Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Day Awards

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)


"Callsign Meaning"

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)

Market templates

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 {{Toronto AM}} or {{Long Island Radio}}. 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)

Idea/Proposal

  • 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)

  • What about translators? Should they be included in the market list and if so, on the main station page do we include all the markets they are in (translators included)? If the network of stations covers a wide area (such as K-LOVE) each individual translator or group of translators in a market could have their own page. Mr mark taylor 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

WHAT (AM)

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)

Satellite Radio

Should the stations that are on Worldspace, XM, & Sirius be added to this project?TravKoolBreeze 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • And a related question. Does the existence of these channels merit inclusion in the local AM/FM templates? Vegaswikian 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

New question, should a new radio station stub be created for satellite radio pages?TravKoolBreeze 08:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Titles with call signs

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)

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)

Station references with no pages

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)

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)

HD RADIO

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)

  • Ya, it needs to be covered. I guess any place that lists the format needs to be updated to list the HD formats as well. Vegaswikian 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • HD radio is going to break a lot of concepts about this topic... while the HD Radio industry group is pushing a year long rollout with FM stations adding an HD2 station (with no commercials and coordination to avoid format overlap), the HD technology supports more than just 2 stations per existing bandwidth allocation. When/if HD gets enough critical mass, if the analog signals are turned off, each licensee (aka CallSign/Frequency) might have 4 HD channels for each FCC license. Essentially a 1-to-1 relationship (FCC License->Signal) is now a one-to-many relationship...StreamingRadioGuide 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that this will be an evolving topic, and as of now, none of the HD stations are notable in their own right. So maybe a notation of some sort in the main article is fine. Long-term, I'd say that HD stations be treated as separate stations -- at least when programming on the HD2 channel is unrelated to the programming on primary. Goeverywhere 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a list of HD Radio stations or a category on wikipedia? Rtphokie 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be nice. The ibiquity website has a partial list, but its woefully outdated. Goeverywhere 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New Category: Help!

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:

  1. 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)
  2. Is the term "radio station" still appropriate, even though quite a number of web-casts are not simulatenously broatcast over radio waves?
  3. 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?
  4. Can anyone think of a more appropriate category name before I start?
  5. Would anyone be willing to help me categorise?

Thanks much, samwaltz 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All AM and FM radio stations are supposed to have the Template:Infobox Radio station. You will notice that it includes a webcast line where you can add a link. There is an existing category for List of Internet stations but it really needs some work. My proposal is a modification of the list of the FM and AM adapted to Internet Radio. I am working on something and once I have the basic categories and templates laid out, I will let you know and would appreciate your feedback - positive or negative. Transent 08:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

The Internet Radio page is quite a mess. I came up with something that you just "might" like. Go to: List of webcasters in Europe and you will notice that the main template is webcasters by continent. What I think you will like is that I added a category where you can list webcasters by language (See: List of webcasters in Europe by language. I would appreciate any feedback. Transent 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My own input: it is a good idea, but Transent is also right that as things currently stand, the Internet radio articles are pretty messy and need a lot of cleanup and improvement. So it's worth doing, but might be better implemented as part of a more comprehensive cleanup project than on its own. For what it's worth, "radio station" isn't ideal terminology, but since people do use it we can as well, as long as we don't use it as the primary term for webcasts. And now, I'm going to wander off and start adding content to List of webcasters in Canada. Bearcat 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


What takes precedence - FCC license or frequency?

KFXR and its earlier call signs are (and have been on 1190 khz, never 1170). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.45.63 (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the article KLIF (AM), and by extension, KFXR (AM). I have found references which state that the following happened in 1990:

KLIF, originally 1170 AM, bought the 570 frequency from KLDD, which (as best I can tell) went out of business. KLIF, with its license, continued to broadcast on 570 up to today.

KXFR, a new station, signed on about a week later, and has kept the 1170 frequency to this day.

The question is this: which approach is right?

1. Making call letters the 'central focus' of an article, which would mean that KLIF (AM)'s history section should have a 1947 founding date at 1170, and mention a move to 570 in 1990

2. Making frequency the 'central focus' of an article, which would mean that KLIF (AM)'s history focuses on the 570 frequency in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and mentions the former KLDD, then KLIF, as though one continuous station

It is my belief that number (1) is the correct approach. This means that an article follows the FCC license of a station, whether or not it changes frequencies. It seems really odd to me that KLIF (one of the most famous top 40 stations of all time) should have most of its history content in the article KFXR, when KFXR was just 'some station that happened to occupy frequency 1170 after 1990'.

