Template talk:Infobox radio station/Archive 1

message: Name changed to Template:Infobox Radio station to adopt the naming of a number of other infoboxes - Template:Radio station and Template:Radio Station Information continue to work as re-directs. Marknew 10:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: I have a tendency (not exercised much with this particular infobox, but more with  (which I created) and , to subst infoboxes.  My understanding is that the "if defined call1" template is a meta that will work only if the infobox target is not subst'd, is that right? Courtland 14:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
:The "if defined call1" template appears to work if you use syntax similar to the following when "subst'ing" an infobox:

:but it does not work if you use:

:Look at the following for examples of this: User:Marknew/Sandbox (first method - all fields used), User:Marknew/Sandbox 2 (first method - optional fields not used) and User:Marknew/Sandbox 3 (second method - notice that optional rows have been replaced with confusing Wiki-code). --Marknew 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst question 

message: I have started work on a new infobox which contains elements of both  and . It can be found at Template:Infobox Radio station/temp. Comments are welcome; please also feel free to modify the infobox as you see fit. --Marknew 09:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox design 

message: I have temporarily commented out the "class" field; it is used by very few pages at present and looks out of place on these pages. I hope to restore the field once I have merged Infobox radio and Template:Infobox Radio station. Marknew 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporarily removed "class" field 

message: I suggest changing "Founded" to "First Air Date."  While "Founded" is being used in the Broadcast (i.e., TV station) infobox, I object to it since the "founding" of a broadcasting operation does not have a definite meaning.  I think that "Founded" was adopted from the company infobox, and in the context of the organization of a company or corporation or other such organization, "founded" has some meaning.  In general, I think most authors have used the first air date as the "founded" date anyway. --Hillrhpc 18:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and thanks for making the change! -- SwissCelt 23:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed with this, so made the change yesterday (7 Aug). --Marknew 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: When radio stations go through several format, owner, and even frequency changes, sometimes "First Air Date" can be ambiguous.  For example, is it the date a station on its frequency first went on the air?  Is it the date the station in in its current format, or with its current owners, first went on the air?  If a station changed frequencies, is it the first air date of the station on the new frequency or on the old frequency? KKBT in Los Angeles is a good example of a radio station that could have many different "first air dates" depending on how it is defined--as it is there are currently two years listed there with no explanation. DHowell 19:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk moved from old "Template:Infobox Radio Station" (as of 14 December 2005) 

message: Examples of this infobox in use can be found at User:Marknew/Sandbox. --Marknew 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Options:
*Keep all fields visible.
**Certain fields will look out of place (call sign fields on European station articles, etc.).
*Separate infoboxes (callsign-using stations/others)
**Difficulty ensuring a common design?
*Use of "if defined call1" etc.
**Makes using "subst" difficult for those who prefer to use that method.
**Multiple template calls - inefficient?
*Multiple templates (as used by WikiProject Beer - "Brewbox").
**Multiple template calls - inefficient?
*Any other options?
We need to decide how to solve this problem. Comments are welcome! --Marknew 14:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have found a solution to this problem; take a look at the source code of the infobox to see how. Examples of the infobox in use can be found at User:Marknew/Sandbox. --Marknew 07:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it looks like it works (I've tested it in Firefox 1.5, Internet Explorer 6 and Opera 8.5). Hopefully we can now start the process of merging the plethora of different infoboxes (none of which have the same style) into one common design. --Marknew 11:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional fields: how to hide? 

