Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2005Archive 2006Archive 2007Archive 2008Archive 2009Archive 2010→Archive 2015

translator template

I remember seeing some sort of a template for listing translators for a station but it's not in Category:Radio templates. Anyone know the template I'm talking about?--Rtphokie (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

{{RadioTranslators}}? JPG-GR (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That's the one. I see you categorized it too, thanks.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Could I ask for somebody who knows how to code templates (I don't) to pass me a revised copy of this template with the FCC column stripped out, so that it can also be used on Canadian radio stations? For Canadian use, {{RadioRebroadcasters}} would be the most appropriate title. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. JPG-GR (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

US stations with 'D' prepended to callsign

I've noticed a couple of stations in the FCC database who's callsign history includes a prepending of 'D' to the callsign. What does this mean? Example: KAGB --Rtphokie (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It means at one time the license was Deleted but the owner was able to do whatever that had to do to get it back. There are a few like that. - NeutralHomer T:C 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Is this just a paperwork thing or is this an indication that the station went off the air for that period of time?--Rtphokie (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is a little of both. WTHU in Thurmont, Maryland lost their license for 3 days and while it was technically deleted, they were allowed to continue broadcasting. WZFM in Narrows, Virginia, on the other hand, had their license deleted and were silent for that time (around 2 months). Both stations are back on the air. - NeutralHomer T:C 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know thanks.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem :) - NeutralHomer T:C 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The FCC lines to keep data about old stations around, particularly those which might be subject to legal action (if the commission actually revokes a license, legal action nearly always follows), but also for international coordination reasons. (Stations which cease to exist domestically are not necessarily denotified internationally.) And like other independent agencies, non-emergency decisions of the FCC not final until some time after they are published, to give interested parties time to prepare an appeal. 121a0012 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

UK Local Radio Stations under danger from WP:CSD#A7

I have noticed that a number of local radio stations were removed from the list of UK radio stations after they were deleted. I checked one (a nearby local station) called Rother FM and I noticed that the article was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, whereas other stations with simliar notability and coverage (ie. Trax FM, Lincs FM, Dearne FM and even greater coverage stations such as Hallam FM and BBC Radio Sheffield are untouched. I fear that now all the local radio articles could be under threat of being speedily deleted under A7, after all, if a number of stations similar to the ones which still exist are being deleted, surely the rest are now under threat (Wikipedia being neutral and all that)? ----tgheretford (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are licensed and meet the guidelines of this project, they should not be speedy deleted. I suspect that most of the administrators in this project would be willing to undelete those stations. I don't believe that a speedy needs a full deletion review to be undeleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Vegaswikian is correct that a licensed radio station which meets the criteria set out by this project should not be speedied. I've reverted this one. I also did a quick random scan of a few of the other deleted UK radio articles, and would note that many of them were actually speedied months ago and just weren't actually removed from List of radio stations in the United Kingdom until today. I suspect there's going to need to be a coordinated administrator project to review these deletions — I'm willing to help out with it, but I'm not going to revert all of them by myself. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image callout

So as you all know, we only have a couple weeks left to be image compliant. At User:East718/DFUI/Logos we've created a list of all logos lacking full fair-use rationales (read article backlinks). I see a lot of them are radio station logos. Could this project pitch in and help with the backlog? MBisanz talk 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Unless someone expresses a problem, I'll be setting this talk page u[ for auto archiving. I'll probably do it for discussions over 60 days old and have yearly archives. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be appreciated--Rtphokie (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
OK the bot ran and created a batch in the 2007 archive. I repackaged /archives, /Archive 2, /Archive 3 and /Archive 4 into /Archive 2005, /Archive 2006 and /Archive 2007. I'll delete the old ones in a few days. I updated the archive box to point to the new archives. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FM station data template

Anyone know anything about {{FM station data}}? It doesn't seem necessary to me and it's coloring and overall design doesn't fit very well.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but there's a similar {{AM station data}} that I've quietly removed from the one article in which I encountered it. It's a nice idea in need of much better execution. - Dravecky (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, there are over 200 articles that use these templates. I started reverting them to use the existing FCC, Radio Locater, and Arbitron templates instead but even with AWB it's a fairly manual process (I'm no C# coder). I gave up and instead updated {{FM station data}} and {{AM station data}} to appear as bulleted lists instead of the brown box Also added a note on these teamplate's talk pages with an invitation to discuss any changes here. Upon further reflection I agree it's a nice idea that could save some keystrokes but it needs more work before rolling it out on hundreds of pages.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
For CDBS, at least, you really want to do the search by FIN rather than by callsign. 121a0012 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. While cleaning up items on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates, I noticed that several of the templates listed there (Template:Houston Radio for example) fall under the range of WikiProject Radio Stations and thought that handling of the disambig of these might be done more efficiently (and more accurately) by members of this project. Just thought I would bring it to your attention and see if this task was of interest for the project's to-do list. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's certainly something we could be tackling. I just finished cleaning up the Houston template and I'll put the others on my to-do list. Of course, the more folks that care to jump in and fix these, the merrier. - Dravecky (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made a note on the list's talk page they you guys are going to swing by. I'll move on to other topics. Happy Editing. -Gwguffey (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just spent all evening fixing about 100 of these templates and my eyes are starting to cross. I made it about halfway through that list and by my count there are only about 70 left to do. (Start at #631 (Template:Trenton Radio) if you jump in.) Oh, and {{Bridgeport Radio}} got skipped by mistake. So make that 71 to do. It's 4am here and I'm headed to sleep. - Dravecky (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list, please mark out what has been completed:

  1. Template:Alaska Panhandle Radio
  2. Template:Ann Arbor Radio
  3. Template:Appleton-Oshkosh Radio
  4. Template:BBC Radio 1
  5. Template:Bloomington IL Radio
  6. Template:Bowling Green Radio
  7. Template:Bridgeport Radio
  8. Template:Brunswick Radio
  9. Template:Calexico Radio
  10. Template:Cedar Rapids Radio}
  11. Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Minnesota
  12. Template:Columbus-Starkville-West Point Radio
  13. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Arkansas
  14. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Florida
  15. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Idaho
  16. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Mississippi
  17. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Montana
  18. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Oklahoma
  19. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in South Carolina
  20. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Tennessee
  21. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Utah
  22. Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Washington
  23. Template:Dance Radio stations
  24. Template:Decatur Radio
  25. Template:Dubuque Radio
  26. Template:Eau Claire Radio
  27. Template:Elmira-Corning Radio
  28. Template:Florida Keys Radio
  29. Template:Ft. Walton Beach Radio
  30. Template:Hastings Radio
  31. Template:Jackson TN Radio
  32. Template:Joplin Radio
  33. Template:Juneau Radio
  34. Template:Kingston Radio
  35. Template:Knoxville Radio
  36. Template:LaSalle-Peru Radio
  37. Template:La Crosse Radio
  38. Template:Lake Ponchartrain Radio
  39. Template:Las Cruces Radio
  40. Template:Laughlin Radio
  41. Template:Lebanon-Rutland-White River Junction Radio
  42. Template:Marion-Carbondale (Southern IL) Radio
  43. Template:Maui Radio
  44. Template:Meridian Radio
  45. Template:New Haven Radio
  46. Template:North Platte Radio
  47. Template:Northern Washington Radio
  48. Template:Odessa-Midland Radio
  49. Template:Ohio college radio
  50. Template:Olean Radio
  51. Template:Owensboro Radio
  52. Template:Panama City Radio
  53. Template:Portsmouth Radio
  54. Template:Public Radio International
  55. Template:Quad Cities Radio
  56. Template:Rapid City Radio
  57. Template:Rockford Radio
  58. Template:Salina-Manhattan Radio
  59. Template:Shreveport Radio
  60. Template:Sioux City Radio
  61. Template:South Central Alaska Radio
  62. Template:Southside VA Radio
  63. Template:Sunbury-Selinsgrove-Lewisburg Radio
  64. Template:Terre Haute Radio
  65. Template:Topeka Radio
  66. Template:Trenton Radio
  67. Template:Waterloo-Cedar Falls Radio
  68. Template:Watertown SD Radio
  69. Template:Yakima Radio

--Rtphokie (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the work that you guys did on this. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

-FM1 ?

Time for another question for one of the experts here. What does the -FM1 extension to a callsign mean? The only one I've come across is: WMEX-FM1. Is it a typo or does this mean something special? I was surprised to see a 16 watt station designated class D (wouldn't that be LP)?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I first encountered this at WGZB-FM and learned that it's how the FCC designates a station's on-channel broadcast translator. - Dravecky (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I just moved the page back to WMEX, the actual call sign of the station. The -FM1 and -FM2 extensions mean that it is a booster station, which broadcasts the same signal on the same frequency - usually to extend the coverage area. That's why the ERP was so low. What I find strange about this station is that both booster transmitters are located within the range of the parent transmitter, and do not seem to provide any additional coverage. --Scott Alter 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Booster stations are like translator stations, just on the same frequency as their parent. The purpose of them is to fill in the dead area, I don't know how fashionable they are these days, usually it's too difficult to run them (they can't interfer with the parent signal, so most owners go the translator route, they can't send the signal via internet or anything but a highly direction antenna with a radio tuned to the frequency). I don't even think the WMEX boosters are on the air. Mr mark taylor (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Boosters must be within the station's theoretical protected contour, by law. Sometimes, particularly in mountainous terrain, the theoretical contour encompasses populated areas which are well outside of the actual contour. In this case, a booster may be used. For example, KHYZ in Mountain Pass, California, was built where it was specifically to allow for a 2.5-kW booster on Black Mountain in Henderson, Nevada, from which it will serve as a Las Vegas station. If you'd prefer an example of something that already exists, KOAS in Dolan Springs, Arizona exists only to serve a booster, KOAS-FM1, on the Stratosphere. Similarly, numerous stations in the Salt Lake City market have full class-C facilities on Humpy Peak, which in actuality serves no populated places whatsoever, but which allows the stations to operate high-power boosters up and down the Salt Lake valley. WRKI in Brookfield, Connecticut has boosters on the fringes of its service area—no terrain blockage required—in Bridgeport and Norwalk. 121a0012 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as the WMEX boosters go, I know both of them have been on the air in the past (I know the station's owner, Dennis Jackson). The Rochester booster is located on the roof of the building in downtown Rochester where the studios are located, and was off the air for a while so that interference issues could be resolved. 121a0012 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and note also that boosters are entirely distinct from translators, at least in a regulatory sense. 121a0012 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff, thanks for the information.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Simulcast stations

There are a number of large networks, many of which are religious formatted from what I've seen, we should consider collapsing into a single article. I'm talking about instances where there are a bunch (several dozen in some cases) of fully licensed stations that do not appear to produce any of local content. Localized sounders or station ids don't count either. If 100% of the content is produced at some flagship station, I'm thinking that the network stations articles should be merged into either the flagship station's page or the network's page (if one exists). An less than complete list:

  • Radio Lazer
  • Entravision Super Estrella
  • NPR News and Classical Music
  • NPR Ideas Network
  • VCY America
  • Air1 (EMF)
  • American Family
  • BBN (Bible Broadcasting Network)
  • Jack FM
  • Good News Network
  • High Plains Public Radio
  • Jimmy Swaggart Ministries
  • Northwestern College
  • Radio Campesina
  • Relevant Radio

Don't get me wrong. If there is local news or some other locally produced content (heck I'll even count "radio swap shop" in a pinch), then that station is contributing to the local community enough to be notable. But if it's all produced elsewhere and the only purpose the station serves is to extend the reach of the network, then it needs to be merged into the parent article. It's often difficult to tell which of these stations actually have local content and which don't, just based on their websites or even listening to them as these often tiny stations often go to great lengths to appear more notable than they really are. Anyone have some experience with this kind of radio (either religious radio or network radio in general), interested in helping tackle this? Any tips on determining the flagship station would be appreciated as well. Networks which have had merge proposal tags added to all station pages are striked out above. --Rtphokie (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless a station provides a reasonable amount of local programming or has an important history before being acquired by the greater network, I agree. However, before you merge any of these outright, be sure to use the appropriate {{merge}} tag, as there may be more to some stations than the articles show at the moment, and we should be sure no one watching them has anything to add first. JPG-GR (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the station/networks (Mainly the religious ones) utilize FM translators (which cannot broadcast their own programming) so those should be redirects anyway. Stations that carry programming like ESPN Radio and Fox Sports are on full powered FM & AM stations and many carry local programming/commercials. If it's a regional network of stations that simulcast (religious or otherwise), the outlying stations should just redirect to the main station. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Add K-LOVE and Bible Broadcasting Network to the list. JPG-GR (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Rare is the sports/talk station that carries a pure ESPN Radio or FOX Sports Radio program schedule. Most originate some programming, offer a mix of other programming (even if it's not always unique), and carry local or regional sports programming. This makes a simple re-direct problematic or inappropriate for these stations. - Dravecky (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm only talking about stations that carry 100% content provided by a single network source with no locally produced content at all. Those that carry 100% content provided by some other stations is another topic because, as you mention, it's difficult to redirect them somewhere else appropriate.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The analogy that comes to my mind as I look at it is similar to a television station that has an extensive network of repeaters (KUSA-TV is an excellent example). The central station (or in this case, the "network" or programmer) would be the core article, but not only would the individual stations be listed in those core articles, but the individual station entries would redirect to that network article (for completion-sake more than anything else). --Mhking (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is very similar to what's already done for television services (e.g. TVOntario or Vermont Public Television) which broadcast the same content over a large network of transmitters with no local variance in programming. In the television context, it most commonly applies to educational (e.g. Canadian provincial broadcasters, statewide American PBS affiliates) or religious networks. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken (and since I don't listen, I probably am) I think WYFT does some form of local programming. I think it is your run-of-the-mill local religious program, but it is local. I would have to check on Wednesday when they come back from Christmas (nothing happens here on the 24th or 25th), but on the 26th, I will check to make sure. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Radio Disney is another one. Just my two cents before I go back to work. Happy holidays. --EnronsBack (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Radio Disney is really a different case. Nearly every station that runs Radio Disney programming has a distinct history as a commercial station (in some cases, like WMKI in Boston, as a fairly important station in the market's history). It's important not to lose this history in the rush to make everything a redirect to Radio Disney. I would note that only a very small number of Radio Disney affiliates (and no O&Os at all) run local programming; the only one I know of at the moment is WOLF et al. in Syracuse, and that's only a few hours a week. The typical Radio Disney "studio" consists of two rackmount servers and a satellite receiver, but the typical Radio Disney station is a heritage AM that fell on hard times (viz., WMKI, WOLF, WQEW, WDDZ, WRDZ, etc.). 121a0012 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Also some Radio Disney stations air programming outside of the Radio Disney Network. For the longest time WHKT in Portsmouth, Virginia aired Norfolk Admirals hockey and Norfolk Tides baseball. It is probably true of other stations too, that they (currently) air sports or other programming.
But the long histories of some of the stations, like 121a0012 said, puts the Radio Disney stations in a different category and shouldn't be merged. - NeutralHomer T:C 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Salem Radio operates 3 different networks - a News/Talk, Contemporary Christian Music, and Religious Talk. The News/talk stations definitely do not meet this proposed criteria. While the bulk of the weekday programming is the same on many of their Owned and Operated stations (Bennett/Gallagher/Medved/Hewitt/Prager), the weekend programming is primarily brokered programming, most of which is locally produced (doctors, lawyers, car repair shops, health food stores, etc...).StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Air America? Most AAR stations carry only a handful of programs from the network and of the ones that do carry heavy AAR schedules almost all of them that I've encountered air at least some locally-originated programming. - Dravecky (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jack" is a licensed brand name (owned in the U.S. by Bob "Cadillac Jack" Perry) and format concept, not a programming service. 121a0012 (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Radio lists

Could I potentially ask for some help converting the various lists of Canadian radio stations to the same table format that's now in use on the American radio lists? I'm finding it an exceedingly tedious job to do all by myself, to the point where I simply can't stand to convert more than five or six stations per day anymore (at which rate it'll take about three weeks just to finish List of radio stations in Ontario alone). For what it's worth, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia are the really horrible, time-and-soul-sucking "I'M AT N AND STILL HAVE 90 COMMUNITIES OF LICENSE TO GO?!?!?" ones that are most daunting my will to live — Prince Edward Island is already done, and the other nine lists could all be done start-to-finish in 20 minutes to an hour each if I had any patience left. Bearcat (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

When I did the state lists, I was using the FCC database and dumping all the info into the tables. If Canada has a similar database, I could probably adapt it. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The primary broadcast database for Canadian stations, Industry Canada's Spectrum Direct, isn't structured the same way as the FCC's (for example, you can't do a geographic search by city of license, but only by the latitude and longitude coordinates of the transmitter, and searches don't produce a linkable URL that can be used for anything comparable to the {{FMQ}} template), so I don't know if it lends itself to the same approach. We compiled the lists primarily by doing a dump from RadioStationWorld and then adjusting for any known changes or inaccuracies. So, in practice, reformatting the lists primarily involves cutting and pasting the existing list line by line, which is why it's such a tedious job for one person. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Back when I looked into incorporating Canada into my own database, I discovered that the CRTC does not maintain a publicly available list of stations which they license, which is quite an amazing situation for such a progressive nation. To get a complete list, you have to purchase it from a third party supplier, so I dropped Canada from my directory.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the CRTC doesn't actually regulate the technical aspects of Canadian broadcasting; it's only responsible for ownership and content regulations. Industry Canada is actually responsible for things like assigning call signs, determining which frequencies can be used in which locations, determining where transmitters can and can't be located, etc., so a database anything like the FCC's would require coordination across multiple bodies. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for help getting these converted. Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are done, which leaves British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Yukon. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WNTK

