Talk:WABC (AM)

message: It was stated in the WIKI article that WABC is carrying "WABC Country" on it's HD2. WABC is an AM station, and at the current time, AM HD equipment is not capable of running subchannels. The WABC country format is strictly web-only.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.148.235 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WABC Country 

message: https://radioink.com/2019/06/27/cumulus-sells-wabc-for-12-5-million/?fbclid=IwAR3L_ffOmcFs_Jh6-TQvB_KfNFrs-9HUgWAKt2vmwiLX7AS5nuNeUxdItZk
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/business-and-law/cumulus-to-sell-wabc-am
as of June 2019 there are talks that Cumulus will sell WABC-AM to Red Apple Group lead by John A. Catsimatidis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:190B:83C:1624:5188 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: WABC-AM heading to Red Apple Group

message: Some person but in quotes about the time this station plays, music and provided some useful information, but has sentences that may be informal for wikipedia, such as WABC was King ect.
:I tried to clean it up as best as I could, as it was a whole lot worse before. The same user (I'm assuming this, because it was in a similar style even though he's using different IP addresses) also did similar edits for WFAN (when it was WNBC), WBBR (when it was WNEW) and WKTU. They all should be cleaned up, and I shouldn't be surprised if other New York City radio stations get the same treatment sooner or later. ErikNY 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, this person's contributions throw articles out of balance.  WABC has been a NYC radio powerhouse for 40 years now, first as the dominant music station, later as the dominant talk station, yet about 80% of the current article focuses on the one late 70s-early 80s stretch where they struggled.  That's not right.  On the other hand I hate to throw out this person's narratives — in some cases they are amusing, especially for stations that are always in programming turmoil. Wasted Time R 23:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also noticed similar edits for various TV stations. If you look at the new pages just created at this moment, the user is using a similar format for Kansas City television stations. The same can be said for TV stations in other markets. Something should be done to alert other users who could be helpful in cleaning up this mess. ErikNY 02:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. ErikNY 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOL Broadcast Fan's contributions 

message: I changed the lumping of Gambling and Batchelor in with the others between them.  Gambling is more moderate, while Batchelor is idiosyncratic.  The four in between them, however, are conservative hosts.   Wasted Time R 02:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterisation of talk show hosts 

message: I don't think this edit was helpful.   The comment is "tone down the Simone rah-rah".  I don't see "rah-rah".  This previous information was accurate and relevant and should be reverted. patsw 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The removed material included bio info about Mark Simone that's already in his article, material about the announcement of the show that's outdated since the show has now begun, and the statement that the show "is an overwhelmingly success", which is not supported by ratings data (yet).  As for the rah-rah, there's contributors that are spamming Mark Simone into various radio articles, I suspect this was at play here too.   Wasted Time R 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They're still keeping up the spamming, under the guise of many anonymous IDs.  Trying to cram as much PR as they can into the article.  The "super-sub" nonsense is the latest bit of spam.  I wonder if all this is coming from Simone himself, bucking for a promotion. Eleemosynary 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong on all counts. Eleemosynary 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Simone 

message: some anon WMCA lover has ruined both this and the 'MCA article with hopeless POV. PMA (not logged in)
:I have not read the WMCA article, but I agree that this article takes a pro-WMCA bias in the "Rivalry with WMCA" subsection.  I would change it, but I don't really know how to accurately point out their battle over listeners and ratings.  The user seemed to contribute some valid arguments, but does not have statistical data to back up those points.  If the section were less opinionated, it could be salvaged into a more coherent section. D2001dstanley 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMCA pov 

message: The article reads like it's about WMCA.
It doesn't tell the story of WABC, especially it's influence, significance, etc. at all.
Bad wiki.    User:70.111.88.166   06:24, 9 June 2006
:Youse two are SOOOO right. The WMCA propoganda has been NUKED. 64.12.116.197 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, really, what's up with THAT? 