message: I know of no part of the world in which AM broadcast statons (MW and LW for those of you in Yurp) are regulated on the basis of ERP.  Most commonly, transmitter power output (TPO) or some variation thereof (such as nominal power in the U.S.) is used.  (This must be particularly the case in places where inefficient antenna systems are still very common.)  121a0012 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I added an optional power field for specifying nominal power. Perhaps a tpo field could be added if this template is to be used for radio stations in countries which define power by transmitter power output. DHowell 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERP not appropriate for AM stations 

message: In the US, the FCC requires all broadcast stations (radio and television) to have a city of license or community of licensed (COL).  It requires the broadcast station to that an at-grade class signal to be broadcasted in that city or community.  I would recommend that it would be added to the infobox. 12:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an optional city field for specifying city of license. Perhaps there might be some way to make area optional only if city is specified, but I'll leave that to some other time. DHowell 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of License 

message: Could we add a "former_callsigns" field?
I think that's the same field name used in the Template:Infobox_Broadcast for television stations... —This unsigned comment was added by User6985 (added link and sig->) Thomas B 13:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it if there is no objection posted on this talk page within the next 7 days (today is 6th April, so I'll wait until the 13th). --Marknew 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Callsigns Field 

message: I recently added infoboxes to some Toronto area radio stations. I got all my information from 
and I was just wondering if I put all the information in correctly. Could someone please check the pages below for any errors then tell me on my talk page if I made a mistake, so I won't do it again, because I plan on added radio infoboxes to many Canadian radio station articles.
*CFRB (AM)
*CFTR (AM)
*CFMJ (AM)
*CFXJ-FM
*CHFI-FM
*CHIN (AM)
*CHIN-FM
*CHUM (AM)
*CHUM-FM
*CILQ-FM
*CJAQ-FM
TorontoStorm 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the first few—looks good.  EncMstr 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I Doing this correctly? 

message: Many of the stations in the UK and Europe are available across a number of platforms, including digital satellite, cable and terrestrial (DTT/DAB) services, take TalkSPORT for example, which broadcasts over a number of platforms. Could someone with the knowledge be able to tweak the box so that these fields can be included, simliar to the way that they can for TV channels in the British TV Channel and TV Networks Template? Sonic 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Any objections? Also, would it be a good idea to add RDS name? --AntzUK 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Infobox - Digital Satellite/Cable/Terrestrial/DAB fields 

message: There is a redirect from Template:Infobox radio to this page, unfortunately there is also an Template:Infobox Radio page.  Is there any need for the redirected page?   A little confusion results ;-) --AGoon 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox radio vs Infobox Radio 

message: I'm about to embark on a one-man crusade to add articles for all of the Sirius Satellite Radio channels. Given the nature of satellite radio, the regular radio infobox doesn't seem to be quite the right fit. Would there be any objection to me creating a separate satradio infobox? Or should I try to modify the existing infobox with extra optional categories? --Aaron 21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should modify the existing infobox. It takes ages to edit all the pages again.--AntzUK  22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are very few satellite radio channels that currently have articles on Wikipedia; if there are even ten, I'd be surprised. I should add that I have no problem at all modifying the existing infobox; I just didn't know if it would be proper to add five or six more optional fields when there will probably only be about 100 articles total that will end up using those fields. Also, there are a couple of mandatory fields (frequency and broadcast area, but maybe more) that don't really quite fit satradio channels. They can be made to work (see the box I just put up for Sirius channel 100), but it just doesn't look quite right to me, IMHO. --Aaron 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, if you look at the list of xm channels, over half of the channels have pages.TravKoolBreeze 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made the area and frequency fields optional; this should not cause any problems, since the fields will appear when used anyway. If you need any help adding additional fields to the infobox, let me know. --Marknew 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite Radio infoboxes 

message: We should consider a slight widening of the infobox to prevent the larger phrases and words from wrapping to the next line.  For example, KROQ-FM has this problem.  I propose just a few extra spaces as I know we can't make it too wide in respect to the page width.  I am curious as to whay other may think of this and would love to hear why this would be good or bad.  Transent 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widening of Infobox Proposal 

message: Is the Airdate section of the Infobox refer to the date of sign on for the frequency or the date of the last format change.  I propose inclusion of some kind of clarification as I see so many discrepencies when I go from article to article and there seems to be no consensus on this issue.  Transent 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion Over Airdate 

