Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2007

message: This is one of the strangest things in the radio station infoboxes. Occasionally, the call letters have meaning. Frequently, they don't and the article writer makes up a meaning, simply to put something in that space. I've seen wrong meanings attributed to station names. Couldn't we get the "callsign meaning" feature out of the infobox to discourage Wikipedians from making this stuff up? That would do wonders for accuracy. And if a call sign has a "meaning" (beyond obvious ones that don't need explanation), it can be included in the article's history section. Thoughts anyone? Goeverywhere 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Callsign Meaning" 

message: I'd like to initiate a bit of a discussion on what this project's policy should be for "radio stations by market" templates such as  or . Namely, should a radio station's article include only the template for the market in which it actually originates, or should it include the templates for all primary markets in which the station can be heard? For example, if the radio station CHWO, which originates in the Greater Toronto Area, can be heard in Buffalo, New York, should its article thus include the Buffalo market template as well as the Toronto one? Or should the Buffalo template be excluded because the station doesn't originate in that market? 
For clarity's sake, it should be noted that regardless of which articles they're added to, as things currently stand, the templates themselves only include links to stations originating in the listed market. Even if the Buffalo market template is placed on CHWO's article, CHWO isn't listed within the template, so other stations in the Buffalo market don't link back to CHWO.   
I'm personally inclined to the "primary market only" position, but there's been enough of a tug-of-war over this that I think we should have a real discussion about it, and shoot for a real consensus as to which approach we want to take. Bearcat 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think translators only further muddy the already murky waters that are the market area templates. The bottoms of the article pages on stations that reach more than one market already have a horribly messy mass of templates. Adding these translators will only make everything worse. JPG-GR 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market templates 

message: * Hi... I have a proposal...  I believe the primary market should be the only place the radio station is represented as an "In Market" station.  If the market can pick up stations from another market, it's probably a good idea to list those in the template, but under a separate header so that the person reading it is aware that the station can be heard in the market, but serves another market.  (See Template:Long Island Radio and Template:Middlesex Radio as examples of this).
** Also, as far as putting the template on the radio station page, I believe it's best to list only one template per radio station because the page gets rather cluttered if you've got 2 or more on there.  The exceptions are:
*** (A) If the station is both AM and FM and the market template is split into AM and FM
*** (B) If the station broadcasts on multiple frequencies, one for market A and the other for market B... then there probably should be more than 1
All others, should only have one template on the radio station page.   (Any other exceptions others may come up with?) What do you think?
--Jjc104 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think translators only further muddy the already murky waters that are the market area templates. The bottoms of the article pages on stations that reach more than one market already have a horribly messy mass of templates. Adding these translators will only make everything worse. JPG-GR 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea/Proposal

message: I ran across an interesting news article on a radio station that is apparently changing formats. When I looked up the station's call letters, it looks like the Wikipedia doesn't have an article for WHAT (AM). For more info, see Longtime black station shut in Philly By JOANN LOVIGLIO, Associated Press Writer. BlankVerse 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT (AM) 

message: Should the stations that are on Worldspace, XM, & Sirius be added to this project?TravKoolBreeze 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual stations should be handled by this project. As for the inclusion in the templates, satellite ration stations are neither local nor are they AM/FM. --PhantomS 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problem including the Traffic & Weather channels as those are local.  They may not be AM/FM but they give valuable information, which should outweigh that.  As long as there are labeled as SatRad, those channels should be included.TravKoolBreeze 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding them would be putting them in the wrong place.  What FM stations are is clear.  Satellite radio is not FM.  Vegaswikian 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why the tag is mentioning it as satellite radio.  Since the templates are for radio stations based by format, it wouldn't make much sense to say "NYC (AM) (FM) (Satellite Radio T/W)".   I figure giving the valuable information with the right tag would outweigh the strict definition. TravKoolBreeze 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is valuable, then it should have a place.  That place is not in the FM template.  Your point seems to be, 'I have valuable information so let me find a place for it'.  Based on the fact the these channels are not local or FM, I'll update the template in question again.  Vegaswikian 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the traffic and weather channels, which are the only ones being talked about, are local to the market area.  Yes, my point is pretty much the information is valuable thus find a place.   I do not see it wrong to put it within the template if it was mentioned as satellite radio since in general, the template is radio.  It is one line of code that wouldn't destroy the integrity of the template or Wikipedia in general. TravKoolBreeze 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the templates themselves should represent the Arbitron markets that the label says they are.  This means that the satellite traffic and weather stations qualify in the same way that cable stations show up in TV templates.  This is because the Sirius and XM Radio specifically targeted those radio markets with the weather/traffic stations even though they are not AM or FM.  What do you think?  --Jjc104 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With TV, the broadcast is intended to be available on a 'standard' TV channel.  Cable signals clearly deliver on a TV.  With XM radio, it is clearly not intended to be delivered on FM.  So including this as an FM station appears to be incorrect.  The Arbitron market might be a factor if you included all broadcast types ranked by Arbitron for a market in a template. Vegaswikian 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable signals clearly deliver on TV only when the person has a cable subscription. The template include links to AM, which would make it allowable on the template, since it is clearly defined as AM which is not able to be heard on FM. I am willing to poll the members to reach a consensus about this.  If it is ruled that it doesn't belong, I would have no problem with it.TravKoolBreeze 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it has links to AM templates.  If you want to create a satellite template that could work.  Then you are linking to another broadcast medium's template which is logical and proper.  Could be the right solution. Vegaswikian 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, it would be preferable to have a separate template for satellite radio, since it requires an entirely different set of equipment than AM/FM. In addition, at least with my portable XM Radio, it does not pick up AM/FM. --PhantomS 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite Radio 

message: The examples given in the call signs section seem to contrast with the note added by Stickyguy. Could someone please clarify? --PhantomS 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I used WP:NAME#Broadcasting and rewrote the section to make more sense, along with restructuring the rest of the project page. --PhantomS 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles with call signs 

message: Reading the history of KLAC AM 570 in Los Angeles and related history of XETRA AM 690 in Mexico, there are references to the format that until recently, occupied both stations. It was referred to as Fabulous 570 when on KLAC and Fabulous 690 when on XETRA. This is a station that attracted over a quarter million listeners and has relocated to the Internet while looking for a new FM or HD2 home. Since the station is referenced and italicized in each article, should a page be created for those searching for the station and it's kind of programming? I'm new to this so I don't know the process. Barfburger 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the project page: "If a station radically changes its format: Create a new section within the existing article about the format change.  --PhantomS 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station references with no pages 

message: As many of you already know, many FM stations are programming multiple formats taking advantage of HD Radio's multi-casting abilities.  For example, KROQ-FM simulcasts their modern rock format on HD1 and airs a classic alternative format on their HD2 signal.  This is mentioned in the body of the article but I feel it should be noted on the main infobox templates as with all radio stations that multi-cast in HD.
Perhaps we could add below the format = line something like HD-2 format, HD-3 format, and HD-4 format - or perhaps we could simply list the HD-2 format and reference the body of the article for the third and fourth for the small number of stations that choose to multicast more than two programs.  
I was hoping for a discussion on this to see what people's thoughts are on this subject.  I know we can't clutter the infobox with too much information as it's meant for only the most important relevant items but I personally feel that this is important - especially in the future when HD Radio's begin to proliferate the market. - Transent 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD RADIO 

message: Greetings all:
My primary interest is in learning foreign langauges, and having access to web-casting radio stations in other languages is invaluable.
I want to create a new family of categories: Webcasting radio stations by language. Basically, I would like to compile lists of all stations broadcasting on the web in Dutch, in German, in English, whatever. Questions are:
# Is there already a similar page? I have seen lists of radio stations by country. This, however, does not fulfil my purpose, as a) most do not host their content online, and b) I want to distinguish by language, not by country (Spanish-speaking stations in the US would, for example, be filed under Spanish)
# Is the term "radio station" still appropriate, even though quite a number of web-casts are not simulatenously broatcast over radio waves?
# I want to limit the category to hosts which broadcast (close to) 24/7, as adding PodCasts, and other media which only appear for an hour or two a week would become cumbersome. Is this a fundamentally logical distinction?
# Can anyone think of a more appropriate category name before I start?
# Would anyone be willing to help me categorise?
Thanks much, samwaltz 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will! I've got a few questions I'll add on the template discussion. Oh, btw, do you know that Internet Radio is an empty self-redirect? What should it be pointing to? samwaltz 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed that — it should have been pointing to Internet radio with the second word not capitalized. For what it's worth, according to the edit history that is what it pointed to until a grand total of three hours before you posted this comment (and four hours after Transent posted the comment you were replying to); at that time, somebody changed it to redirect back to itself for no immediately apparent reason. So thanks for catching that! Bearcat 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category: Help! 

message: I'd love to add a userbox for this project to my talkpage.  has anyone made one?Lisapollison 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I found one:
 
- Lisapollison 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, for those who aren't members of the greater parent project:
-- JPG-GR 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes for this project? 

