Talk:WRPI

New York (state): Capital District Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Capital District (assessed as Low-importance).

Radio Stations Low‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redlinking

This page has a serious problem with format, style and redlinking.

Wikipedia Is Not a collection of facts, a list of links, or a schedule. It's an encyclopedia. Items and people written about must be notable, and must have verifiable sources and citations. Personal opinions and knowledge are not generally appropriate: see No Original Research. For example: if you know that Governor Cuomo did an on-air interview and said "red is the new black" because you were there, and there's no way to verify that (newspaper article, whatever), then it may will not pass the rules on verifiability and original research. An experienced non-WRPI Wikipedia editor coming across this page would likely cut it dramatically - and they will unless we do it ourselves.

In particular, redlinks are bad form unless there's a good likelyhood that the topic will have a non-stub article written about it. Unless a show has had some type of external-to-WRPI coverage, there's no way that's possible. Even then, it's quite iffy as to whether it would meet WP:V and WP:RS requirements, not to mention notability.

Wikipedia is not a place for a WRPI schedule or list of shows. It is a good place for the History of WRPI; for documenting the impact it's had on music, the community and radio (with reference to sources, online or paper); on the changes to WRPI over the years and how that has been reported; on how the station has interacted with social issues of the times (that have been documented). It's possible that one or two current shows might reach the standards mentioned above, or a few shows of older times might reach the standards.

The same issues apply even more strongly to bios, especially bios of living persons. I'm quite certain that every currently linked host bio (redlink or not) by current wikipedia standards should be removed. Wikipedia is not a list of all people, or even all people mentioned in the news. I was recently part of a heated discussion over whether to remove the bio for Debbie Liebling, a senior VP at Fox and formerly Comedy Central, executive producer, 3-time Emmy nominee, who "discovered" South Park. The result was "no consensus". So think how the bio of a local radio show host would be approached (unless maybe if you got the FCC mad at you - and even then it probably wouldn't).

I'm posting here first, but if the collective we don't start fixing this, I'll probably start on my own.

Randell Jesup, WRPI 1981ish-1985ish jesup 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IronMetalliDeath

The section in the main article has serious issues: first is notability. Second is verifiability. Third is that it's written in WP:PEACOCK form ('infamous', 'legendary', etc). Probably it should be removed, and if there is in the end a section on current programming, perhaps this will merit simple mention (not a section) (and that's only if it passes the first two tests). Remember, Wikipedia is not a promotional or ego webpage; it's an encyclopedia. This is just like we shouldn't put up a section for Name That Food from the 80's (though that wasn't as prominent). jesup 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rework in progress

Ok, given lack of response, I'm going to be bold and take a bit of a hatchet to the page. Hopefully once that's done we can start building a reasonable encyclopedia page for WRPI. jesup 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which image?

We kindof have to choose between these two images.. they were both tagged for deletion (one was orphaned, the other has insufficient license information, although I could update the information).

no lens flares

no lens flares

I don't think it matters too much, but I think I will just keep the one with no lens flares for now Danski14^(talk) 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omits important history

In its history of the station, this article misses the significant controversy that erupted the mid-00s, when a group of students came into conflict with non-students who had had effective control of the station for many years and turned it into something more akin to community radio than college radio. The effects are still evident today in the gaps on WRPI's schedule. This history, unlike similar turmoil in the late 70s, can be sourced. A couple examples:

Metroland blog with several links to articles - http://metroland.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/someone_at_rpi_.html

Time Union April 9, 2007 article - http://albarchive.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6452719

I don't have time at the moment to edit this myself, but I'm leaving this note in case anyone else wants to do it. If not, I'll attempt it myself later. Samtha25 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]