message: Should power be expressed in kW or watts?  It's a mixed bag across all the articles.  Some editors are changing Kw to watts, some are changing watts to kW.
Also, what is the standard for expressing the frequency?   Sometimes it's 99.1, sometimes 99.1 FM, sometimes it's 99.1 FM sometimes it's 99.1 MHz, sometimes is 99.1 MHz.
--Rtphokie 11:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watts is the standard for the Power field, kW is the standard for the ERP field. As for the FM vs. MHz, they're the same thing (granted, so are watts and kW, but whatever). JPG-GR 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a stylistic issue for which I don't think any consensus has really formed. I would say that 99.1 MHz is more correct, as FM is a modulation method, not a measure of frequency. But when using "FM" with a frequency number, I actually prefer to say "FM 99.1" rather than "99.1 FM". Also, I'd prefer "watts" to "kW" for ERPs less than 1000 watts (e.g. "20 watts" vs. "0.02 kW"); but above that I have no preference either way. DHowell  —Preceding comment was added at 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kW or watts, FM or MHz 

message: To get all stations to auto-comply consistently with Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:Captions, I'd like to add a the following...
Station Logo
...under each logo image.--In1984 04:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea, providing two things: (a) the font is of at least a slightly smaller size and (b) how about  Logo ("Station Logo" is kinda bland). But, that's just my opinion. JPG-GR 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, (a)'s already been done? Anyone else have an opinion on (b)? JPG-GR 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (b) is a fine idea as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard logo caption 

message: In many markets, stations are beginning to broadcast secondary (and in some cases even tertiary) signals in high definition. I'd like to propose adding an HD2 and HD3 field to the infobox to include those additional broadcast signals. --Mhking 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is more complex than that solution can handle - each HD Channel is separate from the others - it may have its own website, branding, format, etc...  A fair number of stations are using one of their FM HD channels to broadcast their existing AM programming.   The template needs to be thought through on each item - does this item always apply to every HD channel, or could it be different?  Those that could be different need to be in a subtemplate or something... the NAB has made rolling out HD a high priority item for its members, so there is no time to waste thinking about how to deal with this.  FCC-License<->Station = 1 to 1 relationship   Station<->Channel is 1 to many.StreamingRadioGuide 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of different ways this could bucketed: strictly by frequency, stickly by license (aka callsign), or by stream of programming.  I like the latter personally.  Consider NPR stations that simulcast on dozens of frequencies across a region, a single page which notes those frequencies but treats them a single station is the best approach and redirects can be added for the simulcast frequencies if desired. (see WVTF for an example)  However in the case of HD radio, if the content being offered on the HD Channels is notable enough to warrent some coverage in Wikipedia, then it should probably have it's own page.  If it's obvious that the station is getting it's feet wet in HD radio with a token effort at alternative programming, then adding a section for each HD radio channel to the parent station's webpage seem sufficient to me.  Just my $.02 --Rtphokie 11:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has died a bit, but I think Mhking's proposal is worth considering again.  HD Radio is growing but individual stations just aren't all that notable yet.  Many broadcasters are treating their HD-1 channel as nothing more than a translator, a way to reach a slightly larger audience with the same content.  Far more often than not, the HD-1 station is simply a simulcast the standard def version of the station and have no identity of their own.  As such, info about the channel belongs on the standard def station's page.  HD-2 and HD-3 stations (where they exist) are often simply loops of local news and weather or automated stations which are a tweak of the format on the HD-1 or standard def stations, neither of these examples have enough of an identity to pass the notability test IMHO.  I like the idea of breaking out the HD channels into their own lines in the infobox and at least identifying the format being featured there.  For the rare cases where a solid, notable, separate, station exists with it's own identity on an HD channel, by all means it should get it's own article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could easily be done, if everyone's happy with such an idea. JPG-GR (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD Radio formats 

