Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive2

message: The project WikiProject Radio and television is now called WikiProject Radio Stations, and will now focus on articles relating to radio stations. --Marknew 10:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

message: I think call letter conventions established for the United States will work equally well for stations in Canada and Mexico; e.g. XETRA-AM in Tijuana, CHUM-FM in Toronto, etc.  One possible problem is that the FM station with the call XETRA is identified in Wikipedia as XETRA-FM.  Does this mean that the Mexican government does not recognize calls with the -FM and -TV suffixes?  Another issue are FM stations, such as WPKO in Bellefontaine, Ohio, which are identified by call letters unique to the station and thus are not officially identified with the -FM suffix.  (The same might be true of some television stations; e.g. WSYX in Columbus.)  I'm moving WPKO to WPKO-FM for now, but that may need to be revised in the future to "WPKO (FM)" or some such. -- SwissCelt 13:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that, from looking at the CRTC website, Canada uses the same suffix format as the FCC (-TV, -FM), with no suffix for AM stations (or if the letters are unique to the station). With regards to the situation in Mexico: you may find something on the COFETEL website, but only if you can understand Spanish! COFETEL --Marknew 15:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: UK radio stations do not have call letters which are known to the general public; indeed, the technical specifications spreadsheet at the Ofcom website uses station names as the main identifier, rather than any ITU standard callsigns.  . --Marknew 15:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on call letter conventions 

message: There exists a template, , which attempts to list radio stations in each state by several sort criteria (e.g. by call letter, frequency, city of license, etc.).  Unfortunately, as this is not an automated process, these are very incomplete, and probably never will be complete, because people will not be expected to make changes in several different sorted pages when adding or changing information about a radio station.  I've also commented in Template_talk:USRadio about this.  Anyone have any thoughts about how this could be done better? DHowell 19:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USRadio Template 

message: I figured this would be the best place to discuss this issue, since this project is full of people who can be useful in this subject. Recently, an AOL user who has been making sloppy contributions to various US television stations has done similar work with many New York City Radio stations. Such examples of his work include WBLS, WRKS-FM, and WABC (AM) (which has been cleaned up to some extent), among others. I was wondering if I can get some help in cleaning up these articles, as I don't have the time to work on every single one. ErikNY 03:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a second look, it seems like WBLS hasn't been affected (as of right now). But other stations that have been affected include WBBR (when it was WNEW (AM)), WNEW-FM, WFAN (when it was WNBC (AM)), WPLJ, WWPR-FM, WPAT, WYNY (now-defunct), WKTU, WQHT (FM) and WQCD. Other articles that he has contributed to such as WSKQ, WHTZ, WAXQ and WLTW has already been cleaned up by myself. ErikNY 13:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City Radio Cleanup 

message: There's an awful lot of US talk (callsigns and the like) on this page, and not a lot of collaboration going on with regards to the UK's radio stations. I've done a bit of work myself on the articles Signal 1, Kerrang! 105.2, Xfm, Galaxy Manchester and others. Recently, I've added logos from Media UK to the major London stations as well as stations I've written articles for. However, I'm not sure whether adding all the ex-GWR / EMAP logos etc., which are just the same logo with different text, is a productive use of Wiki server resources, especially with GCap up in the air and the logos likely to change. So what are other people doing for the UK radio articles? Smileyrepublic 10:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United Kingdom 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable articles on radio stations?  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 04:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I mentioned a few topics up that I wanted assistance for cleaning up New York City radio articles. That has more or less been taken care of, but now, the same person, using multiple ip's (mainly AOL ip's), is going after Los Angeles and Philly radio stations. Just look at the articles for KZLA and WPEN for examples of his work. I wouldn't be surprised if he went after other U.S. markets as well. His trademarks include not wikifying anything, mentioning every little format adjustment and ownership change and ratings for the station at the time, while using very short sentences in places and using certain words repeatedly. Something must be done to make sure that these articles are cleaned up as quickly as possible. ErikNY 02:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridiculous 