message: The WJZ Article Was A Stub Since Wikipedia Opened, And Now Thank To You PPL, The Article Is (Nearly) Complete!
THANK YOU WIKIPEDIAN HISTORIANS
Frank0115932 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its About Time You Have The WJZ Info 

message: A valid link to an independent news article from a reliable source was cited and removed by another editor. Prior to my reverting this deletion, my independent Yahoo search indicated that Mark Simone is called Supersub. Unfortunately, none of my sources came from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability.
:The single-source link does not support the article text that Simone is "billed" as a "supersub."  The anon editor placed it on the page in order to push more pro-Simone POV PR, as he or she has done on several other pages under several anon sockpuppet IDs.  The info is hardly verified, non-encyclopedic, and should be removed.  And please sign your posts.  Eleemosynary 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The title of the article has supersub in it. It was properly introduced and cited. Ronbo76 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The headline of a single-source article does not translate to official WABC policy.  The citation does not back up the article claim. Eleemosynary 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars involving the wording of ''Supersub'' 

message: In reading the article on WABC as it relates to current programming, the language someone used in describing their morning shows and some of the late-evening programming had a very distinct slant that sounded more like a promotional tool and less like an "honest" description of the current programming ("honest" is in quotes because that word pops up numerous times in the description of the morning show itself).  Additionally, discussion of evening lineup changes also was off-kilter and irrelevancies included.  Therefore, the current programming section was slightly revised to neutral language; references to Air America, the "gratingly-voiced" Lynn Samuels and the "Springeresque Richard Bey" were eliminated, but the bulk of the generalities were maintained. 24.117.250.51 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias regarding current programming 

message: an obsolete bit of OR removed as both Joe Scarborough and Curtis Sliwa have been removed from the lineup:
It would be good if any future text added characterizing the stations's political advocacy were cited to a reliable source itself independent of political advocacy. patsw (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of September 2010 

message: * This section should be reorganized into sections reflecting the periods of Disney ownership and Citadel ownership (Citadel declared a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in December 2009).
* Recent (but no longer current) hosts and staff should be in a separate section.
* No section should be labeled "Today" or "Current", but the current section should be labeled "2010". patsw (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WABC Today reorganization 

message: The article states that WABC came into being in 1953. However, I've been listening to old broadcasts from the Manhattan Room of the Hotel Pennsylvania from October to December 1937 - Benny Goodman. In these broadcasts, they clearly identify the station as "This is the Columbia Broadcasting System  ----- WABC New York"
I'm baffled.
96.23.126.179 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also says that "The WABC call letters were once used previously on CBS Radio's New York City outlet, before adopting their current WCBS identity in 1946." See WCBS (AM) – the call sign WABC was used for this NY station (originally the Atlantic Broadcasting Company) from 1926 to 1946. -- Picapica (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation Date of WABC

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WABC (AM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130520064915/http://www.musicradio77.com/wabcboard/wwwboard//wabcboard1.html to http://www.musicradio77.com/wabcboard/wwwboard//wabcboard1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on WABC (AM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223142100/http://hdradio.com/station_guides/widget.php?id=45 to http://www.hdradio.com/station_guides/widget.php?id=45
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: from WABC 
https://www.youtube.com/user/WABCRADIO77/videos
109.157.75.97 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  old 45s on youtube 

message: ("Dominant Years" Paragraph four)
There is nothing anywhere in the "33 footnote" link that says or implies anything "illegal" about the event, nor is it illegal to have a crowd of onlookers chant a station jingle.  The statement as it stands is absurd.  My career was in radio and I know of no such FCC rule that even suggests anything even remotely like this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ingram later noted that this was actually illegal under FCC rules, but said that they didn't know it at the time.[33]" 

message: Noticed blue boy has undid this revision twice without talking in the talk page. Which sections does he think contain original research? Sucker for All (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: @Sucker for All, I don't understand why you're removing content like Special:Diff/1033674186 and Special:Diff/1033671732? —valereee (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored both of these, as neither seem dubious or like trivial removals. There's a source at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/sports/baseball/on-50-year-old-tape-sounds-of-mets-awkward-first-steps.html that may contain much for supporting the first diff. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted parts of the unsourced content. A long section saying that sports programming doesn't exist at WABC's a little excessive in my opinion. Sucker for All (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted the entire history of sports programming at this radio station. Wikipedia isn't just about what's current. It's also about what's happened in the past, and this station was prominent in sports coverage in the past. It's fine to question whether coverage is excessive, but removing content that's been in the article for over a decade is a pretty big deal, and at minimum it needs discussion. If you don't understand why, you shouldn't be removing content. —valereee (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content