message: I'm adding an audience share thing like Template:Infobox TV Channel, mainly for UK stations, but am having trouble getting it on. Look at Core (radio station) where I have added it but something on the top of the page is showing up. Help me! Pafcool2 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! In UK use RAJAR as source, in USA use Arbitron. Pafcool2 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Editors are encouraged to be bold and make improvements wherever and whenever they see fit. Whilst discussion is always a good thing, there doesn't need to be a consensus for each and every change to a page. If there are objections to a change then fair enough, it might be time to determine whether consensus supports the change but simply removing a change because there hasn't been a discussion is not reasonable. For this reason, and also because Pafcool2 has started using this field in articles, I feel appropriate to revert your removal until such time as some reasoning for not including the field is discussed. Adambro (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that, but the ordering needs to be adjusted - that info belongs further down in the infobox. JPG-GR (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the rearranging, fixed the documentation, and added the code so that if a share is unsourced, it's tagged with . JPG-GR (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this information really needed in this infobox?  It going to get out of date very quickly.  Are we going to have any copyright issues?  At least in the U.S., audience share, or rating information is provided by Arbitron and could be considered IP.  Some editors worry that listings of the stations in a given market could violate Arbitron's copyright, certainly publishing the very data that they sell to their customers would pose a problem.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  audience share 

message: Why is this template protected?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a "highly transcluded template, tempting target for vandalism" JPG-GR (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: :pt:Template:Infobox Emissora de rádio. Rafamaxpires (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  template in portuguese 

message: I've removed this, since it creates a level of complexity that is hard to deal with unless was go for a different implementation. If it's really needed contact me and I'll sort it out. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31 30 March 2008 (GMT).
:I was completely against the inclusion of the ratings info in the infobox for this very reason, but with numerous infoboxes already using it, the sources have gotta be kept. JPG-GR (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact template transclusion

message: Maybe this has been discussed before, but I'd like to suggest additional optional fields:
*Key people (where the station manager could be named, for example, as in other Wikipedia company-type infoboxes)
*free_label1 (where additional info. not fitting anywhere else could be included, such as translators, etc.) 
*free_text1
JGHowes talk -  13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks to free-for-all fields for sure, as that's just asking for chaos. As for key people, I'd also argue that that's irrelevant to the encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing key station management is "unencyclopedic"?? I refer you to , , , , , , and so forth. And adding content to an Infobox isn't "asking for chaos" any more than adding content to the main body — an inappropriate edit can be reverted the same in both instances, after all. As it is, there's no place to list translators except "Sister stations", which technically isn't accurate. JGHowes talk -  06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any additional info that warrants being included in the infobox should have it's own field, not a random placeholder. As for translator stations, there are already separate templates for those to organize all the appropriate information. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Translators dont belong in the infobox.  There can be way too many of them.  As for key people, station management may make sense for other media but not for radio.  Changes are far too frequent (town to town, up and down the dial) and there are too many of them, the info would not get updated frequently enough to be useful.  The average market has 1 maybe 2 newspapers and dozens radio stations with few if any management being worth mentioning.   There aren't many notable radio PDs or GMs anyway and those that are can be mentioned in the article with proper references. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional fields 

message: I'd like to see the audienc share field label linked to something that describes the field.  Perhaps Nielsen Ratings#Ratings/share and total viewers unless there is a better page which describes the concept.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nielsen ratings have nothing to do with radio. JPG-GR (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct but it's also the only article that I've found that defines the concept of a share.  Did you have a better suggestion?  Should similar info be added to the Arbitron article?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or don't link it at all. Linking to Nielsen would be confusing to the average reader. JPG-GR (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  share wikilink 