Can an admin thats part of this project swap WNTK and WNTK-FM? WNTK should redirect to WNTK-FM (not the other way around), that's the official call letters and I (stupidly) redirected WNTK-FM to WNTK before I researched and discovered the actual call letters (It's an -FM because the current WCNL was WNTK until last year). Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

List it at WP:RM in the Uncontroversial section. I'm not aware of any (active) admins who are part of WP:WPRS. JPG-GR (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved. Can someone cleanup the double redirects? Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's got it. - Dravecky (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm an active admin. Maybe the members list on the front page should include some kind of notation so that project members know who they can approach if they need admin help. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Force Academy radio station

I'm not finding an FCC record for KAFA-FM though the article claims they broadcast on 97.7. Is this station still broadcasting or is it a case of some unlicensed, low power, campus only broadcast. Are the rules different because it's technically a military station?--Rtphokie (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like another low power, campus only operation...I have no idea if it's on but radio-locator, fccinfo.com and the FCC database have no idea it exists, however if you go here and click on query and enter the call letters, KAFA are calls assigned to the US Government, what this exactly means, I have no idea. Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's like KPSU (Portland) which is a branding for leased time on another station unlike the licensed college station KPSU (FM). - Dravecky (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:WJDV2007.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:WJDV2007.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The uploader has retired from Wikipedia.--Rockfang (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as the image description clearly states that the image was taken from the station's website. I added a link to that website[2] to the description. - Dravecky (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The tag was put back on because the FUR didn't list the article I guess. I used the FUR template and included the disputed info. The image shouldn't be retagged again, I did all my uploads the same way and that usually takes care of it. RobDe68 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Premiere Radio vs. Premier Radio

When referring to Premiere Radio Networks (syndicator of Rush Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Bob and Tom, and other shows) in station articles, be careful to link to Premiere Radio Networks (the U.S. based, Clear Channel subsidiary) not Premier Radio, the UK based Christian radio network.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Premier Radio is a dab so this is not an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just created those DABs and fixed the 111 articles that were referring to the UK based network that were intended to point to the US based one. It's always better to link to the correct article rather than a DAB. Just a heads up. --Rtphokie (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

renaming Tri-Cities Radio Template

I'd like to get some thoughts on renameing {{Tri-Cities Radio}} If you have opinions, please add them here: Template talk:Tri-Cities Radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad article naming

Oh my. Some editor has moved WTHK (FM) to WTHK (FM) (Formerly known as WVAY FM) which, while factual, is one terrible name for an article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, this screams move and merge or something else, WTHK is itself a simulcast of WEXP so maybe the two should be merged together. Theres also a translator that should be merged into WTHK.Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yuck! WTHK (FM) has been CSD tagged so that this can be moved back (the article should be named WTHK (FM)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and fix this somewhat, but if you follow the links you find several stations that changed frequencies and they didn't keep the history with the frequency. Can't really undo that now as there has been a ton of edits since. But I see no reason why that article shouldn't be called just WTHK. I'll add a "see also" to the top of the current page pointing to the defunct New Jersey station and drop the DAB page. Then we can move it to the proper name. RobDe68 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. RobDe68 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. radio market info

Where (if anywhere) is the market info on the various market templates and pages like List of radio stations in California by market area based on? Arbitron's website has information about how a particular market area is defined (looks like it's expressed by county) but I cant find a listing of the stations included in a particular market on Arbitron's website.

The closest thing I've found to that information is on Radio and Record website. For example a listing of market #120. Is that a complete listing of stations in the market? Is there a better source of information?

Ultimately I'd like to cleanup the market templates as there are probably some stations in these templates that aren't really part of the market (distant or fringe stations).

Proposal: once we have some consensus on what the best source of market data is, add a market column with that information to all the List of radio stations in state pages and treat these lists as canon (i.e. the place that gets updated first when the basics like formats, callsigns, frequency, market, etc. changes occur). Probably should also consider merging pages like List of radio stations in California by market area and List of radio stations in the Victor Valley into the a page like List of radio stations in California.

Thoughts?--Rtphokie (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the List of radio stations in STATE by market have been removed (in fact, at last check, California is the last one left, as an editor expressed some interest in working on it).
Long story short - it is impossible to place every station in one market and one market only, as many don't belong to any of the magic 302 and many reach many markets. In other words, there is no reasonable way to add a market column to List of radio stations in STATE, hence why it was excluded in the redesign.
As for the individual market templates... yeah, that's another battle entirely. JPG-GR (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there was a debate some time ago about splitting the template into in market stations heard and out of market stations heard. I can think of several stations you could put in 6 or 7 market templates, and on the flipside I can think of several stations that lie far enough outside the primary market area that don't make it in to the "metro" as they say (the primary county/counties of the market) Mr mark taylor (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
RadioStationWorld is a good source for radio stations sorted by market areas and regions, for example, this page has links to various lists of radio stations in each market area and region. Another source would be The Radio Book from Inside Radio/M Street Publications: the description of that book says it features "Stations Referenced by Market", but you can search their database, which shows the primary market associated with each radio station.
The Radio and Records website shows ratings information for each market, but those will often include stations which primarily serve a different market. This is especially true in smaller markets which are near larger markets. For example KGGI's primary market is Riverside/San Bernardino, but it is the highest rated station in the Victor Valley.
I was the editor who expressed interest in working on the market area lists, but I haven't been following up on it much due to work and life priorities which forced me to recently take an unplanned wikibreak for about a couple months. My idea was to have the market area lists be transcluded by the statewide lists, so that the market area lists would be the primary place for updates and the statewide lists would automatically reflect those lists. This would reflect the fact that editors typically will know about stations in their own particular market (but necessarily about stations in their state but outside their listening area). I think such lists would be more likely to get updated than a huge statewide list.
Unfortunately, most of these lists have been recently {{prod}}-ded, so I have asked that they be restored. I have just done a major update to List of radio stations in Stockton, a list which somehow avoided the PROD; you can see what the list would look like transcluded in a statewide list at User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California.
I would guesstimate that at least 90% of radio stations in the United States do belong to one primary market, even though they may be audible, and even get ratings, in multiple markets. The other 10% or less can be dealt with appropriately. For example, KKIQ serves the San Francisco market, but has a booster, KKIQ-FM2 in Tracy, part of the Stockton market. I've put the translator in the Stockton list, but in <noinclude> tags to prevent it from showing up in a statewide list transcluding this list.
For the case of stations which do not appear to belong to any rated market, they could be kept directly in the statewide lists, or lists could cover well-defined geographic regions which do not correspond to Arbitron markets. DHowell (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed circuit station notability?

Hey. WDVL was recently created, and although I cleaned it up a bit, I couldn't find much on the station. The station's sister station, WCVF-FM, mentions WDVL and says that it's closed circuit. Do closed circuit stations with a lack of secondary sourcing meet notability standards, or should the article be deleted? Or should we redirect the page to the sister page? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Unlicensed and no secondary sources? Delete - especially since there there's a WDVL which is currently undergoing construction in Danville, Indiana. JPG-GR (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WTF is a Closed Circuit station anyway? This sounds like an unlicensed campus only radio station. WDVL probably wasn't assigned by the FCC as it's probably based on the university's Blue Devil mascot. It should be merged into WCVF-FM.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Does it plug into a regular wall socket, or is it some kind of adapter? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Carrier current uses the building's electrical wiring to broadcast an AM signal. If the wiring isn't shielded, it will act as an antenna of sorts and you won't need to be plugged into the wall. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WLIR-FM

Over at WLIR-FM are 4 lists that (to me) scream WP:NOT#DIR. I don't want to outright delete them, but maybe someone can somehow incorperate them into the main article, or maybe they should just be deleted. I figured i'd get feedback here before deleting or rewriting. Mr mark taylor (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These lists have been tagged since Sep 07. Apparently they aren't that important since noone has bothered to wikify them. They should be removed.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned the article for a second time after an anonymous editor restored the lists JPG-GR had already removed. Some fraction of this info should be in the article but now as sprawling lists without context or assertions of notability. This may be one to keep a weather eye on. - Dravecky (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Market area list AfDs

Three California market area lists are up for deletion and I'd appreciate some more input in order to come to a consensus.

These AfDs may also decide the fate of several other lists, including lists for Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, which were recently PROD-ded and deleted due to my not managing to discover the PRODs before an admin deleted them. DHowell (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

KESR

This currently leads to KESR-FM, which is a radio station. KESR should be a disambiguation page, as the initials KESR were used for the Kent and East Sussex Railway, a railway in England in operation from 1901-1948, when it was nationalised, ans is now a heritage railway. Does anyone mind if I move KESR to KESR-FM and create KESR as a disambig page? Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The official call sign of the station is "KESR," without the -FM - so it would be inappropriate to name the article "KESR-FM." If anything, it could be named "KESR (FM)," but I do not think this is necessary. I just edited the article to include a hatnote for Kent and East Sussex Railway. I do not think a disambig page is necessary for 2 reasons. First, from Wikipedia:Hatnote, "When two articles share the same title, the unambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page. {{otheruses4}} may be used for this." Since there are only 2 articles, a disambig page is not necessary. Second, KESR is the actual name of the station, whereas it is only the abbreviation of the railway. For this reason, I would keep the radio station at KESR. The hatnote should be sufficient for disambiguation. --Scott Alter 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly concur with Scott Alter. I've also done some overdue cleanup to that article and its Results Radio of Redding sister stations. - Dravecky (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The hatnote will work fine. Radio stations are outside my area of knowledge, which is why I asked first! Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bay City-Freeport Radio

Did I miss a discussion for the deletion of the {{Bay City-Freeport Radio}} template? I've looked back through two months of archived debates and find no trace. Unexpected deletions like this are sometimes the canary in the coalmine before a wave of attacks on the project's infrastructure. What's the procedure for getting this un-deleted, if there was no TfD discussion? - Dravecky (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I see it was speedily deleted citing CSD T3. I can't imagine how this criteria fits the template in question. - Dravecky (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably want to check out WP:DELREV - not an area I frequent much, so I don't have much to tell you about it. JPG-GR (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleting admin also missed the talk page. JPG-GR (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
After a brief communication, the deleting admin has restored the template without comment. - Dravecky (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AMRL

It's been made redundant by {{AML}} and is now no longer in use so Template:AMRL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Dravecky (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RadioStationsProject: Articles of unclear notability

Hello, there are currently 12 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've knocked down a bunch of these but KEOS (Flagstaff, Arizona), KDSU (internet radio), CHES-FM, and Link FM still need some attention and wikilove. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
For KEOS, see the archives for this page; it was previously identified as belong in another article. 121a0012 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

There are a number of Afds involving radio stations that could use some feedback from WPRS members. There are a couple involving some local radio shows in the Washington DC area that could use some input (and/or article improvement) from folks familiar with that market

The easiest way to access these AFDs is: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Radio

--Rtphokie (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Need some assistance

All of the Canadian radio-stations-by-province lists have now been fully converted to the sortable table format (although some improvement still needs to happen). The problem at this point is that the list for Quebec won't actually sort on the "format" column — but I'm having trouble figuring out what's causing the problem. Any chance somebody could help me track this down? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look later this afternoon. You're probably missing some column bars in one line - which will affect everything, unfortunately. JPG-GR (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I figured that's likely the case — my original request also included the Alberta and British Columbia lists, both of which I fixed by finding exactly that error. But I've gone through the Quebec list with a fine-toothed comb a few times now and still can't seem to find the offending line or lines. Probably one of those cases where I'm trying so hard that I completely miss what I'm actually looking for, or something. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done. JPG-GR (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

European Radio Network

We've ended up with two separate articles about this new radio network, one at European Radio Network and one at Euranet. I've proposed merging the two, and the creator of the second one has agreed with the explanation that they simply didn't know that we had an article at the other title — but neither of us is 100 per cent sure which title should be kept and which title should be redirected. Could somebody come help us sort it out at Talk:European Radio Network? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling on radio station articles

Someone (or multiple someones) on this project are adding a lot of "it's" where "its" is meant to radio station articles. I'm only bringing this up here because it's hard to tell who is doing it, but it's clear that there is either one very prolific editor on this project who doesn't know that "it's" means "it is" or "it has", or there are multiple editors here who don't know.

This is an encyclopedia, and new entries should be spelled correctly when possible. These errors are old enough that they've been indexed by Google. A quick Google search today showed that roughly 12% of all "it's"/"its" confusion on Wikipedia comes from this WikiProject. Because radio station articles do not represent 12% of all Wikipedia articles, the amount of misspelling/mis-punctuation is disproportionate. The Pokemon WikiProject used to have the worst record for spelling (and this project was about third-worst), but with the deletion of most of the Pokemon articles, the Radio Station WikiProject has now taken the lead in misspelling.

The radio station articles are improving, but please... if you see someone adding poor spelling to an article, please fix it and tell the editor who is doing it, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to be a little more specific? Like provide any single example so we can figure out who the culprit is? JPG-GR (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the contribs of Firsfron re: it's/its (several of the pages are on my watchlist) it's been several editors (including me, I'll admit to being sloppy at times) but this is only based on a handful of edits to radio station articles. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I started noticing the it's/its confusion on radio station articles in 2006, and corrected several hundred of them. The same thing happened throughout 2007.
I was reluctant to say anything until I realized I would be correcting these indefinitely unless editors here knew of the problem. Although I only corrected a few today, Google pulls up hundreds. Nearly always, a preposition followed by "it's" is incorrect (there are a few exceptions). A google search for "from it's" or "to it's" pulls up CHUB-FM, KTEP, KTWV, WEGP, WHSN, WKSS, WTOX, WZRT, Woxy.com. "With it's", "without it's", "near it's", "by it's", "around it's", "under it's", "over it's" and dozens of other prepositions will also pull up these mistakes.
Obviously, we all get sloppy at times, and no one should be made to feel bad for silly typos, but these results show up on Google, and the project which the greatest portion of it's/its confusion is coming from is this one, now that the Pokemon pages have been deleted. It's just something to watch out for. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Template question

Is there a way to simplify the addition of database query templates such as {{RecnetCanada}} to radio station articles? I'd like to do it via an AWB batch run if possible, because it would be too time-consuming and eye-glazingly repetitive to do it manually, but I don't know if there's a way to automate including the call sign in the template link. I tried doing {{RecnetCanada|{{PAGENAME}}}}, and while that does submit the correct call sign inquiry to the database, it severely messes up the way the link actually displays on our article — the link showed up as (AM)&ccode=2&latd=&lond=&city=&state=&country=CA&zip=&party=&party_type=CANADA&jaws=0 Query the REC's Canadian station database for CHQR (AM) rather than just "Query the REC's Canadian station database for CHQR (AM)". Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at it and everything seems to be working *shrug*. JPG-GR (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Market templates, would like some concensus

I'd like to take on cleaning up the market templates (just the ones from the top 302 arbitron markets). I'd like some feedback on these items

  • templates associated with specific Arbitron market, should include only stations in that Arbitron defined market on the AM and FM lines. Radio and Records can be used as a reference. Pick any template (such as {{New York Radio}} and click on the Arbitron market rank for an example).
  • the  · character should be used as a separator (it's the most common and looks the best IMHO).
  • all templates should lines for
    • By FM frequency
    • By callsign
    • By AM frequency
    • By callsign
    • unranked stations? (i.e. anything that Arbitron doesn't track, I'm torn on this one, should they be included at all? This is a market specific template after all.)
    • transclusion of the radio markets template for that state (lists other market templates in the state and the list of radio stations in that state)
  • We can also add a line ordering the stations by their ranking in the last arbitron book (as available from the Radio and Records website) I think this would be valuable and it can be automated.

Thoughts?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the above. As for the unranked stations (which do appear in the ratings, just not the ones released to the public because all thats released to the public are the 12+ everybody 24/7 ratings) maybe we could get to some consensus as to what to include (all stations within 30 miles of market center? 50?). The problem with the ratings are the lower ranked stations are out of market and tend to dissappear and reappear depending on how the diaries are distributed and who gets a diary. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with the chaos that would be cleaning these up. A few things to consider:
  • There is no reason to separate AM and FM callsigns, other than to make templates needlessly bigger. The current three row system works just fine.
  • Define "templates [...] should include only stations in that Arbitron defined market on the AM and FM lines" - what about those stations that cover and are ranked in MANY markets? It would be absolutely ridiculous to clutter, for example, WJR with multiple templates.
  • Addition of any kind of ratings ranked listing could violate WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:NOT#DIR, etc. When it comes down to it, they're unnecessary clutter for a market template anyway.
- JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Removing the non-commercial stations would be a disaster from an organization and navigational standpoint. I'm also strongly wary of including the Arbitron rankings in template form as they would almost certainly cross the line into copyright infringment. I'm 100% on-board with standardizing to the three lines (AM by freq, FM by freq, and ALL by call letters) with a standard separating character. That alone would be yeoman work which would serve the project tremendously. - Dravecky (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure all the templates are all consistently the three-lined format (now that all those funky California ones have been updated). Personally, I'm all for putting together some guidelines to follow for these templates, but as for changes - I don't think many are needed or warranted. JPG-GR (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of discussion, heres a sample 5 line template: User:Rtphokie/Albany. Dravecky raises in interesting point about market rank and copyright.