message: When i build out or work on an nav temp, i try to match up the calls with that of the fcc db, now in doing that you might come across a call that could apply to multiple stations so you build out a disambiguation, well the system that i have been using now is the following examples, if a call refers to multiple outlets licensed in the same place then something, along the like of WPFB, if in different places then along the likes of WCKY. I believe that the extra information on the disambig, though some might believe is extraneous, is needed, epically in explaining what the difference are between the stations for those who are not well versed in broadcasting stations set up in North America. 
As for station names, i believe that all United States stations should line up as close as possible to the respective call letters as listed in the FCC DB. So this would keep many the way they currently are, but if a station is such as WTTT-FM or WRRR-TV and has no other station that would disambiguate that call then WTTT should redirect to WTTT-FM and WRRR to WRRR-FM, which is the standard as current as i see. Also such as WEEE, with WEEE being an AM station, that might have a WEEE-FM and or a WEEE-TV that an appropriate disambiguation page be created and WEEE be named WEEE (AM), which is also in use. I also propose the following, their will be on occasion you will find a FM station, i.e. WUUU, that has a corresponding WUUU-TV which would require disambiguation, on the premise that according to the FCC Db WUUU does not have an -FM suffix that the name of the station should follow the convention for the AM stations of the same way, so WUUU's article would be WUUU (FM) with WUUU-FM redirecting to it. Example would be WETA (FM), WETA-TV, and the disambiguation WETA (while not a true broadcast disambiguation the idea sill is in place). I don’t know how as of yet this would for similar situations in Canada and Mexico (or other countries that use "alpha" calls), but the fcc db does list license information for stations in those countries, though i can not say how accurate they are and they do not all follow the -FM, -TV US standard. 
I think once that a name standard is set on that it might be a good idea to update the information at WP:NC.
:The FCC database information about Canadian and Mexican stations is extremely inaccurate, for a reason: the FCC has no regulatory interest in the actual stations.  The coordination treaties provide for a system of notification and consent for those locations and bands that require it; once the FCC has been notified of a new facility in operation, they have all the information they need to implement the agreements.  So the FCC databases include only those facilities for which the relevant treaty requires notification, and are never updated for non-notifiable changes (such as changes in callsigns).  In the particular case of Canada, Industry Canada never withdraws notifications except in a few very rare and specially-negotiated cases, so U.S. stations must protect (e.g.) the station on 1510 that hasn't existed in Sherbrooke for two decades.  Thus, non-U.S. information in the FCC database should not be relied upon except in conjunction with appropriate sources from the station's domicile.  (Industry Canada makes its broadcast database available; I'm not sure about the Mexican equivalent.)  121a0012 22:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok good, thanks for the clairfication. --Boothy443 | comhrá 01:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions to update the text there to reflect where I believe our current consensus stands.  I think the text that's there now is sending some editors astray.  121a0012 05:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, FWIW, there's no case in Canada where an airport's ICAO code will conflict with a broadcast station's callsign. Canadian airports exclusively use ICAO codes beginning with CY, and while CY is technically within Canada's range of ITU prefixes, no Canadian broadcast station has ever actually been licensed to take a CY callsign. The only ITU prefixes currently in use in Canadian broadcasting are CB, CF, CH, CI, CJ and CK, and those aren't even close to full yet — Industry Canada's list of available callsigns still has hundreds of free combinations just within those six prefixes. And if and when they do fill up, CG and CX are still available before the CRTC even has to think about CY. And even if that ever happens, they might very well start opening the V and X calls instead. Just FYI, anyway. Bearcat 02:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguations and Article Names

message: In regards to the two messages I've left above, I have decided to create a page devoted to this problem user. You can find it here. ErikNY 16:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadcast Bandit Page

message: The new-style infobox has broken the pages the old-style one was on, including Capital FM, Signal 1 and Galaxy Manchester.
Instead of a neat, tidy infobox covering the basics of frequency and format in the top-right, we've got a big pile of blank space and lots of irrelevant fields to do with "classes of licence" and "meaning of callsign". 
I'm pretty annoyed about this, having spent quite a long time on UK radio articles. Thanks.
(Having said that, the last time I posted a message up here, I got sod-all response. Talk amongst yourselves, Yanks.) 86.138.10.139 19:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The infobox has broken lots of pages 

message: Quick question about category sorting: is it policy that stations should always be sorted by the second letter of their callsign, or does this only apply to categories in which all radio stations have the same first letter? My understanding was the latter, but I've now seen a few people apply it to categories where the articles are a mix of C, K and W (and occasionally X and V) stations, so I thought I should ask for clarification. Bearcat 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category sorting

message: Category:List of radio stations in Charleston has been listed for deletion on the grounds that there was only one station in the category. (I've since added one more whose article already existed but hadn't been filed, and the existing List of radio stations in Charleston article, which contains 18 further redlinks.) I've already noted in the CFD debate that precedent allows for this type of category (albeit named "Radio stations in..." rather than "List of radio stations in...") Please weigh in on the debate...and if you know the market (or the available information resources) at all, maybe write up some of the other stations to help fill the category in. Thanks. Bearcat 18:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: I proposed a new stub, , in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. While most US radio stations have been put under , I've seen some in . A new sub-category would help alleviate confusion, and also help declutter the :Category:United States broadcasting stubs by giving the radio station stubs their own stub template. DHowell 05:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created the template  and :Category:United States radio station stubs. I don't know how it should get populated, though; manually, or with a bot of some sort. DHowell 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have created templates and categories for the UK and Canada: /:Category:United Kingdom radio station stubs, /:Category:Canada radio station stubs. --Marknew 10:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub proposal 

message: I've updated WP:NC's section on article titles for broadcast stations, both with and without call signs, to reflect what I believe is the consensus view both here and in the technical side of the profession.  I'd like to yank most of the discussion on WP:WPRS in favor of a reference to WP:NC, leaving only the more situation-specific details here.  Comments?  121a0012 02:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title discussion updated on WP:NC 

message: I updated this, as the old wording indicated local radio/tv stations were deemed non-notable, and not kept.  However, I beleive the typical local station is genrally found notable and kept by consensus in AFDs.  But low-power and non-licensed stations might not be included in that.  So, please see what I did, and revert/edit, if I got it wrong, and indicate any concerns at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Precedents#local broadcasters.  This isn't an official guideline, just a reflection of precedent.  A fuller discussion of proper guidelines might be warranted elsewhere (if it hasn't happened already).  --Rob 06:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]]