message: The following fields need to be removed/hidden from the infobox (as originally pointed out by User:StreamingRadioGuide) due to copyright infringement of US radio stations: "share", "share as of", and "share source". From :
Remember that misuse of Arbitron or Scarborough data is considered to be copyright infringement. This includes use of data by non-subscribers."
and
Ratings profiles are Copyright © 2008 Arbitron Ratings Company. May not be quoted or reproduced without the prior written permission of Arbitron.
- JPG-GR (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While more specific data is protected by Arbitron and available only to subscribers, 12+ share data is published for for both traditional journal type ratings as well as the new people meter in Radio and Records, and is routinely referenced in press releases from stations (i.e. Arbitron subscribers) as well as in print publications (i.e. newspaper articles on stations ratings).  Let's comment out these fields while concerns with the share fields are discussed but I see no need for the template to be protected or these fields removed.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The template was protected months ago because it is a high use template (11,000+ transclusions).  I'm removing the editprotected tag for now as there doesn't seem to be consensus that deleting the fields from the infobox is the way to go.  As a side note, I'd like to point out that Arbitron and Scarborough only serve the US (as far as I know), but there appear to be other sources that can be used for non-US stations.  -CapitalR (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your quick response there.  I'll comment out those fields while the discussion continues as soon as tag is removed.  Can you point to those other sources?  WP:WPRS has been looking for some candidates and cant even find solid ones for Canadian markets.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with the fact that non-US stations may have ratings info they can reference without copyright violation, but as this template is used for ALL radio stations, I figure it would be better safe than sorry. JPG-GR (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I came across were for the BBC ratings and other UK ratings from rajar.  Not sure if they're allowed to be quoted legally or not, but they appear in a whole lot of infoboxes (BBC Radio 1 for example).  I don't really care either way on this issue, I just wanted to see a little more discussion before deleting infobox fields from such a high use template.  If no one objects within a day or two put the tag back up and I'll be happy to fulfill it.  --CapitalR (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: From the Radio and Records FAQ on quoting Arbitron and Scarborough data:
Arbitron provides the press with access to Persons 12+ AQH Shares for diary markets, Persons 6+ for PPM markets (Scarborough is Persons 18+)..  If there are articles that quote ratings data outside of the 12+ diary data or 6+ people meter data, that information should tagged for copyright concerns.  Are there other concerns with other countries?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the press. According to that, any WP article that quotes ratings data would have to quote the press quoting the data. JPG-GR (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to remove ratings from infoboxes 

message: I see that the "slogan" label was recently changed to "advertising slogan".  I'm concerned about the length of the later, especially in an infobox that can have a lot of data shoved into it in some articles.  What are some other thoughts?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Slogan is better in the Infobox. Advertising slogans can be covered in the article's main text. JGHowes talk -  17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. I thought i had it piped. Sorry, didn't mean to throw the infobox out of whack. I think the link ought to follow through to advertising slogan, thats all. So that would mean piping Slogan to Advertising slogan.--Celtus (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan vs. Advertising Slogan 

message: Calling broadcast translators "repeaters" (in the U.S., at least) is erroneous and confusing.  Requesting a change to "translator(s)".  Also, linking to Broadcast relay station would appear to be more to the point than a link to Repeater.  Proposing this change as well, either by substitution or as an option. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to make the change, but then wondered:  What should be done about existing uses of the parameter?  Do you know for sure that no page is using repeaters=?  Or should it continue to accept that, but display it as though translators= were used?  —EncMstr (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks you for the speedy response.  Not sure I entirely understand your questions, perhaps because I am unfamiliar with the syntax.  In the U.S., per the FCC rules, broadcast stations have translators, which I offer is what the box should say.  The usage of "repeater" is confined to wireless and two-way systems and the like.  I don't think you run the risk of any AM or FM stations having repeaters in use for direct public reception. I do know of at least one page where the translators are listed as "repeaters=" because currently there is no other choice. I wanted to change that, found I could not, and came here.  Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there are currently about 13,550 uses of this template.  How many are using "repeaters"?  () If the template no longer accepts the repeaters parameter, there is some information lossage.  How should that be handled?  —EncMstr (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If all these pages are for U.S. stations (I wouldn't know about the Canadian rules, etc.), I doubt that any are using real repeaters, but thousands are using translators called "repeater" in the infobox.  Let me suggest s clean way to handle this.  Adding a "translators=" line (with the appropriate link) should do no harm, as there would then be a choice, and whichever line were left blank (unused) would not be shown in the box.  Correct? Hertz1888 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I updated the documentation too, but it might be confusing without further explanation. —EncMstr (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see some of the "thousands" of U.S. radio station articles utilizing either "repeater" or "translator", as I don't recall ever coming across ANY. JPG-GR (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change requested re "repeater(s)" 