The suggestion that stations within X miles of the market is an interesting one. How do we determine the center of a market? Is a fixed distance from the market center the right thing to do? Should the class of the station and/or it's power be taken into account?--Rtphokie (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to User:Rtphokie/Albany, I find it to be grossly oversized as expected. The addition of the rank sections are meaningless without context, which is why I feel ratings should stay on the article pages (why on Earth would anybody need/want to navigate by in-market ratings?). JPG-GR (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Theres no need to navigate by in market rating when there are no numbers listed (that would be a copyright violation and Arbitron keeps those numbers hidden from the public if groups of radio stations don't subscribe to their service).
As for the stations within X miles: Within X miles of whatever the market city is. It's just an idea because the non-commercial stations don't get listed with the commercial ratings and there are also smaller FM and AM commercial stations that don't get listed in the ratings because they're not within the market area and don't have a powerful enough signal to reach the metro area. Mr mark taylor (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What should X be?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to set a fixed X because while a station's transmitter might be within (for example) 40 miles of the city-center its signal might not serve that city at all while a big stick station in a western state might easily serve a city 50 miles away. I don't have a simple, firm scientific solution for this but I also don't believe that one actually exists. - Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no magical number. It would be easier if there was, but who said life was easy? JPG-GR (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I put together a script that might help with this. Click on a city and it will show all transmitter sites within 30 or 50 miles. You can also adjust that radius once you display results. Transmitter locations are based on data from the FCC. Results are displayed in a table, on a map and in standardized text suitable for copying and pasting into a market template. Play with it a bit and maybe it will help us sort out this idea of what radius we should pick for most markets and what conditions would adjust that radius and by how much. Click here.
    • Firstly, we've already said that there is no magical radius that will work. It varies depending on the region and population. Secondly, based on the history of your mass-creating of things with scripts, I am VERY against the use of any script to create or modify any templates until EXTENSIVE testing has proven it's viability. JPG-GR (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Why thank you for all your hard work as well. You misunderstand, this isn't intended as a finished tool for updating these templates. It's intended as something we can hopefully work into a finished tool. I recognize that there isn't a magic radius that will work for all markets, thats why there are options to try in this tool. Those options are there to generate discussion here. So far we are pretty clear on what shouldn't define a market (fixed radius, arbitron tracking, existing information in the templates), let's move on to what should define the market. So take a look at a couple of cities that you are familiar with and let's here some specifics on where the problems are. Perhaps this can be tweeked based on the station's class (Class A FM stations within 50 miles, Class D AM stations within 30 miles, LP stations within 10 miles, etc.) Point is, let's get the discussion going towards specifics of how these templates should be defined.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely sure anyone said that the existing information in the templates is a bad way to define the market. I'd say, as a whole, the templates aren't in that bad of shape, just need a little tweaking. The worst problem with the templates at this point is improper callsigns and bad wikilinks. JPG-GR (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • There are missing stations in many of the templates. The biggest problem with the templates is a lack of standards. there are some psuedo standards but they aren't well applied or defined.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates addition, RFC

I'd like to add this to the Template section of WP:WPRS, comments, concerns, corrections? Anyone with more information about Canadian, UK, Australian or other market definition outside the US would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Market Navigation Templates

Navigation templates for use on at the bottom of radio station articles are available for a number of countries. Templates include the market name linked to the article on that metropolitan area along with rank (where available), followed by lists of stations organized FM frequency, AM frequency, and callsign for all stations reasonably receivable within the market. Templates may also include 4th line which provides links to other markets within that state or province. In the United States, links provided by the Radio Locator (see below) can be helpful in determining the practical reach of a particular station. Splitting into multiple templates by AM and FM is not necessary. In general markets which are not notable enough to warrant an article covering that metropolitan area are probably not notable enough to warrant a market navigation template and may already be covered by another market navigation template.

  • United States: Navigation templates are available for all Arbitron tracked radio markets and other markets as well. The template name should contain the Arbitron defined market name followed by 'Radio' (Example: {{tl:Nashville Radio}}). For other markets, templates should be named with the generally accepted name for the area followed by 'Radio'.
  • Canada: Navigation templates are available for Canadian markets. The template name should contain the market name (as defined by BBM Canada) or the followed by 'Radio'.
  • Other Countries: several other countries have market navigation templates available as well. Templates should be named using the maket name (as defined by the predominate market research company or government agency tracking these markets) followed by 'Radio'.
The concept is sound. Little too wordy for my tastes and in need of some copyeditting. JPG-GR (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I probably went atoo far in trying to avoid U.S. centric wording. Anyone care to take a crack at copyediting?--Rtphokie (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, there isn't an easy or reliable reference for exactly what the Canadian radio markets defined by BBM actually are, or at least none that I'm aware of. The Canadian templates mostly tend to be set up by county, where possible, or by broad regional groupings such as Westman or Estrie, which don't necessarily correspond precisely to BBM markets. Though if you know of an actual source for BBM market data, I'd love to know about it. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at signal propagation maps and designating that certain stations are part of certain population markets is an excellent example of Original Research and has no place in Wikipedia.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratings info

I wanted to make sure everyone was aware of another, often overlooked, source for ratings information in the United State in addition to Arbitron and Radio & Records. Radio Research Consortium subscribes to Arbitron on behalf of hundreds of NPR, Corp for Public Broadcasting, and other non-commercial stations such as educational and religious stations and disseminates the information to them. The latest share info can be retrieved from their website for any market. When R&R calls a station #10, that may or may not be true because their lists include commercial stations only. The share info there should be reliable though. So I'm thinking that including share info from R&R or RRC is fine since it's published on those company's website. Any ranking info might be problematic. The traditional media gets away with it but it could be a source of trouble for Wikipedia.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

From: [3] "Remember that misuse of Arbitron or Scarborough data is considered to be copyright infringement. This includes use of data by non-subscribers." The RRC data is behind a user login for licensees only. The same applies to R&R data, which includes the notice that: "Ratings profiles are Copyright © 2008 Arbitron Ratings Company. May not be quoted or reproduced without the prior written permission of Arbitron. ".
The ratings items should be removed from the infobox template, because there is no source of Arbitron ratings data which is going to permit disclosure under the notion of "fair use", and people who don't know that will go around adding it back in.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Las Vegas Arbitron market

What is the deal with this relatively new category? There's already a perfectly good {{Las Vegas Radio}} template and Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas, Nevada category for these stations. Is this something we want to encourage or something we need to nip in the bud before there are 200 of these things? - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say nip it, but some might argue that the market category is more specific because Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas, Nevada should only include stations licensed to or with studios in Vegas (and that would go for any market/city). Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas, Nevada, as an example, is ambiguous if it is intended to cover the market. Also in the last series of renames on CfD, there are some editors who are taking the position that in the US, if a category name includes the city and state, it is city specific so that they are free to remove any other entries. While that does not appear to have consensus, it is hard to trace down that type of removal and since the category name is ambiguous creating a better name seems to be a wiser approach. Using Arbitron in the name also avoids other issues when a general area exists. Say for LA, is it the city, the county, the Greater Los Angeles area, the Los Angeles Basin or in the past the Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County, CA CMSA? The name being discussed here is completely unambiguous. The other option as suggested above is to have a policy to no longer categorize by market and rely on templates. Then stations would be listed under their city of license, or other higher classification if there was no city category. That would also be a reasonable alternative. Given that the above category has existed without any apparent confusion for a few weeks, it is an understandable alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mark - nip it in the bud before the can of worms has spilled everywhere. JPG-GR (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue somewhat to the contrary (if I'm interpreting the request correctly). Using Arbitron or BIA markets is vastly preferable to any of the alternatives, at least for those markets which are covered by those companies. They are, after all, the third-party, reliable sources that the FCC itself uses to define radio markets for its ownership-concentration rules. Looking in my 2007 Arbitron Red Book, 206 of 302 radio markets (more than two thirds) are named for a single principal city; I see no reason why this project (as the maintainer of those categories) simply define the content of "Category:Radio stations of X" (where X is a U.S. placename) as being the stations in the X radio market, referencing Arbitron per WP:V and WP:RS. This would only require different categories for the 96 places where the market name is different (either contains multiple principal cities, as in "Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY" [#63], or has a sui generis name, like "Victor Valley, CA" [#121]). 121a0012 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaving Arbitron out of the name leaves an ambiguous categroy. Category names are suppose to identify the contents without being ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I cite my classic example - WJR, which appears in MANY Arbitron markets. Personally, I'd prefer we just stick with the state categories and not subcategorize geographically, but that's more to avoid things like this than anything else. JPG-GR (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the stations that are in a market area and are not a part of the market. I guess the question is what is/were these categories intended to cover? If the answer is that there will be no tie in to the markets in any way, then that would be a valid answer. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
@JPG-GR: Actually, WJR does not appear in "MANY" Arbitron markets. It can be heard in many markets, sure -- I can hear it here -- but that does not mean that it is part of those markets (DX listening is economically negligible). What markets would you expect WJR to appear in besides Detroit, Toledo, and Ann Arbor?
@Vegaswikian: There are no "stations that are in a market area and are not a part of the market". There are stations that don't subscribe to a ratings service, and stations that don't appear in the ratings, but they are still in the market. (Even non-commercial stations are included in the FCC's market-concentration analysis; see, for example, this BIA analysis which was submitted to the Commission as an exhibit to a station transfer application.) 121a0012 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

station "x" is an affiliate of the Atlanta Braves radio network

We have large number of stations where the sentence "The station is an affiliate of the Atlanta Braves radio network, the largest radio affiliate network in Major League Baseball.[1]" was added by a script to the LEAD paragraph. I was researching WTKS-AM, which is listed with that text, but their call sign is not listed on the source.

Sporting affilitions are in constant flux. The factual claim that the Atlanta Braves network has the most number of affiliates belongs on a page about the Atlanta Braves or the Atlanta Braves Radio Network, not on every station that is or has even been an affiliate, as it is not an attribute of the station. Even if you disagree with that, it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. Opinions?StreamingRadioGuide (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 121a0012 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, even though I'm the editor that put it there in the first place. (I was a lot newer at this back then and, yes, I did it by hand so no script is to blame.) I've taken the opportunity to clean up the WTKS (AM) article a bit, add a much-needed infobox, and correct the programming section. (Far more syndicated programming than just Braves baseball has left the station in the last year.) I concur than striking the phrase "the largest radio affiliate network in Major League Baseball" from these articles is warranted in most cases. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Sister" station

The article for WDMN is currently flagged as needing a citation for the claim that it is a "Sister" station. The article asserts it is a sister station because it is owned by the same entity (Cornerstone Ministries), which is easily checked in the FCC database, which is already listed as a source.

Unfortunately, an editor "fixed" the example article prior to achieving agreement on how to resolve this issue, so the text no longer reflects the original language - so you'll need to back up in history to see the example I was using.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But I'm really asking - what is a "sister station", and why is that of any signficance in an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience (not a radio fan site).... Is every radio station in every Clear Channel cluster a "sister" station, and should we start adding them? To be a sister station, does it have to share facilities? Be in the same market? Or just the owner of the station claims it is?StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sister station" and "co-owned" are the same thing. I think sister station is the more "in the biz" term. As someone who was "in the biz" for several years, the answer to all your questions is, yes. But generally "sister station" is only a station under the same roof, but as a whole, all 1,100 plus Clear Channel stations are "sister stations" and that can be repeated for every ownership group. Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
More practically, sister stations are co-owned and in the same market. Just because Cumulus owns both KTCK in Dallas, Texas, and WALG in Albany, Georgia, doesn't make them sister stations. So, no, you wouldn't list all 1100ish Clear Channel stations as sisters to every other station but you should list the four to seven they own in any given market. - Dravecky (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The intended meaning was "Every clear channel station that shares a cluster", so I count your response as a "Yes".StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider this article for WEGO which states "It is owned by GHB Broadcasting and has several sister stations in North Carolina.". This implies that a sister station can be owned by the same owner, but not geographically in the same market. (Please don't "fix" this issue by updating this article)
Perhaps we should not be incorporating data as encyclopedic when we can't define what it means? or at least not tagging articles disputing an assertion that a station is a sister station...
Can a TV station be a sister station to a radio station? StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The common industry understanding that I have is certainly that any two stations with the same "parent" (controlling organization) can be regarded as "sisters". (Often they will not share the same licensee since many operators use a different license-holding corporation for each station.) The better question to ask is, which sister stations are relevant? In the case of a large group broadcaster, it's probably the stations in the market. But, for Bob Bittner Broadcasting, which only owns two (soon to be three) stations, any one station represents a sizeable fraction of the whole, so it makes sense to list all of them no matter what market they are in. Judgment is the key, not bright-line rules. 121a0012 (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The problems with fuzzy definitions is they give rise to disputes such as the one that started this discussion. "No Bright Line Rules" is not a wikipedia policy - it is completely contrary to the verifiability and no original research principles. I was not the editor who added the designation that it was a sister station, nor the person who challenged it. I was rewriting much of the article and didn't understand the reason for the challenge. My own opinion (implied by my line of questioning) is that there should be no sister information, as it is all "original research" in the absence of an objective definition that can be verified using independent sources. The fact that the editorial guidelines strongly discourage editors from writing about things they have a personal involvement with is for a good reason, and this is an excellent case in point. Creating a project doesn't mean that allows the project to igonre wikipedia's guidelines - like Wikipedia is not directory and that the target audience is the general public. Does anyone think a general reader of a radio article cares about the HAAT of the antenna?.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably as much as a general reader of the John F. Kennedy article cares exactly where he spent his Easter holidays in his youth or cares about the precise elevation of Saskatoon. That is to say, not very much, but there will be some that do care and it's verifiable so why not include a basic fact like HAAT in the infobox? I wouldn't put HAAT in the article text but it's an ideal bit of info for an infobox. (By the way, the answers are Palm Beach, Florida, and 481.5 meters.) - Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

lists of radio stations by radio frequency

I've done some searching and I don't think there is one at all on here. Considering there are books which consist solely of listings of radio stations by frequency (or at least chapters of books), I would think we could come up with a comprehensive list. Someone looking for WGN might just decide to type in 720 AM instead. DandyDan2007 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy enough to sort each state's list of radio stations by frequency, call letters, or city of license so I can't see a need for a special list of stations by frequency. And would the scope be national? Global? Would that person searching for WGN be any better served by finding a list of 20 US stations plus a bunch of Mexican, Canadian, and others with WGN buried in the middle? And what about the 85 or so North American AMs at 1310? Is that a useful way to find KTCK? Count me as opposed. - Dravecky (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to DandyDan's suggestion — we do, in fact, already have partial incomplete lists for 97.3 FM and 102.7 FM (full disclosure, I created the 102.7 list, but I did so mainly to forestall a person who was attempting to use that title as a redirect to one particular radio station on that frequency), and we do have "TV stations by channel number" lists. I do think it's a potentially useful navigation guide, in part because people might sometimes know the frequency and approximate location of a radio station but not know its actual call sign or real city of license. And some people might genuinely want to see such a list for reasons other than attempting to locate a particular station. But it is a big ongoing project that would most likely require a lot of people looking after it — and if done comprehensively, it should certainly use the wikitable style rather than the unformatted list style. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And, no offense intended toward Bearcat, but those frequency lists are utter crap. Anybody who comes to an encyclopedia searching by the frequency of a radio station has no concept of radio whatsoever. There's useful dabpages and then there's ridiculous. JPG-GR (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
All of the (print) reference books I regularly use include one or more listings of stations by frequency. 121a0012 (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Print books, unlike our existing lists of radio stations by state, can't be re-sorted by each column so they contain multiple otherwise redundant lists. Wikipedia has no such limitation so we can use one big list for each state in a wikitable format to be sorted in any way the user wishes. - Dravecky (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Our existing lists of radio stations by state can't be re-sorted into lists of radio stations by frequency: if one is actually looking for a list of stations sorted by frequency, one would have to consult fifty different lists of radio stations by state. 121a0012 (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:INFO. JPG-GR (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The relevance of which is, what, precisely? 121a0012 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: Owner vs Licensee vs LMA

This issue comes up from time to time, since one of the issues I tend to spot and try to clean up is mistakes about the ownership of radio station. I'm not "in the biz", but think by now I have a pretty good idea how to delve into the FCC records.

The Infobox template doesn't seem to be to communicate clearly this information. Not knowing how templates work behind the scenes and not knowing the implications, I would not even consider doing anything without consensus. The existing template permits two data fields - Owner and Licensee. The output takes the Owner field and labels it the "Owner", then puts the licensee field (if present) in parenthesis below the "Owner". While this makes some sense for a situation like Clear Channel.... Clear Channel is the ultimate owner, but the license is being held in the name of an acquired company (AM/FM Licneses, Jacor,etc...), it is counter-intuitive for other kinds of situations. Kind of by definition, the "licensee" of the station is the "Owner". The sitatuion this doesn't address is LMA situations which clearly confuse a lot of people, especially in the general public.