message: I've come across both Template:Fminfo and Template:FMQ. Is either the preferred information template? JPG-GR 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise -- Template:Aminfo vs. Template:AMQ? JPG-GR 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I feel kinda "duh!" Thanks for the info, though. JPG-GR 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should actually switch overt to Template:Fminfo as it gives more info than Template:FMQ.  Same for AMTravKoolBreeze 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to some extent. Radio-locator is useful, but what the hell is Yes.com anyway? JPG-GR 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.com seems to be a log of what the station has played.  Doesn't help for news/talk FM stations so I edited out.  We can always edit the template again.  I say we swtich over to the info templates for radio pages, since it has elements of Template:FMQ, Template:FML and Template:fmsignal.  Same for AM.TravKoolBreeze 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Template:FMQ is in just about every article and appears to be the 'standard', it would be a lot smarter to change that template to include any additional links the project determines are needed. There is no reason to update every article to a new template and there is no reason for 3 or more templates.  Vegaswikian 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  What links should be kept for Template:FMQ and Template:AMQ from the other templates?TravKoolBreeze 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I'm a fan of Radio-Locator and I've been utilizing it in the Michigan-related radio articles (but not to a point where adding it to the template would hurt), I'd almost say I'm happy with how Template:FMQ and Template:AMQ are now. *shrug* JPG-GR 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: <edit conflict> I would only consider keeping 1. Information page for -FM from RecNet.com and 2. Radio Locator Information on .  The third item includes a popup window so I would exclude that and the last one is already in fmq.  If you make those changes, the final step would be to switch the articles using fminfo to use the new fmq and redirect fminfo to fmq.  Vegaswikian 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further analysis, the addition of "Radio Locator Information on " would be a good addition to the template (IMO). Still not familiar enough with RecNet.com for an opinion. JPG-GR 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is preferred? 

message: Should the project template be subst: or not? I had a discussion with before at User_talk:Bearcat#Talk:France_Inter, User_talk:SlaveToTheWage#France_Inter and needed a more broader opinion on it. Thanks, STTW (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the template was static and would never change again I would say yes but since the template is intended to maintain consistency across all pages and could very well change in the future I would say leave it the way it is (edited to say, now that I look at it, I agree that RadioStationsProject could very well never change.  subst is a better alternative.  sorry about the previous response) Cmhdave73 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware, it has been determined that server load is not something we should be concerned about when using templates. As such, I see no advantage to subst'ing the templates, and plenty of advantages to transcluding them. DHowell 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution of {{tl|RadioStationsProject}} or not? 

message: Looking at the number of people who are participants in this project from the UK and specificially dealing with UK articles, as well as the different style of writing and prose required for UK radio stations, I am proposing to start a UK radio stations task force, which still as part of the main radio stations WikiProject, would be able to more effectively work on UK radio stations articles where the radio station broadcasting model is different from the US model, but still be able to share and collabriate with the main radio stations WikiProject, which would be more difficult to do if this was a separate child WikiProject.
For example, most of the guidance on the main project page is geared towards the US radio station broadcasting model and wouldn't necesarily be applicable to the UK radio station broadcasting model.
I can set-up a task force or another proposed idea (if anyone suggests anything else) if anyone is interested. --tgheretford (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this idea, it is an area that isn't covered and one I think needs a dedicated group of some form. If you're looking for alternatives, then you could propose changing WP:BTVC to a British Broadcasting project, covering both Radio and Television. Not necessarily a better idea than a task force, but worth discussing perhaps, assuming people at WP:BTVC liked the idea. -- Fursday 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea. There is definately a difference in UK and international broadcasting styles.  /Marbles 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made the suggestion and place for discussion with the WP:BTVC of a proposal to include UK radio stations within the UK TV stations WikiProject or keep them separate here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV channels#Proposal: WikiProject British TV Channels → WikiProject British Broadcasting OR WikiProject British TV and Radio channels? I'll let this discussion start for a bit before deciding whether to pursue a option of covering both TV and radio in one WikiProject or keep them separate. --tgheretford (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response at WP:BTVC. Either things have gone quiet or the WikiProject has become inactive. --tgheretford (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So, this task force would cover most aspects of UK radio. Not just stations, but programmes and other occupations in radio as well? ISD 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The goals and scope of the task force will be exactly the same as WikiProject Radio, but will focus on UK articles, which the main project doesn't really focus on. --tgheretford (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case, I'd welcome it and would like to be part of it. ISD 13:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: UK Radio stations task force 

message: I had another thought on all of this, and I wonder whether it may be a better idea to expand the proposed taskforce a little and make it also cover the radio industry of the UK, rather than just focus on radio stations (which it could still do), and become a part of WikiProject Radio. I'll post the same idea on the WikiProject Radio talk page to link to this discussion. Good or bad idea? --tgheretford (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, this task force would cover most aspects of UK radio. Not just stations, but programmes and other occupations in radio as well? ISD 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The goals and scope of the task force will be exactly the same as WikiProject Radio, but will focus on UK articles, which the main project doesn't really focus on. --tgheretford (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case, I'd welcome it and would like to be part of it. ISD 13:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal: UK radio and radio stations task force 

message: Following on from talk at talk:4 Digital Group (where a discussion is taking place over a UK-related digital radio licensing process), some people have raised the idea of creating a dedicated article for DAB or Digital radio in the United Kingdom.
The article would carry on from the Digital Audio Broadcasting article and go into specific detail of how digital radio technologies are specifically employed in the UK, the patterns of ownership and coverage, the licensing process, and the specific criticisms DAB in the UK. My hope is that with "Digital" rather than "DAB" in the title, the article could also cover other Digital Radio technologies currently at the trial stage, such as Digital Radio Mondiale. The Article would be analogous to Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom. I believe that there would be sufficient material, and references to make such an article justified, though I am interested to see what others things.
Any thoughts? -- Fursday 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the comments I made at the Talk:4 Digital Group page, I think there needs to be a lot done to cover the history and current state of UK radio, in one or a number of articles, in the same way that UK digital terrestrial television has been covered, so I agree with Fursday's suggestion. --tgheretford (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Digital Radio 

message: I started a skeleton template of the proposed articles as stated above on this page: User:Tghe-retford/Sandbox 2. It is basic, but it gives a good idea as to how the articles could be spread out. Feel free to edit it or improve it or even turn them into fully fledged articles in article namespace in their own right! --tgheretford (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed - you can help! 

message: Having a bit of a debate here as to whether or not WQBR (AM) should be included in Template:Ann Arbor Radio. 
User:RMc argues it should be included because it is a radio station located in Ypsilanti, Michigan (a neighboring town located in the market), has existed for 40 years, and that it is owned by local Eastern Michigan University.
I argue that it should not be included because it is carrier current/not licensed by the FCC, only operates on 4 watts of power, and is not even the main station of the university. Additionally, it is not even mentioned on http://www.michiguide.com/, a site which provides information on all Michigan TV and Radio stations ()
Anybody have any opinions to settle this debate? JPG-GR 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WQBR was listed on Michiguide.com for several years (I sent the webmaster the info myself), but it's no longer there for some reason. WQBR was/is well-known on EMU's campus and probably more listened-to by students than WEMU is. A borderline case...but I think WQBR belongs. RMc 11:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this station even notable enough to have an article? No FCC license, no sources cited, can't be heard off-campus ("no longer receivable more than 10 feet from the Quirk building"), and no reason asserted why this is any more worthy of an article than, e.g., the university chess club. If it's notable within the university, perhaps it should be merged into the Eastern Michigan University article. Certainly doesn't belong in a market template. DHowell 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88.9 Lancer Radio - Pasadena Campus Sounds for a deletion discussion about another student-run radio station. DHowell 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The implication that WQBR is more popular than WEMU gave me a good laugh. More proof for my side: WQBR does have a section on the EMU webiste, but it hasn't been touched since 2004.  JPG-GR 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get personal, pal. ;) It's not that WQBR has huge ratings, it's that WEMU is equally unknown to the actual students -- like most NPR outlets, WEMU is much more of older upscale yuppie/jazz fan thing than a student-oriented radio station. (At least WQBR is more popular among the kids who hang around the Quirk Building (heh).) RMc 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your argument that WQBR belongs because it is just as -unknown- as WEMU? JPG-GR 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether the students of EMU know of WEMU or WQBR is irrelevant, as this is not EMUpedia; WEMU has a potential audience of 400,000 across 8 counties, and people in Ann Arbor (and several other cities) can actually tune their radio and hear the station. WQBR is "no longer receivable more than 10 feet from the Quirk building", and is not in any meaningful way part of the Ann Arbor radio market. DHowell 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll concede the point. WQBR belongs in Wiki, but not in the template. Too bad. RMc 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Market Templates 

message: Is it appropriate for an article on a community that has none of its own media outlets to contain a list of every DX station that has ever been picked up by dial scanners in the area? Bearcat 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Saugeen First Nation]]

message: I don't know if anyone here noticed, but List of radio stations has been deleted, and the AfD is here. I've called for a deletion review as I believe this meta-list should be restored and renamed to Lists of radio stations. Please participate in this deletion review discussion. DHowell 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a greater danger that all the sub lists could also be targeted for AfD. A worry for list of radio stations in the United Kingdom, which covers UK radio stations in a far greater depth that a category can never do. --tgheretford (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of radio stations]] 

message: I've spent the majority of the last week going through all the Wxxx radio stations (tagged with ) and corrected any that incorrectly included "-FM", " (FM)", "-AM", " (AM)" or any other oddities. Granted, this doesn't mean all the Wxxx radio stations are fixed, as I didn't check all the stations that don't have suffixes in their article titles, that may need them.
The downside to all of this -- whereas all the market templates will still link to the proper articles via redirects, the links in those templates will need to be repaired if the links are to show up bold (i.e. self-linked) in the stations' own articles.So, if anybody's looking for a fun project, there's a good one for you.
FYI -- I'll probably be doing the Kxxx radio stations in the upcoming weeks. JPG-GR 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kxxx radio stations fixed. JPG-GR 18:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official names fixed 

message: I went ahead and updated all of the rankings of the list of radio markets to the Spring of 2007 Arbitron ranks.  In particular, the ranks for markets in the 250s-280s have moved around.  In particular, Meadville and Great Falls are no longer ranked giving way to Hot Springs and Twin Falls.  Let me know if there are any errors.
--Jjc104 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitron markets updated to Spring 2007 rankings 