message: What exactly is the meaning of "area"?
* the area to which the station is targeted?
* the area covered by the station's broadcast licence?
* the area over which it is actually possible to pick up the station?
* (an approximation of) the convex hull of the set of transmitter locations?
* something else entirely?
If it isn't defined, it should be.  For all I know, different people are probably filling it in according to different interpretations. -- Smjg (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent question. I have no answer. JPG-GR (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it has been defined.  My poorly worded attempt at $.02:  1) if the station is in a well defined market (such as by Arbitron), that market name should be used. 2)  If it is not in a well defined market, area should be whatever the station claims to reasonably serve (i.e. what region, towns, etc, are in the station id at the top of the hour?).  That area could be the name of the largest town or some common name given to the region. 3) Whatever is in the area field, preferably it should be linkable to a wikipedia article(s) on that market/region/city(ies)/etc.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "area" 

message: Someone made an edit to WSTR (FM) asking for a former branding. This template doesn't have a row for former branding. Any discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something best handled (in prose) in the history section of the article. Brandings and slogans go through so many changes that it would be ridiculous to try to list them all in the infobox. JPG-GR (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former branding 

message: "Language" field could be useful too. Please add it to the template. <flrn> 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Any preference on where it should be placed in the order?--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it should be placed after "format". <flrn> 12:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done--Aervanath (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! <flrn> 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Propose adding support for former_frequencies item and associated template parameter.  This will parallel usage of the former_callsigns item and is for use for stations that change frequencies, but retain their callsigns, programming, and all other significant attributes that make up their identity.  Specifically, this change is needed to fix problems with the WTAR and WNIS articles.  These stations swapped frequencies in 1997.  See discussion here.
After:
:#if: |Frequency}}{{
insert:
:#if: |Former frequencies}}{{
.
Notes: Syntactically the added statement starts with the {{ on the preceding line and ends immediately before the {{ at the end of the added line.  Existing references to this template that do not use the new former frequencies parameter will not be affected by this change.
I am posting notices on relevant project pages. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Looks unlikely to cause any problems, and obviously useful.  —EncMstr (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  -- Tcncv (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add support for "Former frequencies" item 

message: I've converted the template to use wikitable syntax and made some tweaks; the resulting code is in the new sandbox and a comparison of old and new is available at the new test cases page. Comments welcome. If there are no objections I'll request sync and update the documentation accordingly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code updates 

message: "Borrowed" from Template:Infobox Actor
|image        = 
Otherwise one cannot change the image size on the infobox without changing the original image. Noted at WLAB page
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change image line? 

message: I think these three items would make great additions to the radio station infobox, as they are also on the television station infobox.New World Man 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facility ID and Transmitter Coordinates can be obtained from the FCC database, so I have no issue with them. On the other hand, I have no idea what "HAAT" means. JPG-GR 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HAAT refers to height above average terrain. New World Man 11:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the transmitter coordinates idea as well. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to be careful about if this suggestion is implemented:  The FCC database gives coordinates for broadcast stations referenced primarily to NAD27; Wikipedia and mapping programs such as Google Earth almost universally use NAD83 as a default.  To go from one system to the other requires making a conversion.  There's more to it than simply taking the coordinates from the FCC database. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Is the conversion something a formula could handle? If so, we could setup the infobox to take the FCC data and then convert it automatically. JPG-GR (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a simple formula.  A utility program called NADCON (see links here) can be used, and will convert either single points or entire files.  However, it may not be needed.  Some sophisticated digging down in the FCC databases might show NAD83 coordinates already available (converted from the NAD27 default for broadcast stations).  The program at www.fccinfo.com seems to find them every time—one station at a time.  I hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAAT, Facility ID and transmitter coordinates 