My objective is that when I visit a page for a station, and the FCC licensee doesn't match the information in the infobox, it is clear to a visitor why that it is so. So a typical radio station listener would believe his favorite station is owned by "X", but when he gets here it says "Y", which is a company he has never heard of can figure it out.

Typical reasons for differences I've seen are 1) pending sales erroneously changed to the new owner prior to consummation of the sale 2) non-sale related LMAs where the station is being operated by one company but the license is owned by a different company and the editor doesn't understand what an LMA is and thinks the operator is the "owner" of the station 3) Station owners (or people editing the articles) glossing over subtle legalisms like the person who owns the stock of a corporation is not the owner of the station - the corporation is. If person "A" owns Corp 1 (which owns station AAA) and owns Corp 2 (which owns station BBB), it is wrong to say that Corp 1 is the owner of station BBB. If Person "A" is the sole owner of both corporations, it is basically accurate to say that Person "A" owns station "AAA" and "BBB", but if either corporation has a minority shareholder, that is not correct.

I also would like "owner" to be usable to pierce the corporate veil as far as public understanding. The FCC ownership reports (which are public record) and already linked to as a source require the licensee to disclose the actual owners of the interest in the station, not just the name of an LLC that holds the license. Being able to say that "Station ABC is owned 100% by an individual who has his investment in an LLC (for whatever reason) could be very useful information to people doing research on the station. There are stations with very curious owners who you would never think have an interest in the radio business. The current "Owner" item doesn't facilitate this. If I discover that Station BBB is licensed to XYZ, LLC, which is identified in the FCC reports as 100% owned by a local politician, I think that's useful information. I would like to be able to show it as Licensee (owner).

In any case, that's the objective and some of the issues.... WKHW happens to be the one I'm dealing with today. It is licensed to Great Scott, but has been a long term LMA to Bay Broadcasting, dating back to a defunct simulcast. I've reversed the two data items to make it look understandable, but am not comfortable with that as the solution, since Bay is not the licensee.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As you will no doubt have seen in your researches, the FCC is concerned about two distinct concepts in this field: the ownership of the license, and the control of the licensee. When a license is "assigned" (technically it cannot be bought or sold, although in normal English prose one would use those words), a form must be filed with the FCC requesting consent to the assignment. If the FCC consents, and the old licensee files a notice of consummation within the specified period, then the FCC will update its records to reflect the new licensee name. Any kind of legal person may be a licensee, provided he/she/it is domiciled in the U.S. (and, in the case of individuals, a U.S. citizen). Since individuals are very rarely licensees in their own right, most license assignments these days (identified in CDBS by the "BAL" file number prefix) are of the pro forma variety: changes in names or corporate structures that don't actually mean anything.
What the FCC is most concerned about is control. All of the owners, direct and indirect, of voting interest in a corporate licensee are, as a group, said to control the licensee. However, making every individual shareholder in a corporate broadcaster file a transfer of control ("BTC") application whenever they trade in the company's stock would be an undue burden on both licensees and the financial markets. So the FCC defines a threshold of "attributable ownership", and only attributable owners are required to be reflected in the biennial ownership reports ("BOA") filed with the Commission. (So, for example, Sumner Redstone "controls" CBS Radio East, Inc., the licensee of WBZ. He does this through his control of National Amusements, which owns a majority of the voting power in CBS Corporation, which ultimately owns all of the voting power in CBS Radio East, Inc.) The FCC must give prior consent to any action that results in majority voting control changing hands (except in unusual situations like bankruptcy trusteeship). If the control of a licensee ends up in a corporation with no shareholder having an attributable interest (e.g., GE) then that corporation is said to have control.
The obvious answer would be that the "owner" would be the controlling entity or entities (Robert Miles Bittner for WJTO, Sumner Redstone for WBZ, GE for WNBC), but this isn't always the most useful information. Normally we would say that CBS Corporation, not Sumner Redstone, is the "owner" of WBZ, since Redstone's voting control belies his minority economic interest in the company. Similarly, it makes more sense to say that NBC Telemundo "owns" WNBC, because that is the name under which that part of GE does business (and readers can always follow the link to find out more about the corporate structure). LMAs and JSAs make this even more confusing, since control does not change in such transactions, but as far as a lay listener/viewer can tell, the station is being operated by someone else.
So, I would make the following suggestion. The "licensee" should reflect the actual holder of the license, as reflected in FCC proceedings. The "owner" should be the best-recognized name by which the business in control of the station is known (if different from the licensee); if the owner is a partnership, and the existence or ownership of the partnership is otherwise notable, the major partners and their stakes should be identified. There should be another field for LMAs that is labeled "Managed by:" in the infobox. 121a0012 (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:College radio stations in X

I don't recall a discussion about breaking up the not terribly large Category:College radio stations in the United States but apparently a couple of months ago some bold editor created Category:College radio stations in Oregon and a couple of days ago another was inspired to create Category:College radio stations in Georgia. Ignoring for the moment the slightly ambiguous nature of the latter category (precedent would have it "in Georgia (U.S. state)"), is this a category we want divided? I think it's bad precedent and over-categorization. If left unchecked, eventually we'll have a whole bunch of tiny by-state sub-cats of every possible format category. The folks at CfD will listen if we speak as a project, they said in a recent discussion. So do we nip this in the bud, encourage it, or what? The more people chiming in here, the better. - Dravecky (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of over categorization when the nav boxes are already split up by state. We should have a mass list/category of stations by format (i.e. the Category:College radio stations in the United States or Category:Classical music radio stations in the United States categories). Mr mark taylor (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)!
Format categories shouldn't be subdivided by state. This situation doesn't really meet either of the standard rationales for by-state subcategories: they aren't part of a comprehensive set being used to diffuse excessively large parents, and beyond geography itself there isn't any meaningful difference between being a college radio station in Oregon or Georgia and being a college radio station in Vermont or Florida or Montana. While diffusion of Category:Radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state) is probably valid, it should be done by market (the only cities with dedicated market categories right now are Savannah and Atlanta), not by format, and Category:College radio stations in the United States needs cleanup, not diffusion (for instance, there are clearly non-notable entries sneaking in that should be deleted, and non-AM/FM "stations" which only broadcast on the Internet should get bumped up into the Category:University and college media in the United States parent. Once those are done, however, absolutely no diffusion by format-in-state subcats. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"College" is not a format; it is a kind of organization which might own a station. (The actual format might be news-talk, AAA, block-programmed rock, Contemporary Christian, or any of a dozen others.) It is reasonable to classify stations on the basis of ownership. That said, separate state categories do not strike me as particularly useful, for the reasons Bearcat notes. 121a0012 (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the matter, but for what it's worth, "college" is considered a format in Canada inasmuch as there are specific operating licenses for "Campus Community" and "Campus Instructional." Within the industry, those two categories are considered comparable to "News/Talk," "CHR," "Hot AC" or any other format. The U.S. situation may be different, I just thought I'd offer this perspective. --Adam 216.106.108.16 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially, pursuant to my suggestion that the Georgia category be diffused into subcategories for major radio markets, I just wanted to note that I've now created "Radio stations in X" subcats for Albany, Athens, Augusta, Brunswick, Columbus, Macon and Valdosta. I also noticed that about half the radio stations in the existing Savannah cat were being double-filed in both Savannah and the Georgia parent. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just what we need - more geographic categories that contain a small handful of stations. JPG-GR (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you really find undifferentiated state categories without subcategories for major markets to be more helpful? I don't. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I find "major markets" a vague term. For instance, I haven't heard of some of those Georgia cities which leads me to believe their markets aren't that big. I find one category of 200 items better than one with 100 items and 10 subcategories of 10 items each. That's just me, though. JPG-GR (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd also note that in the process of doing this, I caught more than a dozen stations that weren't filed in any Georgia-related categories at all, but only ownership or format categories — which means that even if the project does come to a consensus that the city categories should get merged back up to the state one, the number of unfiled stations I caught still constitutes a net benefit to the project. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As well, I'd like to note that I tend to be concerned as much with category intersections as with categories themselves. For instance, radio stations in a particular city are subtopics of the city category just as much as they are of the state radio stations category — but if a dedicated "radio stations in city" subcategory doesn't exist, then the article either (a) ends up in both Category:Radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Athens, Georgia, which has the result of cluttering the city category unnecessarily, or (b) ends up only in Category:Radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state) and not in any city category at all, which means half of its context is missing. When it comes to radio categorization, I'm not concerned only with what's easiest for this project, but with finding the best balance between this project and the needs of other categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for category organization as it currently leaves a little to be desired. I came across a Category: Radio station lists by US city or something like that last night which was actually a pleasant surprise... even if it did show glaringly our inconsistency with their names. JPG-GR (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I totally agree that Category:Radio stations in the United States by city could use a once-over for consistency of naming format among its subcategories. There's a similar issue with Category:Lists of media by city in the United States, but I'm going to put that up for a separate discussion because it's going to need crossposting to the television project as well. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed content - TIML Radio (UK)


Hi there, I've created the following draft page User:Jonathanhopkins/Draft_TIML_Radio_(UK)_page and would like to add it to the main Wikipedia directory. Having followed the guidelines for the submission of new companies to Wikipedia Wikipedia:Business'_FAQ, I'm hoping that I can get some feedback from the Wikipedia community and my suggestion for the proposed new page is a valid one. Thanks in advance for your help. Jonathanhopkins (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks fairly fine to me and is referenced, so it could be placed into article namespace. The only things I would do is:
  • I would just call the article TIML Radio. There is no need to disambiguate the title as from what I can see, they are only operating in the UK at present. If they expand beyond the UK, you can move the page to TIML Radio (UK) and make the TIML Radio page a disambiguation page;
  • Correct the error in the TIML Radio website address. It has a comma in the web address instead of a dot;
  • Add the article to categories regarding UK radio (ie. British Radio, Media companies of the United Kingdom and Radio broadcasting companies of the United Kingdom) but only do this when the article has been created in article namespace.
  • Add, expand and correct the Virgin Radio article.
Hope this helps --tgheretford (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

Yo all...I've started working on subcategorizing Category:Radio stations in Mexico by state, and I've come across a couple of questions that I need some help with because I'm in no sense an expert on Mexican radio (aside from the Stan Ridgeway song, of course...), and can't read enough Spanish to research these myself:

  1. There's a subcategory, Category:Regional Mexican radio stations, which describes itself as a specific radio format pertaining to regional styles of Mexican music, but from what I can tell the category appears to be getting misused as a catchall for just about any station in Mexico that's "regional" in the sense of not being in Mexico City: some of the stations in the category have infoboxes that describe the station's format as news, sports or university/college radio, not regional Mexican music. Does anybody know enough about Mexican radio to sort this out?
  2. I've also come across a few stations where the state template that's located at the bottom of the article doesn't match the article's description of the station: XEAK-AM, for example, is described in the article as being in Baja California, but it has a Guanajuato template at the bottom. XEBC-AM says Baja California, but is templated as Jalisco. XERA-AM says it's in Coahuila, but is templated as Chiapas. XED-AM, XELO-AM and XERB-AM are similarly afflicted as well. I suspect these are probably cases of reassigned call signs, but again, I don't know enough about Mexican radio to simply assume that or to fix the articles.

Thanks for any help that anybody with some knowledge of Spanish can provide here. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've managed to get all six stations in item #2 deciphered for past vs. present call sign assignments, and hence sorted for state, although all of the articles are still quite poor in terms of actual detail on the stations in question, and I still need assistance with item #1. We are, for what it's worth, very weak on radio stations in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean in general, and definitely need to find ways to improve our coverage of these areas. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

(cc: Television and Radio WikiProjects.) Due to the use of a variety of different title formats, Category:Lists of media by city needs a review to determine a consistent naming standard. I've initiated a discussion at Category talk:Lists of media by city around this. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliary Licenses

Are or can auxiliary licenses be listed? These are the Remote Pickup Units & Studio-Transmitter Links, etc.? I know of one page that has them, but the station is now defunct & another station in which they were deleted by an unregistered user.Stereorock (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something that makes them specifically notable, I'd say "no" per WP:DIR. Mentioning that XETV uses a common carrier to get its signal across the border is one thing; no Wikipedia user is going to look up WPTZ in order to to find out that they are also the licensee of WHA855, WHA856, KEH93, and so on. (With my luck those will turn out to belong to WCAX instead; the point stands.) An example of a notable auxiliary station would be the one that Allan Weiner got a few decades back for whichever Maine AM he was involved with at the time, for which he got busted. (That saga is probably worth an article of its own.) 121a0012 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah- that was KPF941. He talks about it in his book. An interesting idea to say the least!Stereorock (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image categorization

I have a basic question regarding categorization of images. Recently an editor referenced your Wikiproject’s suggested guidelines for geographical categorization as a rational for removing a radio station logo image ( WHCJ logo) from several categories. When I restored the categories using meta wiki article on images as the rational my edits were reverted. This policy article states:

"By adding a category tag on the image page, images can be in the same category as other pages, but are treated separately: on the category page they are not included in the count of articles in the category, and they are displayed in a separate section, with for each a thumbnail and the name, see category page.
On Commons there are essentially only images. On projects with real articles a category can either mix articles and images about a subject, or one has separate image categories. An image category is typically a subcategory of the general category about the same subject, and a subcategory of a wider image category."

I’m not looking for some lame edit war over this, but I would like to know if anyone knows of an overriding wikipedia policy that prevents radio logo images from appearing in categories? - Absolon S. Kent (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I think this is more a question of logic than policy (of which there is no specific one). If there is a category, say Category:Radio stations in Florida, then that category should contain articles on radio stations. Images don't seem to belong in this category semantically, any more than WWWW-FM would be long in Category:Radio station logos. Am I against Category:Logos of radio stations in Florida or something similar? No. But, categorizing articles there is silly. Categorizing them by MUSIC GENRE is ten times more ridiculous. Short and simple: a logo defines a station, not a station's geographic region, it's music genre, it's corporation, whatever. Now, for those few radio stations that have their own categories... well, that would make sense. JPG-GR (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Avoid the issue here and move the logos to commons where there is a better structure for categorizing images. Tag the image with {{move to commons}} or move it yourself. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was given to understand that fair-use images like copyrighted radio station logos could not be uploaded to Commons. Did I misunderstand a policy? - Dravecky (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, looks like fair-use is an exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Other editors have disagreed on the upload to Commons opinion. Is there a reference that can be used. And as far as JPG-GR's opinion, this wikiproject is the first I've seen the issue of images and articles filed in the same category as an issue. If you look throughout the Military wikiproject and the music wikiprojects you find images and articles in categories together. This eliminates the need for so many seperate categories when they are covering the same topic. Again, I'm not looking for some lame war, I just want to see a valid policy, not an individual editorial viewpoint on the subject. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
With regards to other categories/projects, I don't know. All I know is when I started with WP:WPRS images weren't in these categories, but slowly they've been added. JPG-GR (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Everybody...

...please take a look at this and see what can be done. JPG-GR (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

CPRN goes/went dark

As of 2359 PDT 30 June, 2008, the Classical Public Radio Network service will be shut down. The website is already closed, and the programming for subscriber stations, with the exception of KUSC, will switch to Classical 24 from American Public Media (formerly Minnesota Public Radio). More details at [[ http://www.current.org/music/music0805cprn.shtml]] This unannounced (by KUSC) action explains the alteration in the broadcast/'net stream that starts tomorrow.

(Personal note: This sort of programming by the 'Surprise Party/Practical Joke depts.' is why my family and I cancelled our memberships-- in the middle of the year-- five years ago. </rant> ) v/r, Drieux (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Template question

There seems to be a bit of an edit war over this on some radio market templates, so I thought I should ask for other people's opinions: given the fact that television stations which broadcast on channel 6 can also be heard on 87.7 FM, should we be listing channel 6 stations on the radio templates? I personally don't think we should, but what do the rest of you think? Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least a couple that are intentionally using this fact to transmit an audio program while only sending a slide or other minimal video programming. Those should be included. As to the rest, I would say no. - Dravecky (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If they are listed as FM licensed in the FCC database, yes. If not, no. JPG-GR (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of them are licensed as FM; there are a few that broadcast a very minimal video signal ( bot in terms of power and content ) which are technically licensed as TV stations but for programming purposes are FM radio stations. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
87.7 isn't licensed as a radio station in the US, their are 100 channels on the FM spectrum (Channels 201 to 300 spaced every .2 mhz). 87.9 is the first channel that would be licensed by the FCC (but isn't because of the proximity of TV Channel 6). Channel 6 shouldn't be listed in the RADIO station templates because of this, even if they are trying to gear themselves as a "radio" station. MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If 87.7 walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help with WZNZ, 1460-AM, Jacksonville, FL

WZNZ needs some help. The present edit as well as the edits immediately prior to June 4 have some information that I've been assured is accurate, but I can't find any proper references for them. Can those of you who have access to local media or other information on this station help build this article up to GA status? Thanks. Also, if anyone has verifiable history on that radio station, including previous call signs on AM1460 out of Jacksonville, Florida please add them. I kind of botched things on June 4 when removed a large amount of unreferenced material and replaced it with information from the FCC that, as it turned out, I misinterpreted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, Arbitron's most recent information shows a format not even mentioned yet in the article: a religious station, "1460 The River of Life", with a website still active at here. JPG-GR (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, far enough back there is ([4]). JPG-GR (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done some expansion and added a few references. There's still plenty of info to be mined from these references and the timeline clearly needs some more work but it's a start. - Dravecky (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
1460theriver.com appears to be a stale web page. I remember running across it in early June. I couldn't figure out which web page was the current one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
100000watts.com (a commercial database of radio stations) shows it as "Talk", running Ed Schultz, Jim Bohannon, and Bloomberg business news, with the format change (from religion) happening on 2008-01-14. 121a0012 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

{{RadioRebroadcasters}}

Could somebody who's knowledgeable about complex template coding help me add a column to this template to link to the {{RecnetCanada}} profiles for Canadian radio stations, similarly to how the equivalent American template has a column for FCC and RadioLocator links? I've noticed that there's some hidden residual FCC coding in the Canadian template, but I'm not sure how to change it over. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Think I know what you mean - try that. JPG-GR (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Woohoo! You're my new hero for the week! Bearcat (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did make the template originally hehe. JPG-GR (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with "Play 99.6 FM"?