Any thoughts on this? I am currently in edits back and forth with anonymous posters who are putting content into KFXR and KLIF essentially on idea (2) (see Talk:KLIF (AM)), where their preference is stated as 'A history of what AM 570 has been in Dallas/Ft. Worth'. A consensus here would help keep the articles consistent. Skybunny 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From the "article formatting" section of the project page, it looks like the call sign takes precedence. --PhantomS 10:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an area that often causes confusion. WP:NC and other places suggest that pages should give the entire history of the license, not the call sign, and not the frequency. With some transactions, it becomes difficult to verify what actually happened, particularly since reports in the popular media, and even in some trade publications like Broadcasting & Cable, often describe them inaccurately. The FCC's public records include the complete details, but digging through them to find details like this -- particularly for something that happened long before these records were published on the Internet -- probably counts as original research. (I think you mean 1190, not 1170, by the way.) If I were at home, I have some reference books that would answer definitively what happened in this particular case, but I don't have access to them right now. In any event, I think your description of what happened is wrong, for a very simple reason: changing the ownership of a license is easy and takes the FCC a few months at most to process; changing call signs can be done on a whim with the payment of a $65 fee; changing frequency is extremely expensive, takes a great deal of time, and is open to competitive applications. It is highly unlikely that KLIF "changed frequency to 570" as you describe; what is much more likely is that the owners of KLIF-1190 bought KLDD-570 and moved their programming and callsign to 570 (which, you will recall, is the old WFAA) then sold the 1190 license to someone else. The FCC's records for (the current) KFXR and KLIF both indicate histories for those licenses going back to the beginning of electronic recordkeeping at the Commission around 1980. Based on the dates shown in CDBS (570 changes hands in early 1990, but the sale of 1190 isn't granted until early 1991) it seems likely that the owners of 1190 operated 570 under a Local Marketing Agreement prior to consummation of the deal. (Department of useless trivia: KFXR is the ninth call sign 1190 has had since 1990.)
These details sometimes even confuse the licensees themselves, which is part of why the FCC now assigns a Facility ID Number (FIN) to every license. It is my considered belief that station histories should folllow the facility, as the FCC defines it, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. 121a0012 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and not by trying to appeal to a one-size-fits-all rule about whether to follow the call-sign, frequency, or FCC license or facility ID. In this case I think there is a compelling reason to not use the FCC facility ID to determine where the history of KLIF 1190 should go. That the call sign at 570 kHz is currently KLIF is indeed a compelling reason for the pre-1990 history of KLIF to be there, but this reason alone might not be sufficient (or even necessary), as I think it would be equally compelling to say that the FCC license to broadcast on 1190 kHz in Dallas now belongs to KFXR, and so the pre-1990 history of 1190 kHz belongs there. However, the most compelling reason, and what I think tips the balances, is that there is a clear link between the historical KLIF on 1190 and the current KLIF on 570. Whatever the details of the 1990 transaction, it is clear that it was the intent of the Susquehanna Radio Corporation to purchase the license to broadcast at 570 kHz in Dallas, in order to move their radio station KLIF to that frequency, and that for a week in late 1990, the same programming was broadcast on both frequencies in order to facilitate the public acceptance of that move. Therefore, detailed information about the history of KLIF before 1990 rightly belongs on the KLIF article. This is also where I think someone who wanted to research the history of KLIF before 1990 would expect to find it.
Nevertheless, it is also clear that the histories of the two stations KLIF and KFXR are related, and it is reasonable to expect that each article should contain a mention and link to the other article in its respective history section. For example, the KFXR article should say that the frequency (or FCC license to broadcast on that frequency) once belonged to KLIF, and the KLIF article should say that the 1190 frequency (or license) was sold and is now the home of KFXR.
What's missing from this discussion is where the pre-1990 history of 570 kHz should go. I think it could also be in the KLIF article, although I am inclined to think that, as 570 kHz was WFAA for over 60 years (see this Dallas-Fort Worth AM Station History), a new article WFAA (AM) should be created to cover 570 kHz in Dallas for the period from 1922-1990. DHowell 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, as is clear, I disagree, but I won't insist on the principle, particularly for a market far from my home. 121a0012 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Dallas is far from my home, too, but closer to my home is a couple of stations I edited a while back, KFRC and KEAR in San Francisco, which I think represent the ideal of what I am arguing for. If we were to insist on using the FCC license ID or frequency to determine where historical information should be presented, KFRC's eight-decade history as an AM station would be under KEAR, and KEAR's 55-year history would be splattered among 4 different pages, KEAR, KIFR, KLLC, and KYCY. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Another example: KMET in Los Angeles has been off the air for over twenty years, and yet it is still more notable by far than the Inland Empire station currently using those call letters. An FCC ID or frequency rule would insist that this information be placed under KTWV, but really, KMET is well-known (at least around here among people old enough to know) for being the legendary rock-and-roller "the Mighty MET", and not just "some station that used to broadcast on 94.7 where KTWV is now." Now you might argue that this violates the rules I suggested above, because an ownership link can be established between KMET and KTWV, whereas there is no such link between the former KMET and the current KMET. But that's why I said first that these things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I think the notability and fame of the former KMET overrides any other consideration. DHowell 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes for this project?

I'd love to add a userbox for this project to my talkpage. has anyone made one?Lisapollison 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found one:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Radio.

- Lisapollison 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


And, for those who aren't members of the greater parent project:
This user is a participant in
WikiProject Radio Stations.

-- JPG-GR 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is preferred?

I've come across both Template:Fminfo and Template:FMQ. Is either the preferred information template? JPG-GR 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise -- Template:Aminfo vs. Template:AMQ? JPG-GR 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I feel kinda "duh!" Thanks for the info, though. JPG-GR 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Makes sense. What links should be kept for Template:FMQ and Template:AMQ from the other templates?TravKoolBreeze 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
<edit conflict> I would only consider keeping 1. Information page for {{{1}}}-FM from RecNet.com and 2. Radio Locator Information on {{{1}}}. 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)
On further analysis, the addition of "Radio Locator Information on {{{1}}}" 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)

Substitution of {{RadioStationsProject}} or not?