message: Would like to add a line for former owners.  Please discuss.  JoeCE4243 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary clutter for the infobox. Perfectly acceptable as part of the prose in the article. JPG-GR (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former owners 

message: When the | owner and | format parameters are not entered the infobox show like this:
Could someone fix this please? Or alternatively does the doc need to be updated to state that these field is mandatory? Mhiji (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected the template (as there wasn't any history of vandalism or disputes) and rewritten it as an , which has fixed this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owner 

message: Please add to top  --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfM 

message: Please update the template with the contents of the sandbox. This will cause the template to emit an hCard microformat. I've tested this with the testcases page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Working fine. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I've just added this infobox template to a page but I couldn't understand what most of the parameters mean and instead I kept searching for the relevant article on Wikipedia which is indeed very tiring. Could anyone please update the documentation by including what the parameters mean? Thanks. Pizza1016 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation requires update 

message: Here's a crazy idea. Since many stations today have a Facebook page and Twitter feed, should we add that to the infobox? Just a thought. --Fightingirish (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per point #10 of WP:ELNO, I'd be opposed to such an addition to the infobox. - Dravecky (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Ditto no. If the station's site is doing it's job, they should be linked there and we (theoretically) already link the station's site. JPG-GR (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought. I, for one have been adamant about reducing clutter on articles (i.e. removing schedules, editorializing, and useless information. Thought it could actually be somewhat useful.--Fightingirish (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Facebook and Twitter links?

message: I share the concern noted above that audience share might be too time-sensitive and/or copyright/trademark/IP issue heavy, but if it is going to be in the infobox, the current extra comma and space (EG "2.1% (May 2011, [1])" is quite inconsistent with standard citation layout. It should be "2.1% (May 2011[1])" or, probably better, "2.1% (May 2011)[1]". Also, it would probably be more compatible with more parts of the world if the label was "Audience/market share". 71.197.244.119 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Audience share/source

message: It has been noted that there are some bilingual stations like KESS-FM in Lewisville, Texas that broadcast a Top 40 format in both English and Spanish. With that said: For the "label10" field of this template, I suggest a small adjustment to "Language(s)".
Mbrstooge (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ; thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Language" Label Adjustment suggestion 

message: I'm using the template for the first time, on the AFN Munich article, and I noticed there is no Last broadcast parameter for stations like that which are defunct? Any reason for that? Is there something like a Template:Infobox defunct radio station for this purpose? Or has just nobody ever written an article on a defunct station and used a template? Could a parameter be added or is it to much hassle? Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last broadcast 

message: Hey folks,
Can we make the image section like the Infobox Single Template?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: "City of license" uses American English spelling. In British English it should be written "City of licence". Per WP:ENGVAR, articles about British (and Irish, Australian, etc.) radio stations should use a template with the "licence" spelling. Technically this might be quite complicated to implement, but I'm sure there are some clever coders out there who can do this, perhaps by using an additional variable that forces the BrE spelling to be used. Of course, there would then also need to be lots of articles to update. Alternatively, can neutral wording be used? (I see that the "license" spelling is also used on Template:Infobox broadcast.) Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English variant - licence instead of license 

message: I don't know why these infoboxes insist on including links to their websites. This is what the External links sections are for. If this is approved by consensus, this should begin to occur on other infoboxes too. ViperSnake151  Talk   18:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sorry, your edit request is...? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  I find these links, prominently displayed near the top of each article, quite helpful, and presume others do too.  The infobox syntax encourages inclusion of a link; relegating links to the EL section would leave inclusion (and proper formatting) more to chance. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Hertz1888 has it exactly right. - Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "website" field 