I deprodded Play 99.6 FM a while back. It's a radio station in Jordan. It was PROD'ed because of concerns the article looked too much like an advertisement. However, I'd like to see more coverage of radio stations in the Middle East and feel the article could be improved if brought to the attention of this WikiProject. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a general cleanup on the article, added a format category, and made some formatting fixes but it could certainly use some more attention from somebody who knows broadcasting in that neck of the world a little better. Oh, and it needs references. - Dravecky (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
And call letters. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Does Jordan use call letters at all? Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Jordanian callsigns begin with "JY". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A Heads Up

Over on the TV Station WikiProject, we have run into a user that is changing "and" to "&" and "at" to "@" (both in schedules and in mid-sentences). Plus, the user is removing the "A.M." and "P.M." from some schedules, against MOS. I bring this to your attention, as he has begun editing radio station pages as well. Another Wikipedia user has shown concern that this is a sockpuppet for Dingbat2007. Whether it is or not, I can't say, as I am not sure if a checkuser has been performed. Just a heads up....NeutralHomer talk|edits 05:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The fix for this is quite easy - remove the schedule per WP:NOT#DIR. JPG-GR (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WVBR-FM schedule

The program schedule on WVBR-FM has been removed and readded several times. The editor who is insisting this information be in the article points to the provision in WP:NOT#DIR that state mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable as their reason. I'm having trouble equating the current weekend local program schedule a college radio station with the the annual network television schedule. I've left the section alone for now but would appreciate some expert opinion from WPRS types, discussion is on the Talk:WVBR-FM page.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that as well as a lot more cruft, citing WP:NOT#DIR, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The amount of sheer unnecessary information in that article was ridiculous. WVBR-FM != www.wvbr-fm.com (or whatever it is). JPG-GR (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Looking at their website, they were actually including the wiki article as the sole content of the stations history page. And interesting, and lazy way to maintain the history of the station. This probably encouraged the cruft to build up.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also a bad idea from a PR perspective - what happens when a listener visits the page via a link and its been vandalized in any number of ways? JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the editor in question has confirmed an affiliation with the station in question that constitues a conflict of interest on my talk page (he/she is a former GM). I've left an olive branch of sorts on the editor's talk page, reminding them of COI concerns and offering WP:WPRS's assistance and making nuetral improvments of the page on his/her behalf. Thanks to NuetralHome (welcome back) and JPG-GR for stepping in on this one. The college radio pages can be some of the most contentious. --Rtphokie (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your "help" in resolving this conflict. Oh wait, there were only two of you. Nevermind. See Talk:WVBR-FM. Weathermandan (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There were at least three of us helping (with no ironic quotation marks) you improve this article and bring it up to Wikipedia standards because that's what we at the WPRS do. - Dravecky (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Detroit Radio market template

Question for y'all: there's been a lot of back and forth over the years as to whether radio stations in Windsor, Ontario, Canada should be directly included in the Detroit, Michigan radio template. The state of things at this particular point is that three of the Windsor stations are listed in that template, while the other 10 aren't. I'd like to ask what criterion is being used to draw that distinction — it clearly isn't reception, because CBE and CBEF are known to get at least to Ann Arbor — and what should be done about it: should the Windsor stations come off the template, on the basis that the Detroit template already contains a text link to the {{Southwestern Ontario Radio}} template, or should the ten Windsor stations that aren't on the Detroit template be added to it? Either way, the current situation isn't acceptable. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The best way, IMHO, is to find the most recent station in Detroit to have been sold. There will likely be included in the FCC filings a copy of the BIA market definition for Detroit. Whichever Windsor stations are listed there are considered to be part of the Detroit market by the FCC, so that should be good enough for us. Since Clear Channel owns in Detroit, you can look for application BTC-20061212BZV (you have to use the "Group ALTC Search" in CDBS to find this), and look at Exhibit 18-2, "Radio Multiple Ownership"; the Detroit market listing, which starts on page 78, includes four Windsor stations: CKLW, CIDR, CIMX, and CKWW. It also lists two Toledo stations and two Flint stations. I don't know why the CBC stations are not included; it may be because the CBC officially does not target cross-border listenership. 121a0012 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If your method is implying that Flint stations should be in the Detroit market, I'm opposing the use of this method. JPG-GR (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You have an impartial third-party source for your preferences, or just original research? I'm suggesting that we should use the method the FCC uses. For Arbitron-rated markets, that is what the BIAfn tables show. 121a0012 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've argued this a million times and I will continue to do so - WJR can be heard in many markets, but that doesn't mean it should have many market templates at the bottom of the article. WJR is a Detroit station and should be listed in the Detroit market template. Any other markets that might include WJR (which, of course, identifies itself as a station licensed to Detroit, Michigan at least once an hour) should have the appropriate links to the Detroit market template (and likely do). JPG-GR (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant strawman. The FCC doesn't care about which markets a station can be heard in; it is only concerned about the markets in which a station participates economically. Skywave listening doesn't count; solicitation of advertising and appearance in the ratings book do. (Which is why the market definitions used are the ones drawn up by BIA Financial Network, a company whose business is selling reports about stations' advertising revenues, which are in turn based on their Arbitron ratings.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the United States, the markets the templates refer to are determined by Arbitron, not the FCC. I'd rather see something more concrete and referencable used in determining the content of these market templates, at least in the United States. Arbitron's market definitions as published on Radio and Records for commercial stations, and [http://www.rrconline.org Radio Research Corporation's publication of public radio and other non-commercial station data. In Detroit's case, there are 3 Canadian licensed stations that show up in the ratings book for the Detroit market, so I tend to think that they belong in the market navigation box.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I'm a part of WP:Kansas and have just set up two stubs at KNCK and KCKS, as well as a re-direct at KVCO. I'd like some assistance in setting up these articles more in line with your project standards. Can anyone step in and help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated the pages with standard information, while Dravecky‎ added history information to the pages. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 17:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! Thank you so much!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. You're Welcome :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

US Callsigns in FCC database prepended with various letters?

What do these mean? Example WMYB's callsign change history has an entry for SWMYB, does this mean silent? Does 'D' mean deleted? Are there others?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "D" means deleted, as in the station doesn't exist anymore (as opposed to a call letter change, where then it would just show the call letters). I would guess the "S" means silent (I've never seen it in the database) but we are talking about a government agency so the obvious sometimes isn't the answer...MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My first guess on "S" was "operator error", but checking the call_sign_history table, there are 43 such entries, not all of them with "W" callsigns. Suggest you write cdbsinfo at fcc.gov and ask what it means. 121a0012 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "D" does mean Delete. I think maybe "S" means "Swap". I am not sure though. WAYZ also had the "S" in their call sign history, when that happened, WAYZ swapped calls with WWMD. Call Sign WWMD went from 104.7 to 101.5, and WAYZ went from 101.5 to 104.7. So, it could mean "swap". I am not sure though. - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Translator infobox questions

Why is there a place to add the xlator class when they're ALL class D? Also, how come it used to go up to xlator 30 & now it only goes to 21? Does this mean they can also go to 99 or 999 (I'm thinking Calvary Chapel here)? Stereorock (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to Template:RadioTranslators, it has never had more than 21 slots. If you are referring to Template:Infobox Radio station, then there has never been any specialized shots for multiple stations. Either way, if you're referring to the Calvary Chapel network in general, neither is the appropriate template anyway... so I'm rather lost.
I remember seeing the translator thing go to 30 so I'm wondering if it can go to 99 or 999 (the Calvary Chapel reference is because they have over 100 xlators).Stereorock (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

need a reference

Hello, I'm not a part of this project, but the help desk suggested I ask here.

The article Janis Ian states that an Atlanta radio station burned down after playing her first record, "Society's Child". This is in her autobiography, but there are no details. Can someone confirm that an Atlanta radio station burned about 1966-67? And if so, was there any indication that it was burned for playing her song? Thank you, Bubba73 (talk), 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My Google-fu didn't find a name but this info was in the press before it was in the autobiography [5] so I'd give it some validity. Also, perhaps some lucky editor could visit Ms. Ian on her book tour and just ask her. (Original research, I know, but know where to look would certainly make digging for reliable third-party sources a lot easier.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but that information may have come from her. I'm trying to get some specifics and verification (i.e. what station, when, and what did the fire marshall say about the cause). Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Want to create a new template & a new tag

I wanted to create one for Tokyo radio & a tag, like the HD radio one, for A.M. stereo stations including the A.M. stereo logo, which is in the public domain as far as I know. It was created by people on A.M. stereo e-mail lists.Stereorock (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a lot more comfortable if the copyright status of the image were clearer or the actual creator of the logo uploaded it to Commons themselves. - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I'm going to ask over on the A.M. stereo e-mail lists if they remember who created it.Stereorock (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked & am awaiting an answer. Maybe better would be just a list a la the Eco-Friendly stations list & the list of clear-channel stations.Stereorock (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a category for Tokyo radio stations? JPG-GR (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there's one for Asian media in general but nothing specific for Tokyo. I just made a template Template:Tokyo Radio but am going to check WRTH for additional data.Stereorock (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I just checked & there's already a template for Tokyo T.V.Stereorock (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: contents of Template:USRadio3

Would anybody be against the deletion of the lists as outlined in Template:USRadio3? With the completion of the lists by state, I question the usefulness of these alphabetical lists, other than from a trivia perspective. On the same hand, don't want to fully nominate yet until (a) I gauge the opinion of everyone else here and (b) to prevent some cascade that would cause other useful lists (like the state lists) to be subject to deletion. Thanks everyone! JPG-GR (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The national lists by call letters (and thus sortable by the other fields) are still useful for finding stations, especially if you don't know the specific state in question or only know most of the callsign. - Dravecky (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I seriously have to question the likelihood that someone would be looking for an article on a station and not know what state it's licensed to (one extra list to check at most) or only know part of the callsign (let's say I know the last two letters are QI... doesn't really help). JPG-GR (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Listen to AM radio at night and you'll hear plenty of stations you don't know which state they're coming from. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If such a station broadcasts its call sign while you're listening, you'll be able to look it up directly to find out what state it's in — and this kind of list won't help you if it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

KMBQ-FM

Whomever wrote this wrote it as an ad for the radio station.Stereorock (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Emarsee handled it quite nicely. - Dravecky (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Nobody's suggesting that we write up separate articles, don't worry, but I've noticed an increasing tendency for some people to document unsuccessful radio station applications on the applicant's corporate article and/or the relevant "Media in City" lists (see e.g. Media in Timmins#Denials of proposed radio stations). So I'd like to ask for input — do people see any real encyclopedic value to this (I don't, but it's happening often enough that there should be a discussion rather than a unilateral removal campaign), and should we or shouldn't we be doing it? Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in an extreme case (repeated denials for some reason), but otherwise it's just cruft. JPG-GR (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree that there are cases where the denial is notable in and of itself — Milestone Radio, frex, is a case where the license denials are so inherently notable (explosive blow to the commercial viability of Canadian hip hop, yadda yadda) that the company might potentially merit an article even if it hadn't finally hit paydirt — but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of caring that some local Joe or Jane Schmo who'll never have an article of their own anyway didn't get a license for a standalone CHR in a small city in 1987. Though colour me mystified as to why a denied application has a Recnet entry for its denied call sign. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one

While we're on the subject of cruft, do we care about details such as these?

  1. what day of the week a given date fell on (e.g. writing "Sunday, August 24, 2008" instead of just "August 24, 2008"),
  2. the exact time of a given event (e.g. that a station officially hit the air at 8:37 a.m.),
  3. what particular song a station kicked off with?

- Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's used for a little color in a potentially dry article to enhance readability and as long as these are properly sourced, I can't see any harm in having this sort of detail in the article - Dravecky (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the day of the week is useless, but sign-on time and first song (or last song, as the case may be) can be an interesting tidbit... if it can be sourced. JPG-GR (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WAPL-FM

I was in the process of correcting links to the WAPL disambiguation page, and I found that WAPL-FM has changed its call sign to simply WAPL effective 04/08/2008. I've changed the infobox to reflect the correct call sign, but there's still the matter of the article being named incorrectly now. As a relative newcomer to working with radio/television station articles, I wanted to ask for some opinions on the best course of action:

  1. Move the WAPL-FM article to WAPL (FM), update links to the article accordingly, and update the disambiguation page
  2. Since the only other article listed at the disambiguation page is for an airport with the ICAO code matching those initials, add a hatnote about the airport to the WAPL-FM page, and ask for a page move from WAPL-FM to WAPL
  3. Since WAPL (FM) already redirects to WAPL-FM, do nothing

Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Number 1. Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Number 2 is the appropriate solution. If nothing else, Dravecky will see this and take care of it in due time. :) JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, number 2 is the more appropriate solution. I'll add it to today's pile of fixes. - Dravecky (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There we go, all fixed now. - Dravecky (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States radio by format templates

What's up with the proliferation of these templates lately - I fail to see the use of a template that lists every News/Talk radio station in a particular state. JPG-GR (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see how it could be useful for navigation among similarly formatted stations in a distinct geographical area. What I don't see is them being thoughtfully crafted (lots of pointers to disambiguation pages, some pointed at duplicate stations) nor any movement to keep them maintained. - Dravecky (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the idea is a good one, but whoever is putting them together is forgetting to edit them (disambig pages, stations that aren't that format). User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I left a couple of notes on his talk page about the disambiguation problem when he first created the templates a couple of weeks ago - he said he'd go back and fix them, but I'm still running across disambiguation that's needed all over the place. I'm cleaning it up as I come across it - I think all the Ks should be done now, and I'm up to about WC on the Ws. I think he's using the information at ontheradio.net to put them together, which doesn't appear to be particularly up-to-date. Mlaffs (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
On each of the format templates for in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia I have corrected the linkage, added stations that were left out, and removed some that were no longer carrying that format. The person doing the templates is doing a big undertaking, but the disambig problem does need to be fixed. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Australian article naming

I have added Australian FM radio to the note in the article naming conventions as one of the places where the name of the station should typically be used instead of the callsign, unless the call sign is well-known. Australian radio stations don't have any regulatory requirement to identify their call signs on air, and generally on the FM band the call signs aren't used to identify the station, even within the industry (e.g. radio ratings). The use of the call sign is completely confusing to the reader who will most likely never have heard the call sign of the station. Twice now I have had to revert well-meaning page moves by people who don't realise that about Australian radio, so I believe it's beneficial to have it expressly spelled out as it is for Central and South American radio. - Mark 07:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

jazzfm.com to Jazz FM

I am in need of some help and guidance on where to proceed when jazzfm.com is renamed as Jazz FM (which currently is a disambiguation page) on October 6 in regards to how the article should be named and/or moved to. If anyone can make suggestions, please do so on the articles talk page. Your help is much apprechiated. Thank you. --tgheretford (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After examining the articles, I'd suggest renaming the jazzfm.com article to "Jazz FM (UK)" and updating the link from the much-needed disambiguation page. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WDXE

Boy, y'all don't mess around, do you? Thanks for the save! How the heck do you get a stub pulled together and up that quickly?

As I've been working through the disambiguations, I'd come across a bunch of pages like that one, so I figured they were a good — and accepted — approach, and I've created more as I've come across multi-station calls that were missing a dab page. Someone tried to speedy one last week, but an admin took the tag off pretty quickly. Am I wrong, or was this Afd actually as much out of left field as it seemed to me? Mlaffs (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem :) I keep templates of pages saved and just add the information from the FCC database, 100000watts.com, and Radio-Locator.com.....plus logos from the station's website (with proper F-URs, of course). Takes about 10 minutes, 15 if the servers are slow :) If you ever need help again, please don't hesitate to ask :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Underpopulated radio station categories

The following radio station categories are tagged with the {{popcat}} template as underpopulated:

Any effort that could be made to resolve these tags would be greatly appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One done. JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've taken it off the Canadian and Cayman categories. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? Those categories have only 2 to 6 entries each. By any measure, they're underpopulated. - Dravecky (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not being overly versed in those areas... if they're as full as possible (i.e. all stations in those regions are included), it's not a matter of their being underpopulated... but existing unnecessarily. Not saying that's the case, though. JPG-GR (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
They're not all as full as possible, unfortunately. (Only one radio station in Brazil?) For example, what I was hoping would happen would for somebody to take an underpopulated category like Category:Radio stations in the Cayman Islands and create well-formed and referenced starter articles for the dozen "missing" radio stations plus add a shiny new navigation template to actually fill up the category. (While I was in there, I also updated and cleaned up the few existing articles then added logos, where available.) Now a whole (small) country with a booming radio industry is properly represented in Wikipedia. That's what I was hoping for when I posted the original request. - Dravecky (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
They're not all as full as possible (not even the ones I removed it from), but policy around the popcat template is that it's not supposed to be used to denote "not all of the potential articles for this category exist yet" — it's only supposed to be used to convey "most or all of the relevant the articles are already on WP but just haven't been refiled here yet". The issue with the Quebec subcategories is that because the parent category has to be subcategorized by language, some stations simply get isolated from the main category if the language categories don't coexist with a comprehensive regional breakdown. So it's one of those sets that needs to exist comprehensively even if we end up with one or two categories that would ordinarily be deemed too small.
The Canadian radio contingent (which is rather small, unfortunately) are doing our best to fill up the Canadian radio categories, but small-town stations in Quebec tend to be harder to find good references for — Nord-du-Québec, in particular, is really problematic; there's a whole range of stations up there (anything on List of radio stations in Quebec whose owner is listed as "Club Social du Nord-Est") whose mere existence is the only detail about them that can be properly verified in the usual sources, and thus we can't write anything about them until we can figure out what kind of programming they actually air. In truth, they're mostly community-owned rebroadcasters of commercial stations from the bigger cities in southern Quebec, but with only a few exceptions to date it's particularly difficult to find out which stations. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM affiliates category.

Hi everyone. I have taken on a kind of ambitious category creation, and created "Category:Coast to Coast AM affiliates". All of the affiliate stations of the show could go under this category. More information on the stations is available on the category's page. I would appreciate any help on adding stations to this category. I have already done most of the west and parts of the Midwest USA. To me, this category is extremely relevant because it helps those of us who are into DXing help find C2C stations since that's a lot of what we hear at night on AM.

Any thoughts, suggestions? Milonica (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

While I see how this could be a good idea (and it is) it would open the door for all kinds of categories like "Category:Rush Limbaugh Show affiliates" or "Category:AT40 affiliates". I like the idea though, but I am just wondering what precendent would be set by creating it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said, it just organizes the data more, and I guess a bit selfishly helps me with my DXing. I see your point though. Any more thoughts? I spent a few hours on this project and I don't really want to abandon it as it would require going back and deleting all of the categories off of the stations I did (which at last count was 105 pages). That is, unless there is a bot that automatically cleans up orphaned categories?Milonica (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I dug up this from the archives, about radio show categories, but this was from 2 years ago. I like the idea of radio shows having their own category of some sort, but some shows (Coast to Coast included) have different formats/versions (Coast to Coast has a weeknight version, weekend and a Saturday night "Somewhere In Time" Art Bell Best of). Not all stations carry all versions of a show, but I could be splitting hairs at this point. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, CFD policy generally goes against categories of this type as WP:OCAT, although lists are very much permitted. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Program schedules

In accordance with both WP:NOTDIR and past discussion on this talk page, I've removed program schedules from several radio station articles in the past few days. However, at least one editor has challenged me on this, stating that a member of this project directly told him that airstaff lists were permissible as long as they didn't actually cite the exact times that any particular host was on the air.

I'd just like to point out that a list of on-air personalities which is differentiated into "morning", "midday", "afternoon", "evening" and "weekend" shifts is still a schedule — it doesn't magically become okay just because it uses general terms for dayparts instead of numeric time blocks. The core rationale behind the policy was not that articles should simply avoid listing specific times for its programs; it was that radio station articles shouldn't list non-notable programs at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

While aggressively removing schedules from station articles, I've generally left a couple of sentences about current weekday hosts alone or even converted the schedules into such prose on the theory that a station's current programming is generally notable. That doesn't mean every board op and weekender, for sure, but noting "Current weekday programming includes The Morning Mayhem with Jack Schmidt and Anne Example, Joan Jones on mid-days, and Rick Something in afternoon drive" is useful to the reader, normally verifiable via the station's website, and only slightly more subject to change than a station's format. It can also serve as a useful starter for a section on the station's programming or history, easily expanded or updated by an editor more familiar with the station or more focused on a few local stations rather than the whole of radio. - Dravecky (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That's completely fine, absolutely. What I'm concerned about is lists, organized under the title "airstaff", that only note which particular host holds down which particular daypart, and which certain editors then claim aren't "schedules" only because they don't actually cite the precise times that any given host is on the air. There are perfectly valid and encyclopedic ways to include content about a radio station's programming in its article, but that approach isn't one of them. CFNY-FM, on the other hand, is one of the prime examples of an article which gives significant context and background for each of its programs, and thus can't be dismissed as a pure "schedule". Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely, such lists should be converted to a sentence or two of prose, no question. - Dravecky (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

KQRS-FM

I've been dealing with an IP editor who, at first, was shortening everything to simply "KQ" where it shouldn't have been and breaking image links. Now he has decided that "Minnesota's Classic Rock" isn't a classic rock station and puts non-existent templates in there. Any help? --Sable232 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Generic templates

Some well-meaning editor has slapped a generic navigation-by-state template on all of the media, television, and radio station by state categories. This isn't much of a problem except it leaves the D.C. category as a redlink and he created Category:Radio stations in Georgia as a redirect to the correct Category:Radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state). We either need to eliminate the redirect or constantly patrol this new, easy to type but terribly wrong category. I don't see the benefit to this generic by-state nav template so I'd be completely okay if it was removed, at least from the radio categories, or replaced with a properly built radio-oriented template. - Dravecky (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuke the templates from the cat pages. No added navigational value, more trouble than it's worth, and wasn't discussed before it was mass-added. The worst part being Category:Radio stations in Georgia being redirected. JPG-GR (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've pulled it off the 49 states it was still on (fast work on Michigan, JPG-GR!) and marked the errant category redirect for speedy deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much everything Michigan-related is on my watchlist - I rm'd it when I noticed it earlier. Was waiting to see what would occur first - discussion here or a re-add by the editor before proceeding. JPG-GR (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This editor has been on a strong template creation and placement kick in all of the broadcast categories. None appear to have been discussed and none of them are particularly well crafted. - Dravecky (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: If the category link above is still red then the completed speedy deletion is still holding. - Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Or, someone made a category for radio stations in Georgia. ;) JPG-GR (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We already have Category:Radio stations in Georgia (country) so that would be wrong, too. (Hmm, that category seems underpopulated but I know nothing about the region and do not speak the language. Dang.) - Dravecky (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to create category disambiguations? If there is, it might be worth creating Category:Radio stations in Georgia as a disambiguation page which directs people to the correct categories for the country and the state, if only as a defense against somebody trying to create it as an actual category again. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation discussion re radio/TV station articles

Resolved

David Levy and I are having a spirited and frightfully civil debate over the best approach to disambiguation of radio/TV station articles, on my talk page at User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2008/December#WBZ. According to the outlines at WP:DAB, both our preferred approaches are valid, so we're looking to get some consensus on one or the other. I've posted this note at WT:DAB as well, so I think it's best if we keep the discussion consolidated on my talk page. All comments are welcome! Mlaffs (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would stick with having the disambig on WBZ, moving the radio station back to WBZ (AM) and having the TV station remain at WBZ-TV. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I heartily agree with NeutralHomer and have explained at length on User talk:Mlaffs. - Dravecky (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to add, but I agree with both above. If we get rid of the disambig page, what gets priority? The most listened/watched station? (That'd get us into even deeper mud with the current market/DMCA takedown). User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of sanity, any FCC-licensed station should be of equal importance as any other. JPG-GR (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I invite anybody with a reasoned opinion on this topic to join in the discussion taking place on WT:DAB. - Dravecky (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This has now been resolved. The radio station is back at WBZ (AM) and the disambiguation back in place at WBZ. Following discussion, WP:MOSDAB has also been revised to remove the option of using the redirect/hatnote combo as an alternative to a disambiguation page when there are only two articles and neither is primary — using a disambiguation page is now shown as the correct approach. Thanks to all who weighed in. Mlaffs (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: WPTI to WRKA

Prior to July 18, WRKA was on 103.1 MHz in Louisville Kentucky. On 103.9 MHz was another radio station, WPTI.

On July 18, Cox Radio changed the call letters of both stations. 103.1 became WQNU. The WRKA call letters were moved to 103.9.

The WQNU page is correct. The WRKA page is entitled "WPTI". http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WPTI

The page for WRKA is a disambiguation page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WRKA

The disambiguation page is totally unnecessary.

The disambiguation page is still warranted but the move from WPTI to WRKA (FM) is still very much needed. I've updated the disambiguation page and put a speedy tag on the updated redirect to untangle this Gordian knot. - Dravecky (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's moved over and the proper links have all been updated. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WARL moved to WARL (AM)

Because there is another organization which uses WARL as an acronym, I've moved the information about WARL to WARL (AM), which was a redirect page to WARL. On the WARL page is now a page offering to manually redirect users to either the radio station or the Western Australia Rugby League.Stereorock (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I added the double brackets to the above paragraph for assistance.Stereorock (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The hatlink suffices - I've reverted. More importantly, cut&paste page moves are a no-no. JPG-GR (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, standard practice for disambiguation pages requires them only when there are two primary identifications or three or more primary or secondary identifications. Since the acronym for a proper name is a secondary identification, the hat note on the radio station article is sufficient. And cut-and-paste moves are a tremendous violation of the basic tenets of the encyclopedia. Please don't repeat that procedure. - Dravecky (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused now. What cut & paste move?Stereorock (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I might have it now. Is the cut & paste move in reference to how I moved the information from WARL to WARL (AM)? If so, how else is information supposed to be transferred?Stereorock (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a "Move" tab at the top of the page - it ensures that all of the history moves with the text, and automatically creates a redirect from the old name. Mlaffs (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Radio station infobox

I'd like to suggest a couple of potential modifications to the infobox that's currently used on radio station articles. The way the box is designed right now, the "name" field is the only place in the infobox where a North American station's call sign can be inserted into the infobox, and an on-air name ends up getting listed under "branding" instead, whereas in the countries that don't use call signs the on-air name just goes directly into the name field and the branding field is unnecessary. So this creates a bit of confusion about which identifier belongs where — and I have seen a few North American cases which have come to the brink of edit warring over whether the call sign or the on-air name is more properly described as the station's "name".

Thus, I'd like to propose the following potential changes:

  1. Add a new field for "callsign =".
  2. Merge "branding =" with "name =". Whichever title is chosen, we can still code it in such a way that it's the primary header at the top of the infobox if no call sign is present, but becomes a secondary header if the callsign = field is populated.

This way, there's less ambiguity about which piece of information belongs in which field, while still retaining the distinction between stations in countries where call signs are used and those where they aren't.

Another alternative would be to kill the branding field altogether, and instead list both the callsign and the brand name of a North American radio station in its name field (e.g. name = WPLJ<br>95.5 PLJ or name = WPLJ (95.5 PLJ).)

Any other input? Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we need to keep the callsign and the brand name quite separate in the infobox. I'd be completely okay with adding a "callsign" field as it's clearer than the potentially ambiguous "name" field but let's leave "branding" alone. - Dravecky (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dravecky, the top of the infobox should be the callsign, leave the branding to the branding section. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason I proposed what I did, however, is that outside of North America, many radio stations don't have callsigns. So if we rename "name =" to "callsign =" without doing something about "branding =", then radio stations outside of North America end up with no names on top of their infoboxes at all. But if we add "callsign =" without doing something about "name =", then we end up with two fields competing for top-of-box status. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
WHat if we relocate branding directly under where "name" is now (and "callsign" would be) so if a station has only a callsign then only the callsign is displayed, if a station only has a branding ID then only the branding is displayed, and if both fields are filled in then "callsign" goes on the top line and "branding" is on the line under it. - Dravecky (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In the case of English (UK) stations, they use the branding at the top of the Infobox. On Australia stations, it is the Callsign (like on US stations). So...UK, Branding....US/Aussie, Callsign. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of what I meant, yeah :-) Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good generally. However, "branding" sounds so cheap and trendy. How about "Common name"? Korky Day (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That sound so... common. Branding is the industry accepted term. - Dravecky (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You must be young. Common is a good thing, like the common good. Like common noun. To me, a brand is a line of products with one "brand" on them, like the Cheerios brand made by the company General Foods. Co-op Radio is not the brand of some bigger entity, so it doesn't really apply except in the new over-trendy-sounding (to people like me) way people like you are trying to spread. Maybe I've already lost but it just doesn't seem right for us to use so many fad words in an encyclopedia. Korky Day (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:FMBlogger has been warned to stop

To all who have been iritated by this user, he has been warned and reported to the Administator's Notice Board. Thanks. --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I've stopped. If you want, just delete all of my work and close my account. I don't care anymore. --FMBlogger (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ignore RDUS. Corvus cornixtalk 06:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New Format Page

I have created a new page for the Full Service radio format (local news, local talk, music, information, etc). It needs work (obviously) but it is a format used 'round the country and it needed more than one section on a semi-disambig page. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming of articles with frequency and name

I was recently looking through Category:Eastbourne (my home town), and noticed a stub for "107.5 Sovereign Radio"; among other cleanup, I have now moved the page to Sovereign Radio. Although the logo (and, I expect, the jingles) say "107.5 Sovereign Radio", this is purely to draw attention to the frequency, and is not used as the brand name in prose, for instance on the station's official site. Interestingly, there wasn't even a redirect at Sovereign Radio, causing unnecessary red links.

It seems that there are a few other articles around with similar names (see e.g. 105.*,106.*,107.*) and it would be a good idea for this WikiProject to agree naming conventions, as with the use of call-signs in the US etc.

My own twofour pence are:

  1. Such names should not in general be the primary article name, unless the frequency is truly an intrinsic part of the branding.
  2. It might be useful to have redirects in place for the obvious alternatives (e.g. 107.5 Sovereign Radio)
  3. If there are exceptions where the frequency belongs in the article name, make sure there is a redirect (or disambig page) at the name without the frequency.
  4. Frequencies should not be used to disambiguate, as seems to have happened with Arrow FM; while "107.8 Arrow FM" is certainly less ambiguous in this case, that doesn't make it a good article name. Something like Arrow FM (Hastings radio station), though awkward, would fit much better with normal naming policy. (And, per 2 above, 107.8 Arrow FM would still be a good redirect to have around).

Thoughts? - IMSoP (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, from experience with the database of a well known Internet Radio company, it can be annoying looking for the name of a station only to find it's under the frequency. I would welcome the above suggestion, though some investigative work may have to be done for defunct stations (ie. 102.2 Jazz FM). The only thing I would change is instead of having Arrow FM (Hastings radio station), I would just use the coverage area - ie. Arrow FM (Hastings) or whilst were on the theme of The Local Radio Company, instead of Jazz FM (UK radio station) there is Jazz FM (UK) (as the plan is for the jazzfm.com article come October 6). I would find that a lot less "awkward" than your suggestion. --tgheretford (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

As some of you know, I've been spending the last couple of months on trying to clean up all the incoming links to the disambiguation pages that include radio and TV call signs. I'm all but done now, and I'm left with 115 or so that I haven't been able to crack. So, I thought I'd present them here and at the TV stations project and see if anyone can help get to the bottom. I've collected them in a list at Call sign disambiguation. Happy hunting! Mlaffs (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Program Schedules

Here is how I feel the program schedules should be allowed to be also. I think we should just have a simple list and maybe put up links for the DJ's on the website. Adding things that a DJ does would be a waste in some aspects because asome stations do nothing really big after the morning show. They may do like commercial free hours or something like that. so some stations would not have anything to write about. Another possability is make a page for every DJ or show @ the station.--JoeCool950 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is my feeling, so that you know my take on it, I feel that it should be in a pose, because you can add more stuff to a pose, and the other way, as a list wouldn't make since at all and be easy to confuse, if your just reading about the radio station for the first time. If anyone agrees, let me know also.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WCAS (AM) page

WCAS (AM) is a defunct radio station. Would it be able to be moved to WCAS (defunct)? Thanks in advance.Stereorock (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a defunct radio station. It is the station which is now called WJIB and should be merged into the history section of that article. 121a0012 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be merged to WJIB. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 13, 2008 @ 03:17
I've added the appropriate merge-to/merge-from tags to these articles. - Dravecky (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:CBS Radio

Did I miss a discussion? For some reason, and with no explanation I can find, User:Mbrstooge has created a new category and moved all of the CBS Radio stations out of the long-established and properly categorized Category:CBS Radio stations to an orphaned Category:CBS Radio category. The heck? This is the latest in a line of changes without edit summary, discussion, or explanation by this editor and he's unresponsive on his talk page so here we are. I'm assuming good faith here but some explanation and discussion would be appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not taking a side yet - do we have a naming convention that prefers Category:OWNER or Category:OWNER stations? Either way, as most of these are categorized via template, a change either way isn't that difficult. JPG-GR (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:OWNER stations allows you to group the stations and have them be listed in different parents. The most obvious one being Category:OWNER if it is needed. So moving the stations that that category does not appear to offer any benefit. I suspect that if this move was discussed on WP:CFD keeping 'stations' in the name would be the consensus opinion. If this is an attempt to empty the existing category and create a new one, that is clearly out of process without a discussion at WP:CFD or here. So that may be reversed pending discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I cleaned this up some. I will point out that while having the category in the template makes moving things back and forth easy, it creates weird cases like listing the parent company and the networks in the station category. This is why it is probably better to not include the category in the template. Put the categories directly into the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
They mostly had been until User:Mbrstooge deleted the categories from the articles in question. - Dravecky (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Grumble. Putting aside the problems with the miscategorizations caused by the template, how does Category:CBS Radio and the subcategories look? I think these are broken out correctly now and everything has good parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Market templates/Nielsen DMCA request on TVS