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)

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)
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)

Proposal: UK Radio stations task force

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)

I would join that if it was created. --Eddie (talk/contribs) 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
I support the idea. There is definately a difference in UK and international broadcasting styles. /Marbles 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
No response at WP:BTVC. Either things have gone quiet or the WikiProject has become inactive. --tgheretford (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New proposal: UK radio and radio stations task force

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)

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)
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)
Well in that case, I'd welcome it and would like to be part of it. ISD 13:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK radio task force (also covering radio stations in the UK) is now live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio/UK Radio --tgheretford (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"US radio stations by state" lists

As things currently stand, the generally-applied practice has been for each state in the United States to have six separate radio station lists: one organized by call sign, one by city, one by format, one by Arbitron market, one by frequency and one by network. A user has recently proposed redirecting List of radio stations in Michigan by market area to another list, but I'd like to raise a discussion about this.

Wikipedia now has the capability to create sortable tables, in which a single table can be rearranged to sort items by any column within the table. Thus, it would now be possible to have, instead of six separate lists, a single radio stations list from which the user can choose which sort order they want to view: by call sign, by city, by frequency, etc. Accordingly, I'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia practice for US radio station lists, under which all six separate lists for each US state would be merged into a single list, which would be arranged as a sortable table. Here's a few radio stations arranged as an example; note how you can click on the little arrow boxes next to each column header to make any column act as the sortation key, meaning that this one table can simultaneously serve as six different lists:

Call sign Frequency Branding Format City of license Arbitron market
WAAM 1600 AM "TalkRadio 1600" talk radio Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Detroit
WABJ 1490 AM "NewsTalk 1490" news Adrian Detroit
WAGN 1340 AM "The Bay Area's News Source" news Menominee/Marinette Central Upper Peninsula

Any discussion? Bearcat 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Basically no objection to using a sortable table. The only issue I have, are any additional fields needed? I'm thinking about transmitter power, owner and a notes heading for other items of significance. I'd drop branding and Arbitron market. Better to discuss this up front rather than update all of the tables later. Vegaswikian 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good ideas all. I'm not wedded to the branding column; I just included it because that information was present on the list I copied these stations from. The Arbitron market question was raised in the discussion in which I originally proposed this; some people do find that information useful and important, but it is worth discussing whether we really need it or not. Perhaps we could just put the market number (e.g. "10" for Detroit) instead of the name? As for your other columns, transmitter power and owner are good ideas; I think "other items of significance" would probably be better discussed on the stations' actual articles, but I'm open to discussion on this too. Bearcat 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the "callsign", "frequency", and "city of license" columns are necessary. However, the other ones (esp. "branding) may be more clutter than use. Branding's change often. Formats often overlap, leaving the sorting option practically useless. Whereas power, owner, etc. are all very interesting data, I'd say those are best left for individual stations' infoboxes. JPG-GR 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is wonderful that MediaWiki finally has this ability. I always disliked the idea that six separate lists would have to be maintained everytime a radio station changes, and apparently I'm not the only one; look at List of radio stations in California (sorted by band, then call letters) and List of radio stations in California by call letters (which is actually sorted by city of license!), and the lack of other California radio station lists. Since the current radio station list templates have the six sorting criteria, it seems reasonable for these columns to be in the sortable lists: callsign, frequency, city of license, market, format, network. Branding is also useful because often the station brand is far more well-known than the call letters.
If possible, I think what might be nice would be to have a separate list for each Arbitron market within a state, and then a comprehensive state list which transcludes the individual market lists. If this can be done with the sortability of the state list retained, I think this would be the most comprehensive and useful method for presenting this information, and would only require each station to be present in *one* list (save for the possible exception of certain stations which serve multiple markets across state lines). I'll probably experiment with this on the California stations and see if I can come up with something reasonable. DHowell 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California. It's a work in progress, but notice that the Los Angeles and San Francisco stations are transcluded from their own separate pages. Let me know what you think. DHowell 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see branding after owner/network if we go this way. Also the sorting shows how inconsistent we are in the city names and links vs. no links all over. Vegaswikian 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is inconsistency within the tables, and that can certainly be fixed, but I just wanted to get an idea of what the table would look like and if the transclusion idea I had would work (which it does appear to). I think we need to get a broad consensus of what the table format should be, since this would be difficult to change, especially if we use transcluded tables (since there would be 300+ market lists and 50 state lists, plus possibly some "mutli-market" lists where markets cross state lines or where there is significant overlap in the Arbitron markets). I like the branding where I and others put it, as the callsign, frequency, and branding all are part of the identity of the station, where other columns are information about the station. But I would probably also get rid of, or move to the Format/Comments column, some of the longer "brands" which are actually slogans, like "Los Angeles' Only Classic Rock Station".
So far we have:
Call Sign Frequency Branding City of License Owner/Network Format/Comments
Call sign Frequency Branding Format City of license Arbitron market
Call Sign Frequency Branding City of License Primary Arbitron Market
Call Sign Frequency City of License Owner/Network Branding Format/Comments
  • another suggestion by me:
Call Sign Frequency Branding City of License Mkt. Owner/Network Format/Comments
KRTH FM 101.1 "K-Earth 101" Los Angeles LAX CBS Radio Oldies
WMGC-FM FM 105.1 "Magic 105" Detroit DET Greater Media Adult contemporary
where "Mkt." would be short abbreviations of the market, like "L.A." or "LAX" for Los Angeles and "Det." or "DET" for Detroit.
However, I think the market field would be redundant if we use transcluded tables for each market, as sorting by market could be done by clicking on an appropriate market sub-table link (and then stations within a market could be sorted by other criteria).
How to link the cities and owners is another problem, as the usual rule of only linking the first reference breaks down somewhat when using a sortable table. Which leaves the following options: Link all cities and owners in the table; link no cities or owners in the table; link the first reference to a city or owner in the table, and don't worry that it won't be the first reference in a sorted table; or pick a standard criteria to decide which one reference to each city and owner to link.
Any other thoughts? DHowell 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

UK Digital Radio

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)

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)

Help needed - you can help!