message: Could someone please change this template so it does not add article categories to userspace drafts? (e.g. User:WWB Too/WCSP-FM)  Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This infobox does not add any categories to pages. The category HD Radio stations is added to the linked userspace draft by Template:HD Radio. SiBr4 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.  GoingBatty (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Set categories to only be displayed in mainspace 

message: Is there any way to include the closing date of a particular radio station? As far as I can tell there you can only input the first air date. Thanks. --PhilipB (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: added . let me know if this is not sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Brilliant - thank you! Put to good use on Heart Wirral. --PhilipB (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And at AFN Munich. Calistemon (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure date 

message: User:Jeh and I are in agreement that there is a solid need for a "Programmed by" field in the radio and TV station infobox templates.
The main reason why it is needed is because of such cases as Mexican stations which are programmed from the United States. The stations are still owned in Mexico and comply with Mexican law—airing La Hora Nacional, PSAs, etc.—but they are managed by US entities.
Currently, our solution has been to list the US group as the "owner", put a disclaimer that the concession and transmitter are owned by a Mexican company, and give the concessionaire information in the licensee field (same thing, different words). Jeh objected to me doing this on some other articles, despite it already being in use on most of the articles this applies to, because the US company does not actually own the station. (Example: XHPRS-FM).
This field would also be useful on the TV station infobox as there are many agreements in which one party manages the station on behalf of an owner. (Example: KODE-TV.)
Is there any way we could get this included in these templates? Raymie (t • c) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "managed by" would be better than "programmed by"? What about "operated by"? "Operated" seems nice and generic - maybe use that with the specifics in the text. Jeh (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I like "operated" as a word. Any way we could get this implemented on here and Template:Infobox broadcast? It would sure make certain sorts of station arrangements far less awkward to convey. And I'd be ready to roll it out to the Mexican border articles that sorely need it. Raymie (t • c) 08:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Programmed by" field? 

message: There was no response to my now archived comment, so I have made a change from "City of license" to just "City", per WP:BRD. Bazonka (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English variant - licence instead of license 

message: Fanofbfolders (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2016 

message: It's a magnet for unreferenced material, and it attracts "look, I'm contributing to an encyclopedia!"-style edits from people who think that every different liner they hear needs to be stuffed into that field. And sometimes, everything they find on the station's web site that might be a "slogan" gets put in there too. Given that it's basically marketing fluff, and unreferenceable unless people start posting audio clips, is this really data of encyclopedic value? Jeh (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support removal if it's a problem here, but there are similar fields in other templates e.g. Template:infobox university. --Izno (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Radio stations can have several different slogans in rotation every day, so trying to keep the slogan up-to-date by the hour is problematic. The university infobox is probably not a problem unless the school is broadcasting or publishing several slogans a day/week, which seems unlikely. Other types of Infoboxes probably won't have a problem, except perhaps those in other forms of broadcasting. - BilCat (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically "slogans" are really just positioning statements with maybe seasoned broadcasters being able to pick out what the station's "true" slogan is. By nature, that would rely on original research for most stations, I think. Even if we could point to a website that shows the slogan, it's not something that can be notated like other bits of information can. I suppose this would lead, eventually, to the branding field as well being put into question. We recently had an editor change slogans several times a day because what they heard were the positioning statements and not the actual slogan. Such abuse will probably happen again, and we no longer know what the station's true slogan is due to said editor's abuse. I hate to say it, but unless the same abuse can be prevented, the slogan line should probably be gotten rid of. Stereorock (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: For U.S. stations, the slogan is the "Station Name" found in SIPs filed with Arbitron. That said, as there is a character limit on that field, the slogan may appear as a shortened/simplified version, which is somewhat worrisome. JPG-GR (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slogan" parameter is a problem 

message: I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters. See . – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very useful. Started knocking out a few of the U.S. stations. JPG-GR (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In case others have not noticed, the red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually hadn't myself, that sped things up a little bit. U.S. stations are all handled. JPG-GR (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: List scrubbed. JPG-GR (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters