Talk:RKO General

message: Ok, clearly someone wasn't thinking when they did the list of radio stations owned by RKO General, there clearly is no need to put the word Owned by next to each company's name when it is listed under the Ownership paragraph to me that just seems redundant and overkill so I've deleted the Owned by on each line. Apparently this was an issue on the Metromedia page with a few users which erupted into an editing war which I don't want to see here so before you make any changes please discuss it here. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. But there's no call for unprovoked comments like "Ok, clearly someone wasn't thinking..." The nicer we try to keep the atmosphere, the more productive the working environment. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I apologize I didn't mean to put something that was construed as provking. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we go again, someone put back all the Owned By under the Radio Station Current Ownership, I've removed it again as the previous consensus was that it was redundant so I've removed it again. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Redundant Wording 

message: :Image:MutualTowerLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MutualTowerLogo.jpg

message: ...made to the article over the past day by me were wholly reverted by DCGeist and labeled as "inappropriate".  In reality, they are far from that.
*1. There was lots of redundant Wiki-links and redirects that needed to be corrected.
*2. Clarification was needed in mentions of RKO General broadcasting properties.  The FM and television stations needed the respective -FM or -TV suffix added onto their call signs to distinguish them from the AM stations.  And, since AM radio is the longest-standing medium, there is no need to tack on -AM after the call sign; the word radio has and can be used as a substitute for -AM. (eg. WOR radio, WOR-FM, and WOR-TV)  The FCC doesn't use an -AM suffix officially, and there really isn't a need for it here.
*3. The "long-standing, stable, and proper style" in the main text (as DCGeist claims) needed some fixing.  The first paragraph, for example, was really in need of correcting -- all those hyphens separating the stations and their locations is incorrect style when written within a paragraph, and is only appropriate when written in an outline format (like this portion of this comment).
*4. WEAT and WEAT-TV: I wanted to get an accurate timeframe (and an accompanying source) as to when RKO owned these stations before adding them to the charts, but Azumanga1 re-added WEAT-TV to the TV chart anyway.
*5. Other corrections: Some city and state names were spelled out and wikified; the major building blocks of RKO General (Yankee Network, Don Lee, Bamberger, Mutual) were bolded in their first mention to signify their importance; and the network histories of WNAC-TV, WHBQ-TV, and CKLW-TV were expanded upon briefly.  Nothing wrong with any of that.
DCGeist (primarily) has done a very good job with researching and sourcing this article, but please remember one thing: it's not just yours.  Give others the benefit oof the doubt.  Rollosmokes (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:WEAT -- Sorry. I added a "fact" tag, but you can remove it wholesale (along with the RKO category from WPEC's article), if you wish. -- azumanga (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet, I wonder. Your preferred style leads us into imprecise statements such as this: "In 1956 WOR radio became the New York market's number one station." That's just not correct. There were two WOR stations at that point and only one was the New York market's number one station: WOR (AM). The fact that anyone very conversant with radio history would know that in 1956 the leading station would have to be the AM one is not truly relevant; the language should be both precise and transparent to all. When the sentence read "In 1956 WOR (AM) became the New York market's number one station" it was both. Now it is neither. If you don't want to return to the former, long-standing, and yes, perfectly proper style, what solution do you propose?—DCGeist (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days. I'd still like to hear if you have any alternate solution to restoring the (AM) indicators for clarity. I've looked at how The New York Times and a couple books in the field deal with a similar situation to ours: coverage of many radio stations, some AM, some FM. From the 1950s forward, none refer to the AM stations simply as "radio", while providing indicators solely for the FM stations; all specifically indicate both AM and FM where necessary for clarity. Unless you can offer a well-evidenced case for your preferred style that also resolves the problem of precision and clarity, I'm going to need to restore the former, long-standing style employed in the article—at least from the historical point where FM becomes a significant factor forward.—DCGeist (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's now been more than three weeks, and there's been zero response. I'm restoring the (AM) indicators for accuracy and clarity.—DCGeist (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes... 

message: DCGeist is reverting this article to his preferred version, while evading real discussion.  In his last edit, he claimed he was reverting "long-standing, proper style per previous explanation in Talk and WP:MOS".  Only there was no discussion from his viewpoint in either his talk page, or the article's talk page.  I don't want to get into an edit war, but it may go there unless he responds and explains why he continues to revert back to his version while ignoring others' good-faith edits.
This is not about who's version of this article is better, who's writing style is better, or any of that -- this is strictly a professional critique on how the article needed to be improved.  Until DCGeist responds to this, I'm reverting back.  Rollosmokes (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:WEAT -- Sorry. I added a "fact" tag, but you can remove it wholesale (along with the RKO category from WPEC's article), if you wish. -- azumanga (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet, I wonder. Your preferred style leads us into imprecise statements such as this: "In 1956 WOR radio became the New York market's number one station." That's just not correct. There were two WOR stations at that point and only one was the New York market's number one station: WOR (AM). The fact that anyone very conversant with radio history would know that in 1956 the leading station would have to be the AM one is not truly relevant; the language should be both precise and transparent to all. When the sentence read "In 1956 WOR (AM) became the New York market's number one station" it was both. Now it is neither. If you don't want to return to the former, long-standing, and yes, perfectly proper style, what solution do you propose?—DCGeist (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days. I'd still like to hear if you have any alternate solution to restoring the (AM) indicators for clarity. I've looked at how The New York Times and a couple books in the field deal with a similar situation to ours: coverage of many radio stations, some AM, some FM. From the 1950s forward, none refer to the AM stations simply as "radio", while providing indicators solely for the FM stations; all specifically indicate both AM and FM where necessary for clarity. Unless you can offer a well-evidenced case for your preferred style that also resolves the problem of precision and clarity, I'm going to need to restore the former, long-standing style employed in the article—at least from the historical point where FM becomes a significant factor forward.—DCGeist (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's now been more than three weeks, and there's been zero response. I'm restoring the (AM) indicators for accuracy and clarity.—DCGeist (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I've looked up whatever info I can about Gencorp (successor of General Tire, Inc.), and according to what I've come across, Gencorp no longer exists, having been re-branded as Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings. So, not exactly sure what that means for RKO General. 2600:1700:C960:2270:B883:3493:3DAD:F4B4 (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning RKO General being around today as a subsidiary of Gencorp...