Just wanted to let you all know that you might want to plan to rework the radio station market templates to excise the Arbitron ranking data. It's not been a pretty night for the TV stations project, as A.C. Nielsen filed a DMCA request with WMF, got an OTRS ticket out and knocked out all 210 TV market templates in one fell swoop because they contained the Nielsen DMA data, which they say is their copyrighted property. I'm thinking Arbitron might go after your templates next. Hopefully I'm just doling out some unfounded FUD in your case, but this gives you some warning time. Nate • (chatter) 09:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was coming. Months ago I said we shouldn't be posting ratings info at all, and when it rains it pours. JPG-GR (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a good first step would be to rename all the "(state) Arbitron market navigational boxes" categories as "(state) radio market navigational boxes". - Dravecky (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dravecky, let's just wipe Arbitron off the templates. Even though they aren't claiming ownership of anything yet, let's not give 'em a reason to. Also, since the way the TV "markets" were named (like Washington, D.C. DMA) would it be a good idea to slightly rename all the radio markets that are Arbitron rated? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I also have some concerns about the "format" information, are we relying too heavily on ratings services? Perhaps we should establish our own set of formats which don't correspond exactly to Arbitron's or anyone else's. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"Format" as in music, or "Format" as in ratings? Cause if it is music, Country is Country...Rock is Rock...Pop is Pop. - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, stations self-identify by format and this is a common bit of data widely available from several sources. There's no need for us to change "Adult Contemporary" to anything else but scraping the Arbitron links off the templates and category names (but not the links in the articles) is looking more and more like a good idea. - Dravecky (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If everybody, not just Arbitron, calls a station "Adult Contemporary", then that's OK. But if we have too many cites where only Arbitron refers to the station as "Adult Contemporary", that's trouble, and keeping the data but removing the attribution might cause even more trouble. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The different guides to radio stations out there, such as Arbitron, WRTH, and 100000watts.com each have a set of standard formats they have for each of the radio stations in their databases. What one service calls "Pop" another might split into "Top 40" and "Adult Contemporary". If we're describing a station, and all three guides plus the station's own website plus secondary-source ariticles all use the word "rock", we should have no issues with "rock" in the template; it might not even need a citation because it's "general knowledge".
But just like with Nielsen's grouping of TV market areas, these guides will have their own proprietary groupings of stations into classical, jazz, etc. If a guide uses unique terminology for formats, we have to be careful. We have to make sure we don't use it too heavily. If one guide's unique take on a station really "fits", we can cite it. Citing them for a few stations is fair use. But citing their entire database , piece-by-piece, is a copyvio. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Just saying what a station's format (what that station plays) isn't a copyvio or fair use. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure on that one :) Because we list the format on the infoboxes of each station page. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they can be copyright violations, if the format is part of a proprietary classification scheme, and we rely on them too heavily. Thinks about the issues with the telephone white pages versus Yellow Pages. An alphabetical telephone directory is just facts and no originality and can't be copyrighted. But the business listings are arranged into a proprietary classification system which is copyrighted. That's the crux of the matter with the Nielsen issue, and thats something to watch out for, in info on both market areas and formats. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists of LPFM stations?

Did we have lists of LPFM stations by state? I wanted to use them in an AFD as an example of how non-notable articles can be merged into a notable list, something that most infrastructure-type projects have to deal with; for the record, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of private-use airports in California. But I can't find them. Did the LPFM lists get deleted or am I mistaken? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

L.P.F.M.s are notable. They're full-fledged radio stations. As far as I know, they're in the regular station lists by state.Stereorock (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state lists (for radio stations), LPs are listed with the full-power radio stations. Whether this happens in all lists, I am not sure. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 14:17
I think they all do now. I know R.I., Ma., Ct., Ms., etc. all have the -LPs listed with the full-power stations.
Eventually, they will all be included in the larger state lists. JPG-GR (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Very nice!Stereorock (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Classic rock radio stations in the United States

The category Category:Classic rock radio stations in the United States doesn't exist, but there are several articles on individual stations that appear in the category. Should the category be created as a subcategory of Category:Radio stations in the United States by format and of Category:Classic rock radio stations? The category Category:Classic rock radio stations has listings for many U.S. stations, so creating Category:Classic rock radio stations in the United States would require moving many listings from Category:Classic rock radio stations to Category:Classic rock radio stations in the United States , hopefully with the assistance of a bot. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a worthwhile discussion but in the meantime that handful of articles was in that nonexistent category by mistake. With so many format categories "in the United States" it's easy to make a mistake like that. (Indeed, one of the errant entries was my own typo.) So I've fixed the typos and done a bit of light cleanup on those articles. - Dravecky (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:RadioStationsProject

Discussion re: modifications to the template {{RadioStationsProject}} is welcome here. JPG-GR (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Year in Radio

With most years/dates links are being removed from articles (per MOS), the [[YEAR in Radio]] links are being removed as well. After having a "meeting of the minds" with a user who is doing the removing, I think it would be helpful if all pages had a "non-solitary year link".

My ideas for this are:

  • [[YEAR in radio]]
  • [[YEAR in radio|YEAR (in Radio)]]

I know it won't look the same on the infoboxes, but if it will keep the links from being caught in the year-link removal, it would be helpful in the end. Your thoughts would be appericated. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 21:12

I've no issue with the consensus to delink the dates in general but why should any of the "year in radio" links be altered? Most of them in radio station articles are in the infoboxes for the airdate and those should assuredly be left alone. ETA: It would be profoundly ugly and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the manual of style if we had to list the airdate for WAGR (AM) as "1954 (in Radio)" instead of 1954 in the infobox. - Dravecky (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - that whole MOS mess relates to the bare year linking only, and the change to the MOS was that date links are deprecated, not that there should be mass removal of them. On top of that, we're talking here about links to actual articles that provide context and are relevant. The user who is doing the removing (I'm guessing it's actually a specific bot) should be fixing their script so that it skips over piped links to years such as these, and should also be going back and undoing any changes they're already made in this regard. Mlaffs (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the "piped" links, like the "In Radio" links are OK? If so, would someone please let User:Lightmouse‎ know as he is the user doing some of the work right now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 22, 2008 @ 15:59
Yeah, I figured that who was doing the edits. I'd be happy to take up the charge, although I suspect it'll come with no small amount of agita given the discussions I've seen at ANI on this issue. Do you have any examples of articles where his bot has deleted year in radio links that you can forward? Mlaffs (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Only two popped up on my watchlist: 1, 2, but I figure there are more. I don't think the user meant to delete them, I think they were good faith edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 22, 2008 @ 17:06

I absolutely agree that infoboxes and such should be linking to "YEAR in radio" articles. Anybody who's unlinking them and leaving the year bare clearly misunderstands WP:MOSNUM: the principle isn't that a year should never link to anything — it's that except in fairly rare instances it's overlinking for such a link to point directly to the main article on the year itself. "Year in Topic" subarticles, however, are always acceptable links.

For what it's worth, though, I'd also note that the Year in Radio lists are, at present, very US-centred and need significant expansion. I've added a few Canadian links here and there on occasion, but I haven't done anything really comprehensive in this regard as of yet. Big job, need help! But I digress.

Anyway, yeah, piped links of the type [[1954 in radio|1954]] are absolutely okay — where they already appear in the infobox, they should be left as is, and where they don't, they should be added. But that should apply only to the infobox; I don't think we should datelink every year that appears in an article's body text to "year in radio". Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have only been adding the "YEAR in radio" linkage to the infobox year only, beyond that I have left the date/year alone. Thanks for clearing this up for me, I appericate it :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 22, 2008 @ 19:55
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you'd done otherwise at all — I was just trying to make sure my input was clear and unambiguous :-) Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It turns out not have been the bot after all as I'd expected it would be - anyway, I've left a note for Lightmouse that while we could have further discussion to see if there was a way to make the link more intuitive, it was still a perfectly acceptable link as is, and it'd be greatly appreciated if he didn't delink any more like these. Hopefully, they're receptive. Mlaffs (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know if I can be of help in the aforementioned further discussion :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 03:25

For what it's worth, I've also gone back through the user's contributions over the last month +, and restored all of the 'year in radio' links that I could see had been removed. Luckily, there actually weren't too many, although there was a massive number of edits to scan to find them. If we're fortunate, we've nipped this in the bud before it became a thing. Mlaffs (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

College radio stations in Oregon

Do we really need Category:College radio stations in Oregon or should this category and its handful or articles be upmerged back into Category:College radio stations in the United States? I can see the need for a format breakdown by nation--but one for every US state? That way lies madness. - Dravecky (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I see this originally came up back in late May when consensus formed quickly against these subdivisions by state and both the Oregon and Georgia cats were deleted. This new category was created an an oddly aggressive edit summary and in direct contradiction to consensus, precedent, and a direct mention in Wikipedia:Notability (media) (which I realize is only an essay, not policy). This needs to be nipped in the bud--again. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Done, and temporarily salted to boot. I think my favourite part of Aboutmovies' edit summary was the combination of "Wikiproject Oregon permits this" with "Wikiprojects don't control categories". Rationales that undermine themselves...irony will get ya in the end, eh? Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Due to the conflict between WPRS and WPO regarding whether this category should be permitted or not, I've opened an RFC discussion at Category talk:College radio stations in Oregon. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think this has been blown way out of proportion. Next time leave a note on the category's talk page and especially on the project talk page, asking us "WTF?". Most of us are pretty nice. We're even pretty sensible most of the time. This needn't have become a "conflict". See my comments at the Rfc regarding the mix-up. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If two WikiProjects have expectations that are mutually exclusive with each other, a centralized discussion to clarify the issues raised is very much the correct and normal process for resolving that. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
So two or was it three people in the Georgia listing (not there was never a notification on the Oregon one that it was being discussed) decide something (vs. two who only said it should be renamed), and you consider this consensus? And I'm glad you enjoyed my irony, hopefully the point was made. And aggressive, that is what I thought when it was deleted only with the rationale of "per Radio Stations Wikiproject, format categories aren't broken down by state." So I thought it was pretty aggressive for someone to delete a cat without discussion/notice before hand. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Bearcat, I didn't say a centralized discussion wasn't also a part of the process. Sorry if my words have been misinterpreted. I just think as a part of the process maybe someone could have also asked the question "Do we really need this category?" on the project talk page. I'm now officially withdrawing from this debate. Good luck everyone. Katr67 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also note that CFD says under procedure: "each category must be tagged" so again, no tag, no precedence. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Radio stations that change frequencies

You have a section on stations changing format, but what about frequencies?

In the WYFQ article there is a brief mention of when WSOC was on 1240 and WIST on 930, and then they swapped frequencies in the 1960s. Both the WYFQ article and the WHVN article discuss the histories of WSOC and WIST prior to the swap, though the WHVN article goes into more detail. Ironically, WHVN didn't even start out on 1240, so there is yet another frequency change to deal with for that station.

What I did on the WSFM article was, since there was quite a bit on WSFM after its move to 98.3, to move the early history from the WAZO article. WSFM was on 107.1 and then 107.5 before moving to 98.3. WAZO has a very short history, part of which was at 98.3 before the move to 107.5. It seems correct to keep the history with the call letters and format in these cases.

It gets more confusing for situations like WSYN. That station essentially traded frequencies with WYAK, but it was like a whole new station started where WSYN was--WLFF. Still, WLFF and WYAK both had country formats.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that two stations would swap frequencies and neither of them not maintain some semblance of their former selves . Whichever station is undergoing the bigger change should probably be the one to get the "homeless" history. JPG-GR (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


I'd appreciate some advice on a similar situation at WQYK (AM). Quick background: The station began on one frequency, was popular for several years, then sold. The new owners changed the call letters and ran a completely different format. A few years later, the WQYK call letters and format were ressurected at a nearby frequency (1010). Though it's changed formats a couple of times since, WQYK still uses this newer frequency.
The article used to focus on both stations that carried the WQYK name and format, but an editor has gone in and hopelessly (in my opinion) tangled the histories of a bunch of stations that have used at 1010 frequency at some point. He claims that radio station wikipedia entries are supposed to focus on frequencies, not call letters, which I find odd since the article is named "WQKY", not "Every radio station that's ever used 1010AM in the Tampa Bay market".
So is there an agreed-to standard on this issue? Thanks in advance for some input... Zeng8r (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

KKCQ

I've just removed a prod tag from the KKCQ dab page. I know that at least a couple of people have templates on hand for quick-creation of stubs - if anyone has a few minutes to spare and is game for filling in these two gaps, it might forestall an Afd. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've knocked one out for KKCQ-FM but have to head out the door right now so I'll leave the KKCQ (AM) article for one of my colleagues in the WPRS to tackle. - Dravecky (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
KKCQ (AM) is taken care of as well :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 24, 2008 @ 17:33
Surprisingly, the prodder was fine with the removal, which makes me wonder why they thought it should be prodded in the first place. But y'all rock hard - two fewer red links is a great thing. Makes me feel good about having picked the call signs as my current dab cause - this is definitely a project that deserves gnome support. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If you see anymore dabs that need pages, please let me know...or Dravecky, if I am not here. We are glad to to help. Rockin' on \m/....NeutralHomer • Talk • October 24, 2008 @ 18:44

Introduction

I feel that the introduction should be allowed to be like this also Please give me your input, or allow it  :

Orginal example introduction

KLMN (102.3 FM "The Illuminator") is a radio station broadcasting an oldies format. Licensed to the suburb of Smallville, USA, it serves the Metropolis metropolitan area. It first began broadcasting in 1933 under the call sign KRYP. The station is currently owned by Lexcorp

Example that should be considered good also

KLMN (102.3 FM) is a radio station broadcasting an oldies format. Licensed to the suburb of Smallville, USA, it serves the Metropolis metropolitan area. It first began broadcasting in 1933 under the call sign KRYP. The station is currently owned by Lexcorp and is branded as The Illuminator

Please give me your input or allow it, if we know the branding for the radio station. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are both fine. Personally, I'd prefer if every radio station article doesn't look like a damned clone of the same template copied a million times over. JPG-GR (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Having the first couple of sentences standardized still allows for infinite variety in the body of the article. A single, clean method of delivering this basic information allows for greater reading comprehension and easier access by the vast majority of readers. Also, since this discussion has hardly reached consensus yet, I'm reverting the changes to the project page until such time as an actual consensus is reached. - Dravecky (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fine Dravecky. I fixed KVMX for the second one that was fine, but reverted it back to how you had it until a consensus is met. Even put that in the summary that I reverted it back until consensus is met. JPG-GR, if that's o.k. let's put it in the introduction.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What's important is that all of the relevant information be in the lead paragraph, and that it be precise and accurate. It does not matter what order these elements are in, nor how the sentences are structured. 121a0012 (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia style guide says to not use terms like "currently" WP:MOSNUM#Chronological items

A large number of the script generated lead paragraphs also contain "radio station x features programming from [programming source y] [1]. Two objections: "Features" is a peakcock/marketing term. Second objection is that the footnote[1] points to the FCC database entry, which contains nothing either about programming genre (which the FCC does not track) or which station carries what "features". Unless that programming is the core of the station (an all ESPN station), details of the programming don't belong in the lead. My two cents, but I'm not a member of the project. StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does everyone think they're both o.k. to include as an introduction? If so, then let's go ahead and change it and take out the word currently.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WHFS/WJZ-FM article.

