and removes it because it was incorrectly tagged, I would immediately remove the FUR and replace it with pd-textlogo.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think something like this should be added to the logos section: Logos that are typeface and/or simple geometric shapes can not be copyrighted and are therefore Public domain. Logos that are typeface and/or simple geometric shapes should be tag with: {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademark}}. Powergate92Talk 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The US trademark database is online at http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

KCTY

The KCTY article appears to be about two different stations in different US states operating in different millennia. KCTY TV 25 was a DuMont Television Network owned-and-operated station in Kansas City which folded in 1954 after $1 million in losses under two owners in the space of about a year. DuMont is a low-budget 1940's equivalent to Fox TV which was dead within the first decade of operation (its O&O stations operated as independent Metromedia/Metropolitan Broadcasting from the network's failure in 1956 until News Corp. bought the facilities to establish Fox in 1986). KCTY FM 104.9 Wayne, Nebraska is an entirely-unrelated radio station which was originally established in the 1970's under another callsign (it picked up the KCTY identity in 2007). I see nothing other than a callsign to link these two, and therefore have proposed this article be split into two independent pages. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that article is a mess. I'll take a crack at cleaning it up. KCTY is where the radio station article should be (since there is no other currently licensed AM or TV station with those calls), but the KCTY TV article should be at KCTY (defunct) or something similar. Mr Radio Guy !!! 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)