Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive4

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

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