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)

Category Listing

When putting a large number of stations into a category (such as Category:Clear Channel radio stations), are we to let the category be sorted by default (i.e. all Wxxx stations under W), or should we sort so that they are sorted under the second letter of the callsign? JPG-GR 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the conclusion that we came to the last time this was discussed was as follows:
  1. For a category where all the radio stations begin with the same letter, sort on the second letter, since the category page will look cleaner and better-organized this way.
  2. For categories which mix Wxxx and Kxxx and Cxxx call signs, sort on the first letter, since that's actually the one letter in the call sign that tells you something specific and important about the station, so in this situation sorting on the second letter actually obscures the most important piece of information the title offers.
Hope this helps a bit. Bearcat 14:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Much thanks. That's basically what I have been doing -- sorting stations that appear in a region by the second and letting the rest sort themselves. Thanks! JPG-GR 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Market Templates

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 ([1])

Anybody have any opinions to settle this debate? JPG-GR 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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. [2] JPG-GR 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is your argument that WQBR belongs because it is just as -unknown- as WEMU? JPG-GR 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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[3], 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)
OK, I'll concede the point. WQBR belongs in Wiki, but not in the template. Too bad. RMc 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WEMU is way more widely known than WQBR, as WQBR is carrier current only, however WQBR is undergoing a huge change this upcoming fall and will hopefully pull in a real listener base. Merging it into EMU would be fine as it is geared towards the students, but maybe it does deserve its own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.121.119 (talk)

Saugeen First Nation

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)

Notability

I was under the impression that if a station is licensed by the FCC, it's notable enough for inclusion in WP. Apparently, I may be wrong, in the case of WMLZ-LP. Anybody know of a set notability guideline or precedent in this case? JPG-GR 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All I can find so far was this:
From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes --tgheretford (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. That definitely should not apply, since LPFMs in the U.S. are Part 73 stations and not Part 15 stations. (There are Part 15 [i.e., unlicensed micropower] FM stations, but LPFMs do not belong to this category. LPFMs may have up to 100 watts of ERP and thus may cover a significantly larger area than a "full-power" class-D NCE FM primary [limited to 10 watts TPO].) 121a0012 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

List of radio stations

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)

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)

kube

kube is not Clear Channel Communications the fcc site has Licensee: ACKERLEY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS, LLC do we keep is as Clear Channel Communications or back to ACKERLEY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS, LLCgeoff271989 23:38 PSD 21 MAY 2007 06:38 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While the FCC database is usually the best reference IMO, KUBE's own website lists it as being part of Clear Channel. In this case, I gotta give it to the station's website. JPG-GR 06:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Clear Channel bought the entire Ackerley group several years ago. The licensee is not the same thing as the owner. (If you want to know who the actual owners of a station are, it is necessary to read the station's FCC ownership filings, which can be found on the CDBS site.) Ackerley Broadcasting Operations, LLC, is one of many (probably hundreds) of subsidiary corporations which Clear Channel uses to manage its holdings. Many companies do the same. You will find many Clear Channel holdings licensed to Capstar TX Limited Partnership, and many others licensed to Citicasters, Inc. There are financial, legal, and tax reasons for a company the size of Clear Channel to structure its operations in this way.
If you look at other broadcasting companies, they will often maintain what seems like an odd corporate structure, with one corporation or LLC to hold the license, which is 1% owned by another corporation and 99% owned by a limited partnership in which the other parent is a partner but yet a third subsidiary is the managing general partner. For tax reasons, large broadcasters often arrange to trade stations (or other assets, for that matter) rather than selling them outright; this sometimes leads to unexpected licensee names, leaving Wxxx licensed to Wyyy, Inc. My favorite example is what is now WCRB in Lowell, Mass. That station was, in a previous incarnation, owned by Clear Channel. CCU traded it and some other assets to Greater Media in exchange for Greater's WGAY-FM in Washington, D.C. For a few years after this transaction, the then WKLB-FM was licensed to Greater Washington Radio, Inc., while all the other GM stations in Boston were licensed to Greater Boston Radio, Inc. As a result of a more recent transaction, the current WKLB-FM is licensed to Charles River Broadcasting WCRB License Corp. 121a0012 04:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Official names fixed

I've spent the majority of the last week going through all the Wxxx radio stations (tagged with {{RadioStationsProject}}) 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)

Kxxx radio stations fixed. JPG-GR 18:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitron markets updated to Spring 2007 rankings

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)