message: So should an article be named WIVK, WIVK-FM, or WIVK (FM)? Currently it's WIVK.--AW 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article should be named according to it's offical callsign as found in the FCC database whenever possible. When this is not the case (usually in the event that the callsign is used as an acronym elsewhere), (FM) is added as a suffix to the article name. In the case of the station you mentioned, the official callsign is WIVK-FM, and should therefore be located at WIVK-FM (which is where I'm going to be moving it in one second). JPG-GR 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to also update all templates that include the station and also fix double redirects.  Vegaswikian 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case JPG-GR, then there are a lot of radio stations that are named improperly. --AW 15:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha don't even get me started! A large majority of my edits of 2007 have been moving radio station articles to their proper home. It's an extremely massive project that I've developed a strategic method to take care of, but it's gonna be months before I even make a dent. Definitely a challenge, to say the least. JPG-GR 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little confused on naming conventions 

message: Whitch should be used in the infoboxes with regards to the power of a station? What the stations website/image says or what the FCC database has? Mr mark taylor 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unaware of any examples where the station would claim one thing, and the station another. I would think one should use the FCC database's listed value (unless someone has a convincing argument otherwise?). JPG-GR 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Modulo errors in the FCC's Common Database System (which do happen), the power should be listed as the value the FCC requires it to be.  Stations sometimes like to inflate their importance by claiming a higher power than they actually have.  (A common version of this for FM stations is to use the class-maximum power, even though the station operates at a much lower power because its antenna is much higher than the standard height used to define the class max.  For example, WZRT used to run a stager with the claim "serving four states with fifty thousand watts of power", which was nonsense; it is a class-C2 station, for which the class-maximum ERP is indeed 50 kW, but it has only 1.15 kW from its antenna location 790 m above average terrain.)  121a0012 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorized Power (USA Stations Only) 

message: what is the difference between these two projects? Simply south 14:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio and Radio stations 

message: It's late. All I know is this -- this article's name makes my head hurt. Any suggestions on what to do with this chaos? JPG-GR 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemme see what I can do here. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find the page quite cleaned up. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWKF WAKQ-FM]] 

message: I have just reverted approximately 70 edits by User:Ohconfucius without any input to several radio networks within Alaska where he redirected translator stations to the parent article, despite comprehensive TX info within the infobox, write-up and FMQ/AMQ links in each article. He had also done the same by combining several Trinity Broadcasting Network TV translators into KTBN, which would have been way too hefty if he added every TBN translator in existence (this was addressed by me also within WP:TVS). I told him if he had any concerns with our article policy, he could have them addressed here. Nate 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... WP:TVS not withstanding, it would appear that WP:WPRS doesn't HAVE a policy on translator stations having separate articles. Quite the contrary -- it was my understanding that they weren't to have separate articles at all. I'd argue that these translators aren't notable enough to warrant their own articles. JPG-GR 06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was in error as to your policies, my apologies. I thought it would be better addressed by an editor in Alaska than an editor from what appears to be Hong Kong, so if anyone from that area would like to put their input in, that would be welcomed. I just reverted them to their pre-OC state because it seemed to be done without a thought to AK radio article structure. Nate 06:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm, no foul. If nothing else, this can get a consensus so we'll have something to work from in the future. JPG-GR 07:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great; since I mostly edit TV station articles it'll be much better in the hands of you all than just reverting and keeping the previous structure without input. Nate 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I knew there was a precedent, just didn't know where. Well, be my guest and re-redirect all the radio station stuff. As for the TV stuff, best leave that to WP:TVS. JPG-GR 16:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally found what I was looking for: Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. As translators do not fulfill this criteria, they cannot have their own articles. As these translators are important to the greater station, merging is the appropriate move. JPG-GR 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, if the translators are ultimately moved to the parent page, the information should be moved as well (ie: WNRN). - NeutralHomer T:C 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I ask you to read WP:MERGE. Obviously, if the pages are merged, the information will be integrated. That's what "merge" means. JPG-GR 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and that's all I ask is the information is intergrated. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaska public radio networks 

message: A contributor has requested the move WAMC-FM → WAMC on the grounds that the station is more than just one FM station, and also broadcasts repeaters on AM stations. What is the general practice within this project for such pages? The move sounds reasonable, but better to check with the project first. ●DanMS • Talk 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the request is sound (otherwise I wouldn't have made it ;-). But, I welcome anyone else's opinion. JPG-GR 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of leaving you a message that I had posted this request here, but you replied here before I could complete my message to you! Note that I am not disputing the move—I just thought it better to get the opinions of the contributors in this project. Oftentimes members of a project have their own conventions and standards. ●DanMS • Talk 00:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely understand. Fair warning, though: activity on this project lately from more than a select few has been greatly lacking. JPG-GR 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will move this in a couple of days if no one objects. If I forget, remind me on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does WAMC still use the brand "Northeast Public Radio"?  If so, then perhaps that's what the article should be titled, and then all of the stations (WAMC (AM), WAMC-FM, WAMK, WOSR, WCEL, WCAN, WAMQ, and others I've probably forgotten) can be redirects to that.  (I suppose it would violate WP:NPOV to call it "Chartock Public Radio"....)  121a0012 05:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: I've spent the better part of the last couple hours working on creating a standardized way to list translators in a table so we can nip this style-issue in the bud before it starts. Right now, I've set up the table to hold call signs, frequencies, cities of licenses, and their data as found in the FCC database. Are there any other desired columns? (I'm working under the assumption that neither power nor class are necessary, but if there is desire, I can add them in). JPG-GR 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add a "notes" section for people to add in extra information.  I think WP:TVS has a notes section as well.  It could just go un-used on most stations, but where extra information is needed, it would be helpful. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Station Translators 

message: I originally asked WikiProject Ohio for a review of this article on a local Ohio radio station, but since I did not receive responses, I'm listing it here as well. As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether WONW is notable enough for an own article. For details, see the article's talk page. I would appreciate an expert opinion. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an FCC licensed station so it's notable, regardless of how small it is, however it does need to be cleaned up. Mr mark taylor 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That and the claim to be around since 1948 is impressive. JPG-GR 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Mr mark taylor, do we have a precedent for that? I had an issue a few months back with an officially licensed LP radio station being marked not notable. JPG-GR 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see a problem with an LPFM station, since they cover a small area and are pretty weak in the wattage department, but I think all AM and FM stations get a page....I would say LPFMs would too, but I am not sure. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Like Mr mark taylor said, if it is listed on the FCC database, then it gets a page.  I will add a infobox to the page for ya (it is a standard on all radio pages) and some external links as well (also standard).  If you need any help, please let Mr mark taylor, JPG-GR, or myself know and we will be glad to help.  Take Care and Have a Good Weekend....NeutralHomer T:C 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: WONW 

message: An issue: 
* WEUP, an article detailing both WEUP & WEUP-FM
* WEUP-FM, an article detailing WEUP-FM
These are either gonna need to be combined or separated. I'm in the middle of another project at the moment, so can't get to it at the moment. Can someone else take care of this? Thanks! JPG-GR 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to the project but the Huntsville, Alabama, stations are high on my personal priority list so I'd be happy to take these on. They share ownership but little or no progamming so my plan is to separate the info for the AM and FM sides. - Dravecky 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks! JPG-GR 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created separate pages at WEUP (AM) and WEUP-FM as well as a new page for each of the full-power simulcasters (WEUZ, WHIY, and WUEV) plus the three listed translators. Who knows when formats will shift so I think individual pages for each station (with appropriate references) is the way to go.  Oh, and WEUP is now a disambiguation page. Enjoy. - Dravecky 03:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WEUP 

message: Okay, here's the deal. I'm trying to organize all the stations that have or are still running freeform rock formats. Seems they're all over the place and link to unrelated stuff like progressive rock. So, I figured, what the heck - I'll combine all of them under freeform (radio format). I started changing the progressive rock links to freeform. 
Well, there just so happens to exist another article called Progressive rock (radio format) that was started after the freeform article. It currently has no sources and lots of original research, etc. I decided the best thing to do is merge the two, and create one better article. Well, no sooner than I put up the tag, the 'gatekeeper' of the Progressive rock (radio format) damn near had a heart attack, opposed the merge tag, and set out to revert all my edits. 
But this isn't about this silly little rift. This is about the name of the format. Freeform seems to be the best name for it, as the article has been around longer, is often referred to by that name, and has more links and more activity on it. Really, the name doesn't mean much, but the two articles need to be merged.
Oh, and while we're at it, how 'bout merging alternative rock and modern rock? Same damned thing. Or am I just asking too much?--Fightingirish 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly believe that the freeform format and the progressive rock format, while related, are different formats.  See Talk:Progressive rock (radio format) for my position and reasoning.  I concede that Progressive rock (radio format) needs to be sourced better.  I am agnostic on merging alternative rock and modern rock, as I don't have the same degree of familiarity with them.   Wasted Time R 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling radio formats, merging pages 

message: can someone add more to the KZQZ article and add pictures. Alexh1013 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've Wikified it a bit, added appropriate article links, added a couple of references to FCC actions, and a bit of clean up. I know nothing about the station so that's all I can do for the moment.  If you can find reliable sources for information, please feel free to add to this article any relevant data.  (Also, see KBWF for the current home of this frequency.) - Dravecky 04:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KZQZ 

message: If the AM and FM stations have playing separate programming for nearly four years then it's high time to give them separate articles as well. I propose KMAV (AM) and KMAV-FM with KMAV left as a disambiguation page. (I might get to this myself but if somebody else cares to tackle this then by all means, please feel free.) - Dravecky 07:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! - Dravecky 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KMAV 