As stated on the discussion page for this station. The article from the beginning seems to have been more about the history of the legendary "WHFS" call sign than about that specific frequency. While normally I don't think many dropped formats deserve a "defunct" page, I really think this one does just from reading the history. Since the article in question seems to be more about "WHFS" on all 3 frequencies, the article should be moved to WHFS (defunct) and a new article created for WJZ-FM with some history on WHFS as it pertains to 105.7. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add some WHFS info to the other 2 station pages as well with links to the defunct page article. I'd appreciate any input from the regulars to this wikiproject. RobDe68 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the stations mentioned, but what you have suggested seems like sound logic to me. JPG-GR (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
With proper sourcing for the article about the "defunct" WHFS, that seems like a reasonable course of action. - Dravecky (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, the WHFS calls were "parked" on WPGC (AM) while they sort everything out. So, WHFS isn't completely defunct....yet. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 4, 2008 @ 23:05
Yeah, just caught that info on "All Access", that certainly complicates things. Can we move the article to WHFS (historic) and just have some brief history on related articles (WJZ-FM, WMMJ, WLZL and WPGC if it switches) with a link to the historic article? It just doesn't seem right to have all that WHFS history on any of the articles except maybe WMMJ or WLZL. RobDe68 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't see any problem with moving it to WHFS (historic), but I believe there may be a chance that the calls might move to other places, I would be inclined to wait on that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 4, 2008 @ 23:49
(de-indent) Am I missing something? The FCC database still shows WPGC (AM) as, well, WPGC with no record of any call letter changes. - Dravecky (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
From what DC-Area radio information website DCRTV.com is saying is that CBS Radio "parked" the WHFS calls on WPGC-AM. Whether they have yet or not, I am not sure. I was just throwing that out there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 02:46
This is from the FCC Call Sign Query Database, shows that the WHFS calls are registered to "CBS Radio WPGC-AM, Inc." - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 5, 2008 @ 10:32
I found this, this, and this but... ah, here we go: "A request for WHFS dated 11/03/2008 has been filed by CBS RADIO WPGC(AM), INC." So that'll be one to keep an eye on. - Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
So, would it make sense to still have a (historic) article and just have a brief mention on the WPGC (AM) article or whatever station should pick up the call sign? We could also have a brief mention on each station article under station history with a link to the main "historic" article which has the brunt of the "WHFS" history (currently the WJZ-FM article). If we do this than the current WJZ-FM article should be moved to WHFS (historic) to keep the edit history in tact and a new article created for WJZ-FM with limited WHFS info as it pertains to 105.7 FM (same as other articles). Again, it just doesn't seem right to have all that history on either WJZ-FM or the new station since they weren't associated with those calls for near as long as WLZL or WMMJ. I tell you some of these frequency swaps with legendary calls can be complicated. RobDe68 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) If this story is accurate, WPGC (AM) will be WHFS starting November 10th so all of that WHFS history could be piled together in that soon-to-be-renamed article. Keep in mind that the article will also need at least a short section on the history of the stations on that frequency, too. - Dravecky (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Now we have a situation involving 2 historic call signs. I still say, since the WJZ-FM article has most of the WHFS edit history, that that article be moved back to "WHFS" with the relevant 1580 AM info. The article formerly known as "WPGC (AM)" should now be the defunct station article since it's had those call letters since the 1950s and a new article should be created for WJZ-FM. I can do the changes and page moves. As always, I'm running it by you guys first and I appreciate any input. Thanks RobDe68 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 13, 2008 @ 04:31
I'll get going on that then. RobDe68 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD for College radio stations in Oregon

Per the discussion on the review page, the deletion was overturned on a technical measure and Category:College radio stations in Oregon has now been relisted properly at CfD so this discussion may take place in the proper venue and per policy. I have placed a similar notice on the Oregon project's talk page so the two apparently primarily interested parties are properly alerted. - Dravecky (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, when I pushed for this to be relisted so we could have this debate once and for all, somehow I expected more members of the WPRS to weigh in with their reasoned opinions. Who knew this group would suddenly get all shy and quiet? - Dravecky (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You say that as if we have more than a handful of active members. JPG-GR (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I at least expected more folks than just Bearcat to weigh in. - Dravecky (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been out of the radio station-category business for too long, so not too sure which way I'd side anyway. As an uninformed voter discusser, I opted not to chip in. *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, this discussion closed as no consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WPGC (AM) becomes WHFS Today

I have updated the WPGC (AM) page with correct information, new logo, call signs, etc., all you all have to do is somehow mesh the WHFS (now WJZ-FM) and WPGC-AM histories together. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 10:29

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUSW‎

A couple editors are trying to argue that radio station articles are not inherently notable (which they are), a couple voices from WPRS would be helpful. Right now, the keeps are outweighing the deletes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 13, 2008 @ 06:03

Could you point out where exactly it says that they are? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Bump Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was cut off prematurely at your request but to quote Squidfryerchef from that AfD discussion, "The thrust of the "broadcast media" section of WP:NME is to argue, without using the controversial idea of "inherent notability", that most broadcasters are part of the local infrastructure and geography, in a way that other sorts of businesses are not." - Dravecky (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM affiliates redux

I've nominated Category:Coast to Coast AM affiliates to be listified and deleted. Categorizing stations by each individual syndicated program that they carry is an WP:OCAT violation, but a List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates would be absolutely acceptable and valid content. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_23#Category:Coast_to_Coast_AM_affiliates — and if anybody's looking for a project in the meantime, we can always start the list conversion now. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What is going to be the source for building this list? Syndicator aflliate lists are *never* close to accurate in my experience, and may be a COPYVIO issue. (Yes, I understand the Wikipedia's criteria is verifiability, not truth or accuracy).StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean radio stations

I have an article request: how about a List of radio stations in the Caribbean? I was trying to look up a Jamaican radio station and found that not only is there no category for Jamaican radio, there's also no overall category or article for the region. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Far better would be a List of radio stations in Jamaica which could then be added to the growing "The Caribbean" section of Lists of radio stations in North America. It would join List of radio stations in Barbados and List of radio stations in Cayman Islands, among others. This is an area we're weak in and, having personally created or extensively expanded most of the articles in both Category:Radio stations in the United States Virgin Islands and Category:Radio stations in the Cayman Islands, I'd strongly support the creation of an article for Radio stations in the Caribbean although at present I'm unable to write such an article. - Dravecky (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: There is an overall category for the region named Category:Radio stations in the Caribbean. - Dravecky (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I had tried several permutations of "radio stations in Jamaica" and "media in Jamaica" with no success. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I committing a possible conflict of interest violation?

I do work for 3 A.M. stations & have edited those articles, BUT I use 3rd-party sources. For instance, I've just added histories for 2 of the 3 stations using primarily "Jeff560" (Jeff Roteman's page which has info from various sources from the '20s-80s) which I've also credited. Is this still a conflict of interest? If so, I'll say which stations & stop. Thanks.Stereorock (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My two cents have read most of the radio articles on a regular basis and cleaned up a few of them. Generally the issues are not paying attention to the purpose of the content, neutrality requirement, the intended audience and the sourcing rules. Things that frequently slip into these articles
  • Comparisons to other stations in the market or the motivations of other stations in the market (Station "X" had to switch to Country Music after this station destroyed them in the 1998 ratings)
  • Attributing motivations to management for personnel changes or ownership changes ("Mr Smith ran the station into the ground and he sold it when he went broke")
  • Station minutia that is only of interest to people who worked at the station "In 1983, the station held its Christmas party at Disney World")
  • Confusing wikipedia notability with notability in the local area. A list of "notable" people who worked at the radio station is not a list of every DJ that lasted 6 months, it is a list of people who did things that were notable enough to justify a wikipedia article about them. The station where Charles Osgood worked as a young man would be notable, or the station that Ronald Reagan did his sports work would be notable, the guy from the 1950s reading the news each morning is not notable unless he/she did specific notable things or had accomplishments like being in the Radio Hall of Fame.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm glad you mentioned the last bit because on one of the pages there's a list of "Notable Alumni" with only one I've actually heard of before because that alumna works for a bigger radio station now. I just think the others wanted to see their names in lights! Or in text anyway! So should I remove that section or keep it?Stereorock (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Lakers Radio Network

The WP:PROD for Los Angeles Lakers Radio Network is expiring soon. Should this die in PROD or should it live on? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like it expired already. - Dravecky (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If I had seen it in time I would've voted to keep it. Is there any way to retrieve it?Stereorock (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Based on the condition the article was in, it wasn't worth saving. While an article on the topic might be warranted, a simple list of stations in the network is not. JPG-GR (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I never saw the old page but there are already 2 problems. The affiliate list I saw online was dated August 7th 2002. Hardly a usable source except for posterity (e.g.: Former Affiliate section, KIF/455 & KIF-FM/10.7: Pacific Ocean, Ca. (2002)). The second problem is that there is an English-language affiliate & a Spanish-language affiliate which could mean there are actually 2 networks! If that's the case, do we roll them into 1 article or have 2? Years ago I started the Boston Red Sox Radio Network page incorporating both English & Spanish into 1 page even though the Spanish-language network is different (I was just starting out & it was my 1st page!) If we bring this back we should find out if there even IS a Spanish-language network & if so, what it's called. THEN, maybe title the page "Los Angeles Lakers radio networks." On that note, I think I'm gonna do the Mets list instead.Stereorock (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I just found out there ARE 2 separate networks. I am going to start the page "Los Angeles Lakers radio networks". I am going to use my template as found on the Boston Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins; Providence Bruins & Pawtucket Red Sox radio networks.Stereorock (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a page now called Los Angeles Lakers radio networks which a user is trying to delete. He said it's a rehash of everything found elsewhere on the internet & an advertisement for the network. I countered that I looked up EVERY callsign listed on the Lakers' page in the F.C.C. database & made corrections where applicable. I also put the bigger city served where necessary. So for example, KKKK: Palmdale/Los Angeles or whatever. Yes, I haven't had the time to add in information about announcers & other information but the page is only 5 days old or so! He's also suggesting that EVERY team radio network page be deleted because it's all found on the internet. A. that's not true (the minor league baseball teams DON'T include a list of radio affiliates) & B. Just because some information is on the internet doesn't mean that it's easy to find or reliable. I'd like to think that the pages we do here are TEMPERED to get rid of the inconsistencies. If you want to add information to this article or weigh in please do so.Stereorock (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fewer disambiguation pages

The project naming conventions say: If more than one article has the same base call sign, or if an acronym or some other common usage shares that call sign A disambiguation page should be created at the base call sign

I suggest this be changed to: If more than two articles have the same base call sign ...

This will make it consistent with WP:DAB. We could add the note:

If two stations with the same base call sign are under different ownership, or have different cities of license, then a disambiguation page may also be useful, though a disambiguation hatnote can also be used.

It should cut down on the number of clicks and page loads a reader has to go through to find the information he wants (and the number of pages we have to create and maintain.) What do you think?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 04:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that the convention as currently written is already consistent with WP:DAB, which indicates that a disambiguation page in the case of only two articles is appropriate when neither article can easily be determined to be the "primary" one. That's usually the case here. Having spent a lot of time cleaning links to these pages, I think we'd be in much worse shape without them. Unfortunately, there are many lazy or unknowing editors who mean to link to XXXX-FM, but instead link to XXXX. If XXXX is a disambiguation page pointing to XXXX (AM) and XXXX-FM, those errors are far more visible and easier to fix than if XXXX is an article about the AM station with a hatnote to XXXX-FM. Removing the disambiguation page also only results in fewer clicks for one of the two articles. Now, if the two articles are the radio station and an organization using an abbreviation that matches the call sign, then a hatnote is completely appropriate, and that's how practice has already developed. Mlaffs (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

p.s. See also WP:NAME#Broadcasting, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2005#Disambiguations and Article Names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2007#is it -FM or (AM) or -AM and (FM) or (AM) and (FM) for previous discussion of the issue, which does not seem to contradict my proposal. Google could not find any other discussions in the archives. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 04:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty of cleaning incorrect backlinks occurs with any pair of articles with possibly ambiguous titles, and yet WP:DAB is as it is. In the case of XXXX (AM) and XXXX-FM, I would argue that the primary topic is clearly the callsign without the suffix. In the case of KRVN, the primary topic is even more clear, as the AM station is branded KRVN, but KRVN-FM is branded The River 931. In the unlikely event a reader comes to KRVN looking for the sister FM station, then one more click will get them to right article. Why treat a pair of radio stations any differently than we treat an airport or organization with the same initials? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, in my own radio market, we have CHUM and CHUM-FM, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's equally likely that someone coming to CHUM is looking for the FM station as the AM one. I can't speak to KRVN specifically - someone more familiar with the market would need to weigh in - but I don't think that we can assume that the callsign without the suffix is clearly the primary topic as a rule. Would that it were that simple. Anyway, we're not treating radio stations any differently - as you said, WP:DAB is as it is, and it supports the current convention.
For what it's worth, the most recent discussion about this was a mere two months ago, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2008#Disambiguation discussion re radio/TV station articles. This discussion, which involved both regulars at the radio and TV station projects and at MOSDAB, both affirmed the current convention and resulted in a revision to MOSDAB to confirm it as the preferred approach in general. Mlaffs (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The argument that the the primary topic is clearly the callsign without the suffix is EXTREMELY short-sighted. Moreover, as a general rule of AM vs. FM stations, the exactly opposite is likely true. I believe that our current status quo is sufficient. JPG-GR (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Having personally caused the elimination of many dozens of unnecessary disambiguation pages related to radio stations this year alone, I sympathize with the desire to simplify but the proposed method is deeply flawed, in my opinion. American radio station articles are at the callsign instead of branding for a number of sound reasons, all detailed on the project page, and there's no simple, objective way to determine which of any set of radio stations is the primary usage (and it's not always the suffix-free station). Changing the system now in place would not only exponentially increase the difficulty in correcting errant links but it would render almost impossible the detection of errant links in the first place. Now, for example, if some editor writing an article makes a reference to WABB in Mobile, Alabama, we can instantly determine that this link is in error and investigate whether they meant WABB (AM) or WABB-FM to fix it. If this were changed so the AM were at the base callsign, only by closely examining every backlink (and there are presently more than 50 backlinks to the AM alone) could an editor even discover that one or more links is even possibly in error due to careless linking. Multiply that effort by the thousands of articles about similar radio stations in the same city or metro area and you don't complicate the process of fixing backlinks, you end it altogether, and not in a good way. - Dravecky (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion. 2 months is too soon to re-open the question, so I will leave the discussion after expressing my disappointment that radioproject editors have arrived at a consensus that both supports hundreds of extra pages, and is entirely at odds with the practice in most other parts of Wikipedia. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And, if you think a comment like that is gonna make us change our minds, you are sadly mistaken. JPG-GR (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, JPG-GR. I am very sorry I inadvertently re-opened a discussion only 2 months after it had last been aired. Thanks all for your patience and civility with me. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you'll read the discussion at User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2008/December#WBZ more carefully, you'll note that virtually none of the editors involved belong to the WPRS but most are MOSDAB denizens so this is decidedly not a case of a rogue project going against general consensus but rather a carefully crafted exception to a general guideline brought to fruition by people outside the WPRS. - Dravecky (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WBSD prod

WBSD is on proposed deletion. Appears to be a 300-watt high school radio station. Article as it is needs a lot of work, but theres no reason it couldnt be made notable if given the treatment this group generally gives radio stations. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fully-licensed stations are generally held to be notable, which would usually be enough to just remove the prod tag. This one's going to need some work, though - although the sentences are shuffled around a bit, the article is essentially a direct copy from the station's website. Mlaffs (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was in sad condition so I've added an infobox, done a thorough cleanup and rewrite to alleviate both style and copyright concerns, added a logo, and added quite a number of references to establish notability beyond any reasonable doubt. - Dravecky (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new disambiguation category

(Posted concurrently at WT:WPRS and WT:TVS)

I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to call sign disambiguation pages, and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward, particularly in uncovering when new disambiguation pages are created.

In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'm proposing to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template could be used on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs in place of {{disambig}}, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles, then the same approach as is used for other dab templates would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category.

I don't see any policy problem with this, but I wanted to throw it up here for comment to see if a) members of the project see some value in this approach or, possibly more importantly, b) anyone has a violent opposition to the idea. If a=yes/b=no, then c) I'll take the idea to the folks at WP:DAB to make sure there are no concerns there either. Mlaffs (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, three support !votes here, one at the TV project, and not a single comment at the DAB project — it's either overwhelming silent assent or overwhelming apathy. Either way, I'm going to forge ahead. I've created the category, template, and template documentation, and I'll start applying the changes to pages later today.

I suppose I really ought to join this project at some point too… Mlaffs (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance in updating/finding sources for WNYT (internet radio)

I am the General Manager of WNYT (internet radio), the college radio station of NYIT, and its article is lacking sources. It has a very rich history on Long Island, NY, but I am unfortunately having trouble finding sources to support this history. Due to issues involving conflict of interest, I shouldn't personally update the article, but I will be researching sources, and posting them here. I'd also be happy to field any questions regarding the station. Thank you! --Jimbro727 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Inactive members

I wonder if perhaps we could move a few extremely inactive WPRS "Participants" to a separate inactive list? I don't mean "folks who don't edit a lot of radio station articles". Any participation is welcomed and should be celebrated. I mean "folks who haven't edited a single article of any kind in more than a year" (like User:AAARanger5, for example). If you're not participating at all for a year, can we really call you a "Participant"? - Dravecky (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No edits in 2008 sounds like a reasonable criteria, yes. JPG-GR (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the update is complete and was apparently long overdue. The usernames of several members had changed, one blocked sockpuppet was still on the list (and is now simply deleted), and I was able to move 20 names to the new inactive list. Sadly, another review in 2-3 months should move another half-dozen or more to inactive status. - Dravecky (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Creating content in the first place (ala scripts that clone FCC information) is the easy part. The hard work is to maintain accurate articles after they are created - after the initial enthusiasm wears off and people lose interest. The more information that is included intially, the more work necessary to maintain it. Wikipedia's Notability rules exist for a reason - not withstanding this group's own opinion on the subject, which seems now to be embracing 30 watt LPFM stations as "notable" because they have an FCC license.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Which, for the record, I think is ridiculous (the LPFMs). JPG-GR (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Project templates

Does the project have a template that's used to tag the talk page of radio station articles that are missing an infobox? Mlaffs (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, and I'd think it be easier to just add said infobox, especially with all the cookie-cutter infobox generators out there. JPG-GR (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations/Archive_2008&oldid=1143532361"