List of NPR stations

I've recently put together Wikipedia:Sandbox/rad which I plan on finishing up and moving to List of NPR stations. Is this a good thing? Is there anything I need to check on? I'm not a regular member of this project, but since I found no list when I went looking for one, I thought it would be a good addition. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The formatting doesn't really match anything we currently have/use, but I think it might come in useful. JPG-GR 05:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you recommend a format that would be better? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, no. In most cases, these are templates, but this would be much too large for that. Usually, the lists are pretty plain. *shrug* JPG-GR 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the list could work, but for other formats or modified under its current form as most NPR stations simulcast together (as all the Maine station are part of MPBN, all New Hampshire stations simulcast together New Hampshire Public Radio and Vermont has 2 networks that simulcast on the listed stations in the table (Vermont Public Radio has a standard NPR network and a classical network)
I'd drop the FM and footnote the few AM stations or just ignore this since the frequency provides this information. It should include a column for the affiliation of the station since this may be important to some. Also these affiliations are not restricted to a single state. Not everyone wants to search by state. So folding in the state into the table and making it sortable and a single table would met more needs, especially if the network affiliation is included. Vegaswikian 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A little confused on naming conventions

So should an article be named WIVK, WIVK-FM, or WIVK (FM)? Currently it's WIVK.--AW 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
Please remember to also update all templates that include the station and also fix double redirects. Vegaswikian 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)


Authorized Power (USA Stations Only)

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)

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)
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)

Radio and Radio stations

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

Schedules on station articles

I've run across quite a few of these things. These are long lists and schedules listing every on-air shift and every on-air personality at the station, even down to the Sunday morning public affairs shows. I've noticed that many of these have been put into the articles by radio station employees themselves. In fact, I'm currently involved in an editing conflict with a radio station employee who obviously think that adding this stuff is of vital importance. Take this one for example:

Programs

Weekdays

  • 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.: After Midnight with Blair Garner
  • 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: Mantel and Michelle
  • 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.: Michelle Maloney
  • 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.: Michael J. (Also on WPOC)
  • 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.: Chuck Collier (Also on WMJI)
  • 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.: Kat Jackson

Saturday

  • 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.: After Midnight Weekends with Larry Morgan
  • 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: Ben and Brian's Big Top 20 Countdown
  • 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.: Michelle Maloney
  • 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.: Chuck Collier (Also on WMJI)
  • 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.: The Big Time Saturday Night with Whitney Allen

Sunday

  • 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.: After Midnight Weekends with Larry Morgan
  • 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.: Public Affairs with Ted Lux
  • 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.: Cleveland Country Classics with Chuck Collier (Also on WMJI)
  • 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.: American Country Countdown with Kix Brooks
  • 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.: Kat Jackson
  • 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.: Scott Glaser/Daune Robinson (Also on WMJI, WMVX & WHOF)/Ryan Lloyd


Quite frankly, I feel this is rather excessive, is promotional, long, poorly laid out, irrelevant, filled with names of people few people really care about and merely duplicates information found on the stations' web sites. These are too directory-like and unimportant information. I think it's time to address this issue and see what others involved in the project think about schedules on radio station articles. Personally, unless we're talking New York or L.A. or some talk station, this is really useless information, particularly for a market like Cleveland. Especially when one can find this on the station's website. And it's certainly not a place to promote one's buddies. --Fightingirish 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