message: Part one is complete: List of AM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W). It took the better part of the summer, so the other three parts will probably take just as long.
I created the list, so you guys better get started on articles for all of those red links *wink* JPG-GR 18:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The What Wikipedia is Not policy on what is not appropriate content specifically says that Wikipedia is not a place to put a directory. (Yes, I have an obvious interest in asking the question)...  Why was this done?  Sorting, collating and searching through the 14,000 radio stations (that's just in the United States) with hundreds of changes a week is a job for a database, not an encyclopedia.  There is no semantic significance to an alphabetical list of radio stations - if someone is looking for a specific radio station, they are going to either do a search (if they know the call sign) or do a geographic search if they know where the station is located.  Scanning a list of radio stations alphabetically adds no value.StreamingRadioGuide 15:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's precisely why the older lists are being replaced with newer lists that are sortable by all the columns. As for these gigantic lists, I'm just following in the footsteps of WikiProject Television Stations. If these longer lists get deleted, I'll still have the info to build the state lists. Not much time or data lost at all. JPG-GR 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point was a big long list of alphabetic codes is a "paper encyclopedia" kind of thinking - the fact that WAAD is in between WAAC and WAAE tells you nothing about any of the three articles - therefore a sort by call sign has no value to the reader. If I sort by Frequency and station Wxxx is in front of Kzzz because 103.5 sorts before 103.7, what information does that convey?  "Search" is a great concept and takes no work to maintain. The main bigger annoyance this is amplifying are the categories (Radio stations owned by Clear Channel, etc...) causing searches to get matches on totally unrelated articles (especially in Google) - I search for Wxxx and find an article for station Wzzz - only because both stations were in a list of Radio Stations airing sports talk in Wikipedia.  Now this list of Stations starting with the letter W is creating "matches" on searches with no articles.  If I do a search on grapefruit, I don't want a "List of all fruits that begin with the letter G" to direct me to an article on guava trees. There is so much work that needs to be done with an obvious tangible benefit for the visitors.  And each additional list/categorization increases the work load every time a station changes its call sign.  Note that over the next few months, around 500 Clear Channel stations are being divested, which is going to generate a huge amount of change in formats, call signs and ownership.  I guess what caused me to repond initiaully was the *wink* that others were now supposed to do the additional work this list created.  Does its inclusion in an alphabetical list make a radio station notable?... but that's a much bigger can of worms. StreamingRadioGuide 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, WP:TVS set the precedent of every full-power, licensed television station being notable enough for an article. JPG-GR 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that all of my comments and opinions are about Radio lists, not TV.  Is there a similar policy statement about notability of radio stations?StreamingRadioGuide 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy statement in the first place (that I've ever been shown), just the precedent. JPG-GR 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Insanity Project 

message: Any objections to changing the lengthy, numbered participant list to an alphabetized, name only, three column list? JPG-GR 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - JPG-GR 00:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants List 

message: Should there be navigational boxes/templates for unranked  markets that have a significant amount of radio signals but don't fall into a market (the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont comes to mind, there are radio stations up there but no numbered market. Mr mark taylor 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have used templates for markets that are unranked.  See the Kingwood/Oakland template for an example.  What I do is just add  to it and make the template.  I would say make the template, but just add the "unranked" tag for the Arbitron market.  Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigational Boxes/Templates 

message: Any issue with recommending that a DEFAULTSORT tag be added to all radio station pages to prevent them from bunching up in the W, K, C etc. sections in category listings?--Rtphokie 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on my talk page, when a station will be a long list of stations all with the same starting letter then it's appropriate to sort on the second letter. For example, in "Radio stations in Huntsville, Alabama", all of the FCC-licensed stations start with W so they should be sorted on the second letter. But in cases where W and K stations are mixed, such as the format categories and most other geograpically non-specific categories, the sort should be on the first letter so all the Ks are together and all the Ws are together for logical sorting. - Dravecky 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would make sense for categories that have articles other than radio stations in them (such as city categories).  But what about categories like "Sports radio in the United States", "Talk radio stations", "Urban adult contemporary radio stations", etc which are completely made up of radio station articles.  By sorting by the first letter as normal, we end up with only headings, K's and W's.  Wouldn't these categories be more readble more headings were available?.--Rtphokie 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some categories are more readable broken up the way you suggest and that's what the pipe is for. But does it make more sense to scatter the 18 Ks in "Urban adult contemporary radio stations" among the 88 total entries in small clumps that will appear out of alphabetical order? And globally adding a defaultsort will require manually revisiting thousands of articles to fix multiple categories in each article so they sort properly. Ironic, I know, but adding defaultsort here would cause the problems that it's intended to solve. - Dravecky 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: DEFAULTSORT is a terrible idea when it comes to radio station articles, as different categories need to be sorted different ways. It's a life saver for biographies, but would wreak havoc on radio station articles. JPG-GR 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFAULTSORT 

message: The example shown in the naming policy violates its own rule.   It starts out saying to use (AM) (FM) and (TV) for stations which share the same base call sign, but then the example says KCBS (AM), KCBS-FM, and KCBS-TV.  Which way is it - and what is the rationale for (AM) vs -AM?  Is it that the same company owns both stations?  (I just handled this situation with WMAJ-FM.... there is a WMAJ-AM - both are actually owned by the same company, but with different licensee names)...  this inconsistency is part of the reason there are many unmatched links in the List of All radio Stations beginning with the letter W.  Whatever the rule is, at least make the rule match its example.StreamingRadioGuide 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created three articles today for three religious radio station that were purchased and assigned new call signs and changed formats from Classical Music to Religious Talk.  I originally created the article as XXXX, then did a move to XXXX-FM to create a redirect automatically if someone searched on XXXX. I referenced the article to the old call signs (which did not have articles) as they were satellite stations of a larger station under the prior ownership.  There are no XXXX (AM) articles).The rule of using the government issued Call Sign (the FCC for US Licensed stations) is contradicted by the project guidelines... the example for WRHU differentiates whether to create a redirect page based on the existence of a conflict with an existing article -  not whether the FCC has issued an ambiguous call sign based on the same four character base sign. If I follow the "FCC database is the authority" rule, there would be no article for WRHU-FM at all - since the official callsign IS WRHU.  So the example violates its own rule.  All I'm asking for is a consistent set of reasonable rules, so people don't start a revert war when I did exactly what the WRHU-FM example does - see WZWP.StreamingRadioGuide 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm searching for a better example for the rule right now. After found, I will correct the example, and then further explain here. JPG-GR 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it -FM or (AM) or -AM and (FM) or (AM) and (FM) 

message: This morning, I was reviewing the purpose of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias project, which is trying to address content imbalances due to the editors not being representative of the general public(being typically more male, young, technical and highly educated).  One bias I have noticed in the radio station articles is a lack of articles on radio stations owned by religious organizations - even just basic templates.  According to my count, there are about 2,000 licensed stations in the United States programmed with religious talk/ministry or Christian Music.  About 950 of those have web sites. The guidelines suggest that editors fill in content, even if it is at odds with their own personal bias or interests.  Any volunteers to address this bias?StreamingRadioGuide 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call bias I call ignorance, and not in a bad way. Implying that articles don't exist because people are against the stations' beliefs does not assume good faith. Perhaps because people do not listen to these stations, they are not aware of them, especially not to the point that they can write an article about them? JPG-GR 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you take the time to read the Project article, it clearly states the bias trying to be corrected is not one of deliberate distortion - but rather that of lack of balance due to the omission of content due to the demographics and interests of the editors.  The reason for bringing this global effort up to the members of this project is to suggest that there is need for improvement in this area, not malice by its members.StreamingRadioGuide 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to wonder what the purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, is it producing any articles or updating any existing ones?  We've got enough projects pointing out what they think is wrong with Wikipedia.  We need more (like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations actually) that get their hands dirty and improve coverage of a topic.--Rtphokie 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic Bias 

message: Be warned that fair use rationales with have got be full, complete and watertight. I have had a contribution speedily deleted under CSD#I6 under WP:NFCC#10c, even though it had this rationale, which I thought would cover it. I have also had an official warning for the text below on the aforementioned contribution:
# It is a logo of a pay television service which cannot be described in prose;
# There is no free alternative available;
# The logos inclusion to the article is paramount as it was the subject of a major advertising campaign;
# It is a low resolution image of the logo;
# It is a historically significant episode and logo of British Sky Broadcasting.
I have not come across a radio logo image which has as much as this, and it is likely that all of these are likely for deletion. If you have updated anything, make sure it is watertight and complete, and add as much information as you can. Seems paranoia about copyright is creeping in. --tgheretford (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is your friend.  The bots are looking for this template, example:

--Rtphokie 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The main problem is that the guidelines for non-template use were written before the template was created, and according to WP:FURG, a non-template detailing the rationale should be acceptable. I'll raise discussion there. --tgheretford (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed that rationale see  you had the wrong page listed in the rationale. βcommand 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important warning: fair use rationales for radio logos 

message: Does the scope of this WikiProject include Internet Radio for those stations that only exist on the internet and have no air-broadcast parent? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Radio 

message: Hello. I've noticed that Frj1947 mass moved Philippine FM stations without discussion, but with good reason, seeing the naming conventions this Wikiproject has. However, since stations from Centran & South America are excluded, I ask Philippine FM radio stations are to be included in the excluded territories since majority of the FM stations do not have callsigns or part of their callsigns within their names, and some even do not use their callsigns at all in advertisement. This is also to follow Wikipedia's general naming conventions where the most popular name is used. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, you're right. Maybe calling a station's callsign on-air is not mandated by the NTC. Where can the Philippine TV or Radio station naming conventions be discussed? -Frj1947 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is the right place? --Howard the Duck 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for Philippine FM stations 

message: I'm pondering the creation of a category (specifically, a sub-category of :Category:United States radio navigational boxes) which will contain the templates for the 300 current Arbitron markets. Here are the two things to resolve:
* What should the category be named? :Category:Arbitron markets or something similar?
* Is there any logic in so many markets being divided by AM and FM? Perhaps Template:New York FM and Template:New York AM (market #1) should be separate (though, I'd argue not), but what's the excuse for (randomly chosen) Template:Rapid City FM and Template:Rapid City AM (market #276). 
Also, we should probably establish a consistent format for these navigational templates, but that's a discussion for later in the week/month. Your input, as always, please. JPG-GR 08:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitron market templates 

message: I was surfing around tonight, and happened across this. What a great idea! This would be a nice addition to the project, and would also be nice to sub in for years on radio station articles (i.e. 2007 becomes 2007, or 2007 becomes 2007). I have started changing links for this, so that soon, a simple click of "what links here" will bring up various radio-oriented articles from which to compile events for a particular year. --Fightingirish 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years in radio 

message: Thought List of AM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W) was fun? How about this one? I dub it "Radio establishments." Basically, it involves a year, a list of establishments, and a year for radio station establishments. I got the ball rolling somewhat, but like the TV establishment pages, this will help keep radio stations organized by their initial sign-on dates. Of course, we are talking about initial debut dates, not the year they switched to Top 40 or whatever. Anyone who has a little time to kill is more than welcome to pitch in. 
Oh, and these must be confirmed sign-on years. --Fightingirish 20:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project for people who like insanity 

message: Case in point - KXTY (99.7)...  Finding a news blurb that says "Company A has agreed to purchase radio station Wxxx from Company B" does NOT mean that Company A now owns station Wxxx.  In this example, it appears the deal fell through, and now Lazer communications has acquired the rights to purchase WXTY from Mapleton, which failed to close the deal [assumption, since it has been a year since the original announcement].  With the upcoming disgorgement of around 500 Clear Channel Stations, and the ripple effects, it is really important to not update the page announcing a new owner until the transaction is actually completed and the FCC license transferred.StreamingRadioGuide 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though it should be mentioned in the article if a particular deal is pending. Also, if there is an LMA arrangement in effect, that should be noted as well (as many sale deals do have these, though there must be proof before that is brought up). Otherwise, I agree, though sadly, many people who edit these articles have no clue about the efforts of WPRS, and turn out some rather crappy articles.--Fightingirish 08:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball 

message: I invite everyone to take a look at this ongoing "debate" and contribute your own two-cents, whether it's in agreement with my take or not. Thanks! JPG-GR 05:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of radio stations in Rhode Island]] 

message: I was led to believe that all full-power FCC licensed radio stations were inherently notable. An editor has tagged KSLI (AM) and I can't find any text to back up an inherent notability claim. Why this one station out of 14000?  Who knows.  But if others could weigh in on this, it would be appreciated. - Dravecky 05:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the tag after correcting two templates - they were pointing to non-existent KSLI-FM, which is hardly notable due to lack of existence ;-) JPG-GR 05:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same editor has returned the tag and wonders about notability (again). - Dravecky 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[KSLI (AM)]] 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Brokered Time 

message: Before I go, I figure I'll spark up one final discussion. From the WP:WPRS page itself:
* "For articles on stations located in countries which do use government-issued call signs, the official call sign should be used."
* "Verify: For all stations with call signs, check that the call sign used in the article (and article title, where applicable) is the correct one for that station."
I interpret these both as I feel they were written: in countries who use call signs (i.e. the U.S.), refer to stations by their call sign. Quite simply, if there is an FM station WQWE-FM, it is WQWE-FM and should be referred to as such at all times, be it in article titles, templates, or whatever. Likewise, an AM staiton WQWE should be WQWE at all times (with the exception of WQWE (AM) as an article title, so a dab page can be located at WQWE proper). The station should never be referred to as WQWE-AM because that's not what the station is called. If your name is Joe Smith, and someone calls you Joe Thompson, they are solely confused. This situation is no different.
If there are editors out there who disagree with this (and I know they are), I invite them here to explain their side of the story, so that the other members can show them the error of their ways.
Thank you, and take care everyone. JPG-GR 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious if anyone is interested in this part of discussion -- is the policy clear and no one wants to discuss it or no one feels it's important? Just curious. Thanks! JPG-GR 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know that there is anything to be discussed, when you are right you are right.  Let's make it canon.--Rtphokie 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I too thought this was clear. But, it's templates such as Template:Elkins-Buckhannon-Weston Radio where this debate originated. User:Neutralhomer seems to want to put the non-existent "-AM" suffix on AM stations where there is a similarly named FM station in the same market, despite the fact that that's essentially calling and apple an orange. In other words, if the consensus is "use the official callsign" (which is always has been, as near as I can tell), the templates in the Mid-Atlantic US region need some basic cleanup. JPG-GR 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option might be to just have one link to WDNE -- WOSlinker 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... not all that in favor of that one, especially since the link won't be bold on the article page if the link doesn't point to it. JPG-GR 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That, and technically, as the callsign of WDNE (the AM station) is "WDNE", it would appear that WDNE-FM was being left off the list. JPG-GR 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I expected, User:Neutralhomer has continued to ignore the policy, as shown here, here, and here. I'd recommend that for now we ignore these templates, finish with the rest of them, and then if User:Neutralhomer continues to not follow the guidelines as set forth by the project, deal with them then. Good luck editing, everyone. JPG-GR 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call signs 

message: I'd like to suggest that these all be converted to use the  template.  This allows controlling of the collapsible parameter so larger markets can be set to autocollapse.  This would be an issue if larger markets have many stations.  Also editors need to start using   and  to keep from splitting entries across lines.  This provides for a common layout for navboxes when articles have multiple ones.  One unified look rather then a different look for each template. Vegaswikian 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for the NavBox template.  It will take sometime to get used to (I am still used to the old template) but I like the new one. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland are all updated with the NavBox template. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've converted a few over to the Navbox template but just wondering if might be better to create a "Navbox radio" template which is just a wrapper around the navbox template. -- WOSlinker 11:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I am using.... - NeutralHomer T:C 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  group1 & group2 could have some extra links on FM & AM. -- WOSlinker 12:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those fields never really change.  It's the "list" fields where I put the wikilinks for the freqs, calls, etc. - NeutralHomer T:C 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have a better link for callsign. -- WOSlinker 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're talking strictly US and Canada stations (which I believe we are), that would be the better choice. JPG-GR 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox format 

message: I've started generating the state radio lists, as located at List of radio stations in STATE. This time around, I'm generating the tables with callsigns, frequences, and cities of license only -- that's the easy stuff that I can pull right from the FCC database in a snap. The owners and formats, however, aren't so easy. By generating these lists with only the first three columns, not only can we get everything more consistent quicker, it's also possible for everyone else to edit these new lists right away, rather than delaying them sometimes a week or two at a time as I try to find the time to fill in the blanks.
If you're interested in filling in owners/formats blanks, I've generated List of radio stations in Maine and List of radio stations in Wyoming this evening. And, if you're looking for a state in particular to get generated sooner rather than later, shoot me a note on my talk page. Happy editing! JPG-GR 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Radio Lists 

message: User:Rfc1394 is adding animated state flags to the market templates, I will to my best to revert, but if someone could give me a hand, I would apppericate it. - NeutralHomer T:C 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin and I knocked 'em out, but do keep an eye on that user's contribs. - NeutralHomer T:C 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Flags 

message: Am I mistaken in my belief that current on-air schedules are not permitted (or at least very strongly discouraged) in radio station articles?  My edit to WUMP was reverted by an anonymous user (after the on-air schedule had been originally added by a new user with a whopping 1 edit to their credit) and rather than trigger a revert war I thought I'd get the community to weigh in.  Also, if somebody can point me to this guideline in the WPRS text, I'd be appreciative.  Thanks in advance. - Dravecky 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what's been shown via previous precedents: if it's a schedule with shows and times, it's not allowed. However, it would appear that a listing of programs along with hosts is permissible, with such headers as "morning show", "afternoon drive", etc. Whether or not the policy supports this isn't quite clear. JPG-GR 06:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the disputed section. - Dravecky 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That violates WP:NOT#DIR for sure. JPG-GR 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JPG-GR is right on the money.  Those kinds of lists are against the WP:NOT rules. - NeutralHomer T:C 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been making it a point to remove stuff like this whenever I see it. I don't see the point of including it in most cases. It's merely cruft, and often copied directly from the stations' own websites. I've also noticed that often, this stuff is added by radio station employees, and in some cases, such as the KUFO article, they get quite nasty if it gets removed. I've also seen ridiculous instances of virtually every station employee being listed in articles, and even schedules of off-air board ops. That's just plain absurd.--Fightingirish 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WUMP 

message: * Mike & Mike (5:00am to 6:00am)
* Harp On Sports (6:00am to 9:00am)
* Colin Cowherd (9:00am to 11:00am)
* Jim Rome (11:00am to 2:00pm)
* Huntsville Sports Report (2:00pm to 3:00pm)
* Thom Abraham (3:00pm to 6:00pm)
* Doug Gottlieb (6:00pm to 9:00pm)
* John Seibel (9:00pm to 1:00am)
* Jason Smith (1:00am to 5:00pm)
:That violates WP:NOT#DIR for sure. JPG-GR 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JPG-GR is right on the money.  Those kinds of lists are against the WP:NOT rules. - NeutralHomer T:C 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been making it a point to remove stuff like this whenever I see it. I don't see the point of including it in most cases. It's merely cruft, and often copied directly from the stations' own websites. I've also noticed that often, this stuff is added by radio station employees, and in some cases, such as the KUFO article, they get quite nasty if it gets removed. I've also seen ridiculous instances of virtually every station employee being listed in articles, and even schedules of off-air board ops. That's just plain absurd.--Fightingirish 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weekday Lineup

message: It's good to see this category populated with all of the Arbitron market templates. But, we have a small problem. The category contains 303 templates, and there are only 302 (currently) ranked Arbitron markets. So, any clue which one is out of place. I don't think I have the patience to go digging through them myself at the moment (esp. since not all of them are named exactly the same as their Arbitron markets). JPG-GR 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see only 302 templates in the category. - Dravecky 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... well someone must've found it. Great! JPG-GR 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Arbitron market navigational boxes]] 

message: :: an online radio station launched in Feb 2006 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion: Karma Air 

message: :: a former New Zealand radio station, now bearing a new call sign --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion: 2XS FM 

message: There are far more radio stations with one of the Worcester Radio template tags (AM/FM/Radio) (and thus automatically listed in :Category:Radio stations in Worcester) than are actually listed in the template. Should these other stations be added to the Worcester Radio template or should the template tag be removed from these unlisted station articles? I don't know enough about the Worcester market to make any kind of informed decision. - Dravecky 08:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule, I use the radio-locator maps. If the station can reach the actual city dot within the first two rings, it goes in the template. Otherwise, no. But, this is a very rough rule. JPG-GR 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The list of stations Arbitron keeps for the market seems like a good starting place (and ending place?) to me.  Radio and Records is an easy place to find them: | station list for Worcester--Rtphokie 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cape Cod market template referenced the wrong category.  Fixed.  121a0012 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  - Dravecky 18:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ... with rare exceptions, like :Category:United States radio navigational boxes. JPG-GR 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That category should be inside the noinclude tags; we don't want the stations themselves to start appearing in the category listing. Bearcat 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *nods* JPG-GR 15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and since I manually added the :Category:Radio stations on Cape Cod cat to each of the listed articles for sorting purposes, it could be safely removed from the template with no adverse effect on the tagged radio stations. - Dravecky 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many stations in Worcester? 

message: I'm starting to bump into a lot of of these new 2 sentence stub pages, which are clearly based on the Arbitron database.  Setting aside the possible copyright implications, even a cursory look at the data will tell someone in the business that the information in that database is not at all accurate - especially for radio stations that are not subscribers to Arbitron.  At best, Arbitron asks their subscribers to update their profile once a year.   I just flagged an entry for WFPW which says it is News/Talk format and points to TimesClassicsOnline.com web site, which is long ago obsolete.  The article was created yesterday, so the station URL clearly was not tested.StreamingRadioGuide 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you be bold and fix it? JPG-GR 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: JPG-GR is right, if you see something that's incorrect, regardless of where the information originally came from, fix it.  Many of these links look correct but you may know better.  Radio stations are notorious for launching a new image and forgetting to clean up after their old image, and it's not always possible to detect this when you are working from information about the old image.--Rtphokie 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes a ABC Radio website is better than none :)  But, JPG and Rtphokie are right, if you see something, by all means, fix it.  If it is a page we have made, let us know so we can fix it in the future (and on other pages). - NeutralHomer T:C 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitron database is not authoritative for genre and web site URLs 

message: I have run into various radio station articles/stubs in which a post on a radio message board, such as radio-info.com, is cited as the source.  When I have checked the message board post, I have not found a cited source.  Since most poster are anonymous, there is no basis for judging the accuracy of any information taken from these radio message boards.  Message boards should not be used as a credible or authoritative source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.28.233 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Message Boards 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the FCC database, the WMAP call-sign has been out of use since 1997.  WKRE became WBTB in November of 2004 and WXNC in December of the same year where is currently remains.  WXNC has a page of it's own, so I redirected the WMAP page there. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: WMAP (AM) 

message: I've requested a revert on the renames of Air 1 to Air 1 Radio Network and K-LOVE to K-LOVE Radio Network here, if anyone would like to voice their opinions either way. Both changes were made with no discussion/consensusJPG-GR 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  Makes far more sense with "Network" in the title, especially to users who click on a callsign and get redirected to Air 1 or K-LOVE.  --Rtphokie 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea, less confusion on the part of the reader. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Having "network" in the name makes the article intent clearer and allows for easier disambiguation, especially for K-LOVE. - Dravecky 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm confused, why did you suggest Air 1 Radio Network and now suggest Air 1 (radio network)?  Are you updating your original suggestion or contradicting yourself?  The later is probably more appropriate but the point remains the same.  Air 1 imparts far less information and is more prone to confusion than Air 1 (radio network)--Rtphokie 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that Air 1 Radio Network is incorrect as it is not the name of the company. I'm saying that Air 1 (radio network) is unnecessary as there is no disambiguation needed. The proper location for the article is Air 1. JPG-GR 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their own website says differently. Every page carries the following copyright notice: "© 2007  Air 1 Radio Network" so it's neither unreasonable nor incorrect to place the article at Air 1 Radio Network. - Dravecky 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... you appear to be correct. But the K-LOVE request is still valid. JPG-GR 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you want to split hairs, the name of the programming is "Air 1" (or possibly "Air 1 Radio" - don't have an affiliate in my area). The name of the company that owns them is "Air 1 Radio Network." But, that's if you want to split hairs. JPG-GR 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's run with the company name, as is the case for most Wikipedia articles. The K-LOVE website has all sorts of names for the network including "K-LOVE Radio" and "The Positive & Encouraging K-LOVE Network" but nothing is more consistently used than "K-LOVE" without embellishment so, yeah, a move to K-LOVE (radio network) would be in order as long as the current K-LOVE disambiguation page is left intact. - Dravecky 05:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the case for most Wikipedia articles... on companies. I still argue that the disambiguation is grossly unnecessary. JPG-GR 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the company that owns these two formats is "Educational Media Foundation" (or perhaps it's "EMF Broadcasting" now, the need to deceive having passed).  "Air 1 Radio Network" and suchlike are merely dbas.  121a0012 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: It took a little longer than hoped, but all 50 states have now had their lists updated to the more consistent sortable style. There's still a lot of work to be done with blanks being filled in (owners and formats) as well as hunting down articles that are named correctly. Happy editing. JPG-GR 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on the owner/formats part...ALOT slower than I want (much offline stuff taking up my time). - NeutralHomer T:C 02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of radio stations in STATE]] 

message: How do we determine whether or not a state should be included? For instance, :Category:Radio stations in Los Angeles is quite obviously a subcategory of :Category:Radio stations in California. However, :Category:Radio stations in Iron Range may not be as clearly a subcategory of :Category:Radio stations in Minnesota.
So, here's the question - where's the thin line that decides if these subcategories should contain the state or not. In my neck of the woods, :Category:Radio stations in Detroit is obviously enough, but is :Category:Radio stations in Lansing, Michigan too much? (Lansing redirects to Lansing, Michigan first and foremost, but there are many other Lansing's listed at Lansing (disambiguation).)
Not trying to change anything drastically here - just trying to get a feel for how the community draws the line. JPG-GR (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic categories naming conventions. 

message: This IP, 24.87.61.232, needs to be blocked. Mainly bad edits have came from this person. I propose blocking that IP address. 72.161.149.29 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the contributions for IP 24.87.61.232 and it turns out that a dozen or so radio and television articles had indeed been vandalized by that user.  I have fixed the vandalism, mostly the addition of "W=Western" or a variant to callsign meaning entries, and note that the issue raised by 72.161.149.29 was a legitmate one. - Dravecky (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  guy screwing up callsign meanings 

message: After being struck down in his attempt to have the articles on radio stations WRNY and WRRC deleted, Mr.Z-man has made an attempt at changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations.  This is a REALLY bad idea.  This puts not only the work of this WikiProject, but the work of WP:TVS, and potentially Wikipedia itself at risk.  We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and obviously he isn't done. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This guy has absolutely no shame. I busted him for not following procedure in WP:N, specifically the paragraph dealing with non-compliant articles, so now he's challenging that paragraph. Incredible! dhett (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling that we're dealing with an editor with a "holier than thou" attitude, who only cares what he thinks. And what I mean by "he", I mean "Z-man", not the "man upstairs". -- azumanga (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Update - he has withdrawn the challenge of the guideline after being called out on a bad faith move. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mea culpa. I retract and apologize for my "no shame" comment above; it was inappropriate. I should not be ascribing emotions to people I do not know. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Standard for Radio and TV Stations 

message: At the time of this writing, it's looking like we're going to get a sensible guideline on media notability that takes into account the shortcomings of WP:CORP (a.k.a. WP:ORG) and provides some sort of inherent notability for radio and television stations that originate programming.
However, there is one problem that both radio and television have that was evident in WRRC (FM): some articles do a very poor job of asserting notability, (as defined in WP:CSD, not WP:N), and regardless of the new policy, articles that do not assert notability are still candidates for speedy deletion. The one-sentence opening doesn't even begin to tell me why the station is notable. A brief statement of its 45-year history, or its potential audience would greatly help others to see why it is notable.
I encourage anyone adding an article to ensure that it asserts its own notability, and if you find an article lacking in that, please consider either adding it, or let members of this WikiProject know. It's our best defense against article deletion. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One last point on notability 

message: WRNY and WRRC are once again up for deletion.  The reason: Non-notable radio station. Sources provided only prove existence, the rest of the article fails WP:V.  If these stations are allowed to be deleted, it would open a "can of worms" and put each and every radio station article in jeopardy of deletion, even the big stations.  This would make all the work done by this project completely irrelavant.  Please vote against the deletions. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- in addition, it may also trickle down to television stations as well, practically anything that has a call sign, or even has the words "television" or "radio". I expect strong keeps from everyone for both stations. -- azumanga (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew.  Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 07:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a minimum guideline is substantial independent programming. Don't start a sliding scope argument. Surely there are better sources for most stations of real importance. DGG (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both were overwhelming Keeps, only one person voted for deletion.  I say we did good :) - NeutralHomer T:C 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see several of the articles in the WP:WPRS "world" improved on, but sometimes the information just isn't known.  What is there, is what is known...or if it is a new radio or TV station, that's all there is.  Not every station has a long history like WABC or WTOP...some are just small.  I don't think we are in a place to have one admin say what is and what isn't important.  Especially, a self-proclaimed "rogue" admin.  I still stand by the "if it has a FCC licensed, it is notable" standpoint. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to clear this question of notability up once and for all.  I also support the "if it's licensed, it's notable" approach.  It has many side benefits especially when it comes to the potentially thorny area of low-power stations and stations run out of church basements, both of which could lead to lots of hurt feelings.  The presence of articles on every licensed station, anywhere in the world, is going to encourage better information to be collected and presented about these stations.  Radio is notoriously bad about forgetting it's past, especially it's recent past.  Wikipedia may be the best place to help fix that.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, WP:CANVASS is quite entertaining to read.  I dont think there are many who are so easily influenced so we need not worry about canvassing.  I appreciate it when others bring issues to my attention that I may have an interest in.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect Mr.Z-man to relist them right quick. - NeutralHomer T:C 11:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WRNY (AM)|WRNY]] and [[WRRC (FM)|WRRC]] up for deletion 

message: What if we include Class D stations that have been in operation for X number of years under notability guidelines?  That would automatically include the type of station that's been grandfathered in since 1978, while it would exclude newer LPFM stations without an established broadcast history.  Another point: I'm not too familiar with the newer LPFM stations.  Do they (other than translators which we're pretty unanimous on not covering) need to be on air for a certain number of hours per week and have a DJ on duty?  Because that in itself is a pretty high bar. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they have to be on the air 36 hours a week (6 hours a day times 7 days in a week), but most LPFM's I know aren't rebroadcasters of religious networks (that's what translators are used for, I can think of a bunch of religious FM stations that have multiple translators, i.e. W201AB, W256ZY, etc.), most LPFM's I've heard are local community groups wanting to be of the "alternative media" type, carrying Democracy Now and whatnot. As for Class D stations, most are so low powered (10 watts or so) and a majority are licensed to colleges that never upgraded to higher powered stations, a redirect to the college would do. Mr mark taylor (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be surprised.  A substantial number (not a majority, I don't think, but more than a few -- I really don't have time to do a manual count at this point) of LPFMs are licensed to churches.  They may provide some amount of local service, but frequently run a national religious network.  As for the class-Ds, many of them belong to high schools rather than colleges, and it's tough to see how most of them would meet notability except as examples of this limited class.  (There are, all told, exactly 105 of them -- see the next section.  LPFMs are not considered to be "FM stations" proper but are an entirely distinct service class, and thus the class-A/B/C/D system does not apply to them.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class D, LPFM,  notability, and DJ on duty 

message: Here is a complate list of class-D primary stations in the U.S.  (Note that secondary stations -- translators and boosters -- are also considered to be class-D stations, but LPFMs are not.)  121a0012 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DIR notwithstanding, I think this particular group of stations, because of its status and history, may well be sufficiently notable to motivate a List of class-D FM radio stations article.  I'm willing to do the work if people think it can be defended from the deletionistas.  121a0012 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of all class-D stations 

message: It's trivial to do the same thing for LPFMs if there's interest.  (There are at present exactly 824 licensed LPFMs.)  Oh, hell, here's the complete list:
:(No, I'm not suggesting that these stations are sufficiently notable to have a "List of" article of their own.  But here is the list anway, just so people in this discussion can get an idea of the general sorts of LPFMs there are.  121a0012 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd probably be a violation of WP:DIR, but I wouldn't object to seeing List of Low-Power FM radio stations in the United States with this info (assuming you can pull frequencies for the list), if for no other reason than because if any of these are articles, they're probably doomed soon. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, there are a hell of a lot more of them, and they change much more frequently than the class-Ds do (since there aren't any new class-Ds and most of the existing ones belong to organizations with little incentive to sell them off).  I don't see it as being worth the effort.  I could, on the other hand, relatively easily put this on my Web site (where I already have access to the nightly database updates -- this list comes out of the same database server), but it would still be a rather low priority for me.  There is probably a way to get the same information by filling in the right form fields on the CDBS station query form.  121a0012 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 121a0012 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of all U.S. LPFM stations 

message: Has consensus been reached by the project on what stations are inherently notable?  Is it all licensed  stations?  Is it all class C or higher?  I know we've agreed that translators need to go on the parent stations page and are not notable enough to warrant an article of their own but what about LP stations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the consensus is that fully licensed stations are inherently notable, but the debate is still going with LPFM's. Mr mark taylor 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something of a contradiction.  And I think the terms of debate have moved on from "inherent notability" to "presumed notability".  I have argued in favor of presumed non-notability for LPFMs (which are "fully licensed stations" like any others), and presumed notability for full-power originating stations.  Formal satellites (only allowed for non-commercial licenses) and secondaries (translators and boosters) should again be presumed non-notable.  (A translator might be notable if it is controversial, as W276AQ, or very unusual, as K200AA, but these should be considered under the usual standards of reliable third-party sources.  A satellite will normally be described in the article for the originating station, but might have its own article if it has originated its own programming in the past.)  121a0012 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LP notability? 

message: I noticed that there was just a single redlinked station listed in the Juneau Radio template so I began to create an article for KTNL (AM) but discovered that there is no such station in the FCC database nor does the List of radio stations in Alaska include a station at 1330 AM.  What source is there for this station to be included in this template? - Dravecky (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KTNL is the former callsign of 1330 AM KXLJ, which is currently under Construction Permit status. JPG-GR (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KTNL (AM) 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: Big L 1395 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the nomination has been withdrawl.  All is well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: SURGE 1287AM 

message: Are templates like :Template:Rock Radio stations (East) and :Template:Rock Radio stations (West) worthwhile?  I'm wondering if they'll be kept up to date.  Seems to add more clutter to pages.  Will many users be interested in navigating this way?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes.  I just ran into "Rock Radio stations (East)" while editing and, uh, I'm not convinced that these are either useful or practical.  They might make interesting lists for people looking for rock music stations when travelling but I can't imagine navigating this category, especially only by call letters! - Dravecky (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, boxes for specific formats by state (i.e. CHR/Top 40 stations in Florida, etc.) can easily be sorted out and helpful, unlike the mashed together mess than the specific formats across the county, even if they are divided into two   boxes. Mr mark taylor (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These templates have been removed from 217 articles.  I agree that format specific navboxes by state would be more appropriate--Rtphokie (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda thought it was a cool idea myself, but having a state-by-state template (ala ) would be better, less cluttered, and easier to update. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format specific navboxes 

message: You may have seem a similar discussion from a month ago up there, but here are my thoughts on naming conventions
How I've always interpreted it in general is that "If the government issues callsigns, we use callsigns. If the government doesn't issue callsigns, use the branding". Sure, the stations may be more well-known by their brand name, but isn't that the case in North America? Heck, it even affects Television down here in Canada - all the stations do have call signs, but lately most terrestrial TV stations (well, except for the affiliates of E! during newscasts) have pretended that their callsigns don't even exist and just use their network's branding. I see that how things go down in the Philippines television/radio-wise are not only a lot like North America, but are a part of a global trend in areas that utilize callsigns. 
Final thoughts? Change them back to call letters, leave the redirects.  ViperSnake151 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinoy FM stations revisited 

message: :Well, that was over fast.  "The result was speedy keep, nom votes keep with only keep !votes present." Nice to see one of these that isn't a long slogging debate over shadings of word meanings. - Dravecky (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: WEZS (AM) 

message: There's no issue with describing a station's format as "Country" as long as the underlying wikilink is actually to "Country music", the proper article.  I just spent the better part of three days editing almost 400 station articles to correct Country to Country and having made my way carefully through the entire massive list of articles that link to "Country" twice (twice!) in that time, I'd prefer not to have to do it again.  Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why some of the formats were changed to Country from Country....it never crossed my mind, "that might go to an actual country"...duh :P   I will keep a closer eye on the VA, WV, MD, and PA country stations so they aren't changed back Country for whatever reason. - NeutralHomer T:C 10:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been guilty of this as well.  I went through last night with AWB and cleaned up any page that linked to Country that looked radio station-ish (there weren't many left)  Thanks for pointing that out.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country is a place, not a format 

message: The leading opponent of Wikipedia:Notability (media) is now calling for rejection of the proposal on the basis that it lacks widespread support.  I think he's wrong about this but it seems that quantity as well as quality of comment is required in Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) as soon as possible. - Dravecky (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability (media) 

message: I know that, given the language gap, en:'s coverage of Mexico is always going to lag somewhat compared to our coverage of Spanish language topics in the United States, but are there perhaps a few Spanish-speaking editors here who could take a crack at improving our coverage of Mexican radio (and no, I don't mean the Stan Ridgway song, either.) I'm someone who can really only muddle my way through very basic Spanish by pretending it's badly-spelled French, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in knowing more about Mexican broadcasting... Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhetorical question 

message: The following categories are in need of proper sorting by sorting minus the initial callsign letter:
*:Category:Radio stations in California
*:Category:Radio stations in New Jersey
*:Category:Radio stations in New York
*:Category:Radio stations in North Carolina
*:Category:Radio stations in Pennsylvania
*:Category:Radio stations in South Carolina
*:Category:Radio stations in Texas
The following categories are in need of proper sorting by the initial callsign letter:
*:Category:Radio stations in Minnesota
*:Category:NPR member stations
If anyone's interested in some simple maintenance edits. JPG-GR (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of :Category:Radio stations in North Carolina, found a few missing articles from that category as well.  I'm also categorizing articles into the appropriate regional categories within NC where they exist (very inconsistent there right now).  I can take care of :Category:Radio stations in California if no one else is intereted.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to come up with some kind of system for geographic sub-categories of each state. For instance, a subcategory for Providence, Rhode Island inside Rhode Island seems kinda silly based on the sheer number of items. JPG-GR (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced these sub categories are all that useful.  The market navboxes are far more useful and would be a better investiment of maintence time.  If the consensus is that these categories are worthwhile, I'm thinking there need to be at least 25 stations in a market to warrant it's own sub category.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for organizing this, JPG-GR.  I'm working my way steadily through :Category:Radio stations in Pennsylvania. It would be a lot faster going if I didn't keep running into stubs that need extensive wikification, basic structural elements, or even any article text whatsoever (and WPGM-FM is just one of a bunch like this I've found!). -- Dravecky (talk 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whew, that's what I get for picked the state with the longest unsorted list.  But it's done and so are all of its associated sub-cats. On to :Category:Radio stations in South Carolina next! - Dravecky (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Okay, that's South Carolina finished.   I'll poke around but won't take on another whole state until I get a meal and maybe a nap. - Dravecky (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Texas is done, a massive unsorted list.  The NPR list and New York are done as well.  A couple lines in C# and WP:AWB made quick work of it all.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Category sorting 

message: Should categorization by state be limited to the state where the station is licensed or should stations be categorized where they are heard?  The Philadelphia market is a good example, stations are heard in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and sometimes more states.  In the case of El Paso, Texas, stations licensed in Mexico can be heard in El Paso and vice versa.  Question is, should these stations be in 1 category or multiple categories?--Rtphokie (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have seen, it is limited in the state where the station is licensed. - NeutralHomer T:C 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In the station where it is licensed.  However, there are also templates for market areas, which can cross state or national boundaries. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This makes sense.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Categorization 

message: And the hits just keep on coming.  Not quite as strong a case as the station above but a couple of the local program providers indicate that broadcasting will begin on December 31 so this AfD may wrap up just in time for the station to go on the air. (Ah, irony.)  I've beefed up the article a bit but help with that and participation in the discussion is strongly encouraged.  (Oh, and Merry Christmas.) - Dravecky (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that AFD was withdrawn fast.  Actually, I would not presume notability for an LPFM station, but suggest that it be merged into the state list of radio stations.  But it looks like the article has enough material to stand on its own. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WGOT-LP]] 

message: I'd like some other opinions on format specific navboxes like Template:Classic Rock PA.  This seems a bit too much to me.  Does anyone see enough value in this to keep it around?--Rtphokie 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they have some value, if a format has enough of a presence in a state with a large enough station base to make a template worthwhile.  I'd be interested in a "Country stations in Alabama" but don't think we need a "Sports talk in Idaho" template, for example. - Dravecky 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me by "large enough".  Is five the minimum?  Best regards --PorchME (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  format specific navboxes 

message: OK, WUSH (formerlly WNRJ) was supposed to take the WUSH calls.  For some reason they are listed in the FCC database as "WUFH".  Do we switch the page to the current "title" or leave it as is and see if it is an FCC mistake? - NeutralHomer T:C 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the editor of VARTV.com they are ID'ing as "WUSH Poquoson". - NeutralHomer T:C 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's no other real choice but to move it to WUFH with a re-direct at WUSH. If the FCC changes it to WUSH in the future then it's a simple matter of a few keystrokes to move it back and leave a redirect at WUFH. You might also put a bit of explanatory text at the top of the article to complement the note you have near the bottom to prevent well-intentioned errant changes back to WUSH. - Dravecky (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say leave it as WUSH for now, because they are already using the name WUSH.  Could very well be a typo in the database.  I'd give it some time to see if they correct it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they identifying as "Wush" or as "W-U-S-H"? It wouldn't be the first time a station calls themselves something that sounds like their callsign but isn't actually really their callsign. JPG-GR (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "W-U-S-H".  The editor of VARTV.com (who I have on IM as I type) emailed someone at Sinclair Communications (owner of WUSH) and they said they are WUSH.  Squidfryerchef could be right, it could be a typo...or it could be a FCC goof, ala WOAY-TV.- NeutralHomer T:C 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no qualms against it being moved to WUFH (with the redirect) and moved back once the FCC corrects the mistake. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that even 100000watts.com is listing WUSH as WUFH, I have moved the page to WUFH until this whole thing gets cleared up....which probably won't be until after the New Year. - NeutralHomer T:C 13:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Needed 

message: I was poking around and I've noticed that while we have a Southside Virginia section to get those stations into a category, no such group exists for Roanoke Rapids, NC.  It's led to disasters like WTRG.  I was thinking about trying to put a template together for that area.  Is there some Arbitron-related requirement, or can that be done?  Should it be done?  TripEricson (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should.  You can include the stations from Emporia and add both NC and VA state templates. - NeutralHomer T:C 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I've created the template and run through and added the appropriate boxes to each linked page.  Later on I may make pages for WEVA/WHFD/WNCM/WYTT but I definitely plan to clean up WTRG somewhat. Don't let that stop anyone else from jumping in if you want; there's plenty of stuff to do! TripEricson (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added a few of the infobox and structural basics plus a couple of references to the WTRG article. I've recently discovered that the online Broadcasting & Cable archives can be a useful source of info as well as a handy reliable source for any radio article. - Dravecky (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why's it a problem?  Every station is technically somewhere, and in this case, there's a decent number of stations targeting Roanoke Rapids and until I put it together, there was no recognition of it on Wikipedia.  I'm just trying to get the areas I live in and near straightened up a little bit. TripEricson (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trip, you are doing just fine.  Everything worries JPG.  I will work on the rest of those stations today. (got caught up playing with the new "toys") - NeutralHomer T:C 16:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if NH gives it his blessing, it'll survive, since it's in his area of stations that he owns. JPG-GR (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright you two, I know Christmas is technically over but Santa has already started his list for next year.  Be nice.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /sighs/ - NeutralHomer T:C 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roanoke Rapids Section? 

message: There have been a couple of concerns raised recently about articles associated with stations not yet on the air.  WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is running up against "I thought all radio stations are automatically notable".  Plans change and the "go-live" date gets pushed back in some cases.  I wonder how many construction permits get issued and never get on the air.  
Some thoughts about determining the notability of these stations.  
* possession of a construction permit does not provide instant notability.
* references (preferable with a planned air date) should be provided to assert it's notability (and the FCC construction permit doesn't count)
* all planned stations should be categorized into :Category:Planned radio stations in the United States, once the station goes live, it should be removed from that category.  If it stays there for more than 3 months it should be considered for deletion.
Also, is it time to add a notability section to WP:WPRS, at least as a reference?  It could be useful in these AFD discussions.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually an essay in progress about this very topic at WP:Notability (media).  We're trying to lay down some ground rules about when a media outlet is more likely than not to be found notable.  We should probably avoid terms like "inherently" or "automatically" notable because it stirs up too much controversy.  I'm on the fence about keeping these articles, but one point I can make is even if the station didn't go on the air, some other station would snap up that spot and the work we did on the first station would become part of the history of the second station. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no sense in adding a notability section to WP:WPRS as any notability rules established by WP:WPRS don't amount to a hill of beans. Notability is decided by the greater project, not by a specialized area. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually it may be promoted to a guideline, not an essay.  It was originally a proposed guidline ( it might still be tagged as such ) but most of us are more or less happy with the way it is.  But if it does become a guideline it will have pull.  But guideline or not, we need something to explain notability arguments related to broadcasting because many of the men of letters here on Wikipedia seem to think anyone can start their own radio station. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit verifiable content related to the future; it prohibits unsourced speculation. If a planned radio station is properly sourced (the license details, etc.) and doesn't start speculating about details that haven't been confirmed yet, then it's a valid article topic and not a CRYSTAL violation. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  planned stations 

message: I just spent a few hours cleaning up the by-format categories after discovering, to my surprise, that there was only one article in :Category:Album Oriented Rock radio stations.  Now there are four.  The badly-named :Category:Alternative radio stations now has a whopping three articles. Should these be moved to join the 24 articles in the generic :Category:Rock radio stations in the United States (they're all US stations) and the categories removed?  Or does anybody have a useful strategy for adding proper category tags to the hundreds of station articles lack same in hopes of finding more AOR and alt-rock stations? - Dravecky (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say put them all in the main category for now. In the event more stations ever appear that could be fit in these subcategories, they can always be recreated. JPG-GR (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt the utility of categorizing music stations by format unless you can find an impartial, third-party source for determining the set of recognized formats.  Many stations will give positioners when asked for their formats, and music stations can "report" to whatever chart or charts their management desires.  The only outfit I know of which makes an independent judgment when assigning formats is Radio Journal/100000watts.com, and those are both for-pay services that are not particularly accessible to WP editors.  (They still ask the station what their format is, but they then translate that into one or more of a few dozen standard formats identified in their database.  Disclaimer: I know people who work for Critical Mass Media, the company that publishes both.)  121a0012 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The challenge when it comes to categorizing by radio format is that radio stations themselves don't necessarily use the standard term for their format as their own self-descriptor. I've lost count of the number of times that I've had to undo edits which changed a radio station's format from active rock to "classic and new rock" or from adult hits to "hits of the 70s, 80s, 90s and today", which are not the names of radio formats, but descriptive statements about the formats. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock the categories 

message: It's so hard to shop for an entire WikiProject so this Christmas I decided to take  which had one lonely blue link in a field of red and make it my holiday project.  Now that template is overhauled, every station has a useful stub/start article complete with infobox and (where available) a station logo, and we're one step closer to galactic domination.  Or, um, at least one step closer to having the radio stations of the US Territories all blue-linked.  (You're next, Puerto Rico!)  Here's hoping your holiday is a safe and happy one. - Dravecky (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To you as well Dravecky :) - NeutralHomer T:C 15:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, if and when you get to Puerto Rico, use a bit of caution — just by comparing List of radio stations in U.S. Territories to the PR stub category, I caught at least a dozen redlinks for which we already had articles at variant titles. I can't speak to how complete the PR template is at present, but the list still contains a lot of redlinks — although some may be translators which should just exist as redirects, and others may still be variant titles for articles that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merry Christmas (or the winter holiday of your choice)