These station lineups are too tempermental, and can change with no notice. They are a waste of space. That's why we provide external links to stations' websites. JPG-GR 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Current schedules are currently covered by WP:NOT#DIR, so feel free to either tag the schedule with {{schedule}} or remove the schedule completely. However, schedules of any kind brings out heated and passionate debate and there are some editors who do believe that Wikipedia can also be a TV Guide, or WikiGuide. Do alert anyone about WP:NOT policy on schedules, but if anyone you do alert does believe that schedules should be included in Wikipedia, then direct them to WT:NOT and advise them to start discussion there or/and at WP:VPP --tgheretford (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Fightingirish -- For simplicity, please note that I've copy/pasted my response here from the discussion that was started on the article that I had been editing. So excuse the redunancy...
I agree that the topic is certainly deciphered differently by different editors. And as I noted in my previous comments -- on the discussion of WP:NOT, there are some (myself included) that believe there is some historical value to including the information within the articles. But with that said, I certainly see the concerns raised by you and others on this topic... though I do disagree on your take regarding the notability of personalities between Los Angeles and Cleveland. In all fairness, that type of qualitative data is very difficult, if not impossible to fairly conclude.
After opening this to discussion here, I contacted one of the administrators involved in the discussion of WP:NOT, in an effort for further clarification on this topic. The administrator posted his response on my talk page where rather than taking a position or attempting to clarify more, he made the suggestion of coming to a compromise.
With this in mind, I do feel that a compromise is certainly in order. One suggestion could be to include the information in the same (or similar) manner as it is included for BBC "presenters". In a prose-like form, giving historical data of past and present personalities... perhaps even categorized by air shift. For example, for "mornings" the information would include all who have worked in that particular air shift over the years. Djockers 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The inherent flaw with that is that random DJs throughout the year fail WP:NOTABLE. JPG-GR 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a compromise of sorts that I put up on the WCBS-FM article (which I just finished rewriting and sourcing). I thought I'd put this one up as a test, so see what people thought. Now remember, this is New York City, and radio personalities in these large markets are much, much more notable than the overnight or weekend guy in Cleveland. Here's how I did it:
Current on-air staffers at WCBS-FM include Jeff Mazzei, Dan Taylor, Irv 'Mr. G.' Gikofsky, Al Merideth, Bob Shannon, Broadway Bill Lee, Joe Causi, and Pat St. John.
Now granted, this is not going to work for every kind of station. And I still fear that people will go overboard on this (like adding the Sunday morning public affairs host and the weekend jocks). For medium-sized and smaller markets, perhaps mention could be limited to a notable morning show or if they carry well-known syndicated shows such as Bob and Tom, Loveline or Delilah. As for a lengthy list of everyone who's ever worked there, that's a bit excessive. If a noteworthy person had worked at the station in the past, such as Don Imus, then that should be noted. If someone connected with the station has a Wikipedia entry, they should be mentioned as well.
The BBC example you cited is totally different, since BBC is broadcast nationally across the U.K. A similarity could be seen here in the U.S. in a network like Air America Radio, where a schedule is more justified. Radio in the U.K. is also more personality-driven, rather than the U.S. style of reading time and temp and going back to the music in seven seconds or less. Whether U.K. stations should have all this stuff on their articles is beyond me. I'll let the Brits sort it out for now. But adding a list just for the sake of adding it, or because another station's article has it is pretty pointless. Two wrongs never make a right.
In my opinion, the types of things a radio station article should have include:
  • Correct name, COL and frequency
  • FCC technical stuff in infobox
  • Current format
  • History, including former call signs, sign-on date, previous formats, notable events, former employees of note (I've been adding a lot of this). I noticed that User:Djockers added quite a bit of historical info to the WNCX article, which is fantastic. It could probably be cleaned up a little and formatted differently, though. Otherwise, it looks great.
  • Current and historical logos (though this is being hotly debated by some, I think it's important).
  • HD Radio information (such as programming on subchannels)
  • References and links
Here's what I feel doesn't belong:
  • Long lists, just for the sake of having them
  • Schedules, or stuff that's already on the station's website
  • Listing of employees at the station, including on-air, management, sales department, etc.
  • Phone numbers, e-mail, text messaging numbers for all the jocks (I actually removed this from WXSS), contact info.
  • Personal opinion on station/format/personalities, slander (goes without saying).
  • Advertising-like or promotional prose
  • List of every artist played on the station (I've seen way too many of these)
  • Long list of local morning show bits
  • Mention of every single minor character or person on local morning show (unless we're talking about a well-known show such as Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony, which would merit its own separate article anyway). If the local morning show/host is noteworthy (such as Tom Barnard of KQRS in Minneapolis), it should have its own article, and could probably have the name of the intern who fetches them coffee in the morning and provides funny voices.
  • Station contests or promotions (unless it's noteworthy or controversial, such as the tragic "Wii contest" at KDND
  • List of every single band to play a station festival. Just mention that station XXXX puts on "XXXXfest" every July at whatever location. Mention three most noteworthy bands to have played in the past, and perhaps the top three bands playing this year.
  • Lots of rambling prose and bad sentence structure. Having been editing the WCBS-FM article for the past week or so (since they flipped back to oldies), I've noticed that everybody and their family members have felt justified in adding in the most inane pieces of trivia or opinion to the article. I suggested to would-be editors to take things out of this already overlong article rather than merely adding more. And I did just that. My goal in editing articles is to make them 'short n' sweet'. We don't need a whole book with every little piece of information possible. Create a tribute site and link it from the article. The most interesting stuff, in readable form accessible even to people who don't really care about radio. That's my goal in editing articles. As Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts."
Again, this is just my opinion. Anyone else care to add anything?--Fightingirish 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fightingirish... funny thing is, I agree with most of what you said. I also appreciate your comments on the WNCX article, I did spend quite a bit of time editing that article last year. And due to my situation, after editing and expanding it I backed away from it to allow the natural progression of the article to flow without interference. It wasn't until the recent changes that I stepped up to give an opinion. But outside of that, I let it expand and am quite proud at how others have contributed and expanded it more.
Regarding WP:NOTABLE, the problem here is that it is very difficult to quantify this with on-air personalities. To say someone is more notable just because they're on the air in LA -- as opposed to a smaller market like Cleveland -- is also flawed. It can be argued that someone in Cleveland may not know an air-personality (let alone a radio station) in LA -- the same of course can be said for someone from LA not knowing the same for a market like Cleveland. Now, if you're referring to just any random "DJ", then that could be... but my suggestion does not revolve around "random DJ's" or "weekenders", "part timers" or even "bit players and janitors". My suggestion solely was for "notable" air-personalities that impacted a specific radio stations history. IMHO, someone who has been working the same midday shift of a radio station in a market like Cleveland for 20 years -- is in fact, "notable". As their presence has impacted that radio stations history... thus the article in question.
Again, I'm not suggesting creating a list, just to have a list. I'm only suggesting noting air-personalities that impacted the radio station who the article is about. Whether or not the person is notable outside the radio station in question, really is irrelevant. As the article is suppose to be about a radio station and people/events that impacted it. It seems overly critical and editorial to leave someone who impacted a radio station out of an article, just because they aren't notable in LA. Djockers 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. And in no way do I wish to belittle anyone on the air in Cleveland, versus who's on the air in LA or NY. Most of the on-air people in those cities I wouldn't consider to be notable either. However, a station like KROQ has had many notable people that have worked there, some of them becoming quite well-known even outside of radio and some of them becoming legendary in the radio industry themselves.
A good example would be KIOI in San Francisco. The station was founded by James Gabbert, who's technological contributions to FM radio have been quite immense (he's one of the reasons we can actually hear FM radio in cars). You'll notice he's a red link, meaning that there is no article about him. But I still would consider him notable. Same with an air personality in a local market who could be considered a market legend. I don't think they necessarily have to have a Wikipedia article devoted to them in order to get a mention. But I don't think every single person that has ever worked at the station should be mentioned.
People that have impacted the history of the station are worth noting. Same with the long-time people. But I doubt that could be said of all of the current employees. Hence one of the reasons that including a station schedule would be irrelevant, in this way of thinking.
The main argument is about schedules and lists. I have seen way too many of these get way out of hand. But a mention in prose form (as I hastily tried to do on the WCBS-FM article) is, at least what I feel, a good compromising start. --Fightingirish 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WWKF WAKQ-FM

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)

Lemme see what I can do here. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find the page quite cleaned up. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alaska public radio networks

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • I am sorry, but I do beg to disagree, strongly. I do believe there is consensus of sorts to delete or redirect: a similar case was discussed back in March of last year, and it was decided that repeater stations, which carry simulcasts of a given channel, are not stations in their own right. It is a particular wavelength allocated to a "foreign" station to expand its footprint using the same call-sign. In fact, there was nothing in the articles which indicated why the subject was notable. None of the articles were sourced, and even if sourced.... We had the same problem we had with radio and TV masts a while back (see my essay here), which documents the actions agreed on by the community - most of the articles were deleted in the end. As I happened to agree with the merger tag JPG-GR had put on K-Love, so I carried out the merger. Only I tried to do so methodically and more extensively on all such "non-stations" I could find. Ohconfucius 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...and that's all I ask is the information is intergrated. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Move request

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Radio Station Translators

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)

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)

Expert review: WONW

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)

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)
That and the claim to be around since 1948 is impressive. JPG-GR 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

WEUP

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)

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)
Cool, thanks! JPG-GR 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

Formats

How descriptive should the formats be? I've seen some pages that only classify the station as Classic Rock or Hot AC but then again I've seen some stations that list every genre of music they play. Mr mark taylor 18:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally I just go with what 100000watts.com says the format is. As for some oldies stations (only ones I can hear), I will add "Classic Rock" since they do play it, but mostly I just stick with the one listed format. So, normally I just list the most played format. If it is like a "Jack" or "Bob" station, then that is considered Adult Hits.
When in doubt though, 100000watts.com is pretty much "on-the-money" with formats, but if you don't have an account, Radio-Locator.com works just as good. If you ever need any help or have any questions, please let me know and I will do my best to help. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer T:C 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Labeling radio formats, merging pages

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)

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)

Discussion - Ratings tables in violation of WP:NOT#STATS?

While I have no issue with current ratings being listed in radio station articles (until someone cites something telling me otherwise), listing ratings for the past x number of ratings seasons surely violates WP:NOT#STATS (see this dif as an example). I'm bringing it up here in hopes of establishing a consensus one way or the other before going through with any massive edits. Thanks! JPG-GR 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I normally go along the same lines as JPG-GR. I will say something like "this station was number 1 rated in the last ratings book" and then leave it at that and I think that does pretty well. As for the dif listed above, I don't see anything wrong with it....but I think that it does violate WP:NOT#STATS.
While typing this, I did come up with an idea. Would it be possible to add the current ratings, via Radio & Records, to the infobox? Just one line saying "Last Arbitron Rating: 3.5 (#10)" for example and then the rating itself linking to the respective Radio & Records market page. It would give some extra information to the article and would eliminate the need to ratings boxes like in the dif above. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with the addition to the infobox (which is already becoming more and more needlessly cluttered). Additionally, as ratings change every season, the inclusion of any at all tends to result in pages always being somewhat out of date. JPG-GR 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the edit in question... It is not "long and sprawling", and it could be made neater and more readable to satisify the main issues behind WP:NOT#STATS. The list also references Arbitron and specific time periods, so it is verifiable. However, the specific ratings of one station don't have a whole lot of meaning without the context of other stations -- "what genres do other regional listeners listen to?" and "what happened at the station, or elsewhere, to create the huge jump from 2.7 to 3.6 during Spring 2007?" are questions I immediately asked myself. The article is good enough to explain the jump, but it doesn't cite the reasoning (I'm skeptical that "newer jingles" contributed significantly). The rest of that paragraph just isn't very clear and would be done better as a large table -- in which case WP:NOT#STATS would more clearly come into play. Done better, I would think that a "Ratings History" section may be interesting reading -- but it would need to be cited, limited in scope, and presented well. Personally, I'd remove the "WDVD has been eating away..." sentence as OR, call for a citation for the "...ratings have surged due to..." assertion, and clean up the table. My 2¢. HalJor 03:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion - RE: "US radio stations by state" lists

I've managed to find a way to dump the entire FCC AM database into a file for quick analysis and sorting. With this file, I can now auto-generate tables listing all the AM stations for a frequency, a state, or even by city.

So, it's time we, as a group, decide on the best format for a sortable wikitable for the main list articles found in {{USRadio}}. If nothing else, I propose we start off with the first three columns as such, as all three of these are the most vital and all three can be pulled from the data in the database:

Call sign Frequency City of license

We've discussed other columns before (owner, format, branding) which might be beneficial, but would require more work, especially from those familiar with the stations.

So, what does everyone think? If nothing else, I can start generating them with these three columns leaving room for additions at the end later. JPG-GR 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the setup that I have for the List of radio stations in West Virginia. It includes "Call Sign", "Frequency", "Branding", "Format", "Website" (via a <sup></sup> WikiLink), "City" (COL), and "Notes" (for format changes, etc)...the latter could be replaced with "Owner" or have "Owner" be added in. I think that setup works well and it looks good on the page and doesn't throw too much information at the reader. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Columns for brandings, formats, and websites worry me -- when they change, they have to be changed in multiple places. I feel that that stuff is all better suited for the radio station articles themsevles (with the possibility of formats, which while subject to change, probably no more so than the call signs themselves). As for notes, I will always argue that that column is too risky for unimportant info to leak in and that any possible notes definitely make more sense in the articles themselves. JPG-GR 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Branding and web site should not be included. They are in the article and that is the only place that really needs them. Formats change, but the format can also be a useful search for someone who is on the road and looking for a station with a specific format, but are we a travel guide? Notes is generally important in tables, but in this case, are we again duplicating what is already in the station article? I suppose you could argue that if there was not article, then notes is a good place to build the article. Vegaswikian 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I normally use the notes section for format changes with like a one-liner. For example on the List of radio stations in West Virginia, under WQZK in the notes section it says "was Rock until 01/09/07". Simple little bit of information. With the wikilink to the WQZK wikipage on the same line, the reader can go and see more information about it. Also, I use the notes section for ownership on College/High School stations, but not others (ie: commerical).
Though, I am guilty of adding too much information to a page sometimes. Mostly to give the reader as much information as possible. Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
See, I still think stuff like that goes better in the article itself. If someone's coming along looking for their favorite rock station from 2006, I'd hope they'd remember the callsign or the frequency so they could find that the station changed its format. However, I would tend to agree with the addition of format. JPG-GR 17:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the notes section might be a good place to have if there's no article yet, I'd argue why not just create a stub to hold it? JPG-GR 17:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary de-indent) How about a column for owner/network? Hasn't been much discussion on that one. That would be useful for finding sister stations quickly, and isn't a bad thing to have. The only problem with this one is the terminology ("owner" or "network") and which info to use (actual owner or "licensee" as found in the FCC database). In my experience, the "licensee" information is less useful than it first appears (Ex: WDVD is owned by Citadel Broadcasting, but the FCC database yields a licensee of "Radio License Holding I, LLC" which means what exactly?)

-New Proposal-

Call sign Frequency City of license Owner Format

-JPG-GR 17:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the new proposal. I would stick with just owner though. Network would make me think about what news network they use for top-of-the-hour news. I would add "branding" and a <sup></sup> link for a website as well, but that is just me. But, the newest proposal I like. It gives enough information and leaves the rest to the actual article.
If used, what work would need to be done to roll this out? Also, would it be divided by AM and FM like I have the List of radio stations in West Virginia? Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The next question would be whether or not we want to do separate articles (i.e. List of AM radio stations in West Virginia and List of FM radio stations in West Virginia - this might be a better idea because (1) I can only quickly generate AM lists right now and (2) large states would have lists that are VERY long). As for rolling them out, as soon as we collectively reach a consensus (and I get done going through fixing article names for the AM stations - I'm at WJxx right now, have yet to do the K's), I can autogenerate them. No work needed, really. JPG-GR 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

An important field that no one has mentioned yet is market. This is important when there are several markets in one state, and when one market consists of several states. Sorting by city alone would leave out many radio stations available for reception. For example, in the NYC market, there are stations from both New York and New Jersey. Additionally, within the NYC market, there are many stations in New York that are not located in New York City. Also, within New York (state), there are many different markets. Sorting by market would group together the stations located together better than sorting by city of license. And to complicate things more, there are some stations that are licensed in one city, have studios in another, and transmit from yet another. Sometimes, these different cities even cross state lines. Something potentially more beneficial than separate pages by state would be pages by market (like the templates are now arranged). --Scott Alter 03:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We could do a market-by-market page, but we have the templates for that...but also, what I hear in my market isn't the same as someone else who lives 5miles away in the same market. I personally would stick with just the state-by-state pages and leave the markets up to the templates. It is a good idea though. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against the by state pages, but think market is an important field. With your "5 miles away" example, from NYC, you can go just a few miles and end up in 2 different states. What I might hear in northern NJ or southern CT is more like what is in NYC than what is heard in the majority of New York state. --Scott Alter 03:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed the market is, I am just not sure how to do it. I guess I am looking at the market thing from my view. Where I live, you go five miles you lose half the stations on the dial. That's what ya get when you live in the mountains of Virginia. So, if you look at the Winchester market, half of those market stations can't be heard 5 or 10 miles outside of town, while still being in the Winchester market. That's where it might get tricky in the rural areas, which is what I was meaning.
Now, with NYC, you go 5 or 10 miles, your dial might change ever so slightly, but not by much. I am more concerned with the rural areas where radio dials can and do change drastically over 5 or 10 miles in a market and that might confuse a reader. I like the idea and it could be done, it would just be tricky in some of the rural markets. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The main issue with markets is the larger stations that appear in many, many markets. Take WJR. A good chunk of the eastern part of the country can get this station. While the markets are important - VERY important - I think it's best to leave that kind of info to the market templates we already have in place. JPG-GR 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a good idea, but with the rural markets and the national stations like WJR and WLW, it would be hard to make them completely accurate. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 25 August Plenty Valley FM (PROD by User:Mattinbgn; "...the local Community Radio Station for the Shires of Banyule, Nillumbik and Whittlesea." the listed Shires are in Australia)

KZQZ

can someone add more to the KZQZ article and add pictures. Alexh1013 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Alexh1013

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations/Archive4&oldid=1136411642"