Archive 2005

←

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

→

Archive 2015

I assume we are discussing radio stations without government issued callsigns.

Question: what percentage of stations in Europe and Asia do NOT have government issued callsigns. Isn't there a licensing agency that must keep a unique identifier of some sort? Why not use that to keep track of the stations?

I assume that the operating frequencies do not change very often, so if there really are no unique government-issued identifiers, wouldn't it be possible to use the Country and City name along with a frequency to be a unique ID that humans refer to? rhyre (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone may wish to start the article Radio EcoShock or Radio Ecoshock.

• RES 247 Environmental Awareness Network ("Net’s largest green audio download site.")

I am not ready to spend the time to make it deletion-proof. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2010/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2010/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The radio stations WNWC FM and WNWC AM are owned by the same organization. Both these radio stations broadcast from the same building, share the same website (http://wnwc.nwc.edu/page.php), and share opperating expences. They even mention eachother in their broadcasts. I was wondering if it would be possible to merdge the two articles since they are the same station (with one broadcasting music and the other programs). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.15.172 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As the stations have individual histories and air unique programming, merger would be against policy and practice. - Dravecky (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am with Dravecky on this one. They should be kept in seperate articles. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If they air distinct programming, then the appropriate solution is to have two distinct articles which link to each other — because "two stations owned by the same organization" is not the same thing as "one station". Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When providing latitude and longitude for a radio station, please use type:landmark in the {{Coord}} template, not type:city. Also please do not use excessive precision such as hundredths of a second arc. I've been fixing these by hand, but I'm unable to keep up with the rate at which new radio station articles are being created. I'm happy to discuss this or answer questions as needed.--Stepheng3 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We use the coordinates given by the FCC. If they are down to exact, then that is why. They should not be changed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They are exact only if they have been converted to WGS84 (the datum specified in {{Coord}}), and then rounded to the same precision as the original non-WGS84 data. I use the coordinates from the Cavell Mertz FCCInfo site because they convert to NAD83, which is far closer to WGS84 than NAD27 (still used by the FCC). I also put "source:NAD83" as a hint. Nearly every time I've found a visual mismatch between the station coordinates on Wikipedia and the antenna image on Google Earth, the problem has been that the Wikipedia article appeared to have NAD27, and replacing it with NAD83 solved the problem. Now, if one is using NAD83 coordinates (sometimes in antenna registration/air safety references) from the FCC website, that is pretty close; but using straight NAD27 from the FCC in {{Coord}} is imprecise, and using hundredths of a second of raw NAD27 would make it outright error, as the WGS84 coordinates are often far greater than ±0.01 second of arc from NAD27. --Closeapple (talk)

I go by the FCC coords and not change them up to make them fit a map. If they don't fit, that isn't our problem, it is the FCC's. If we change them, they don't meet the reference we use and will be changed anyway to meet that reference....so they should be posted as the FCC posts them and corrections should be written in to the FCC, not corrected on Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of the FCC coords being erroneous; it is a matter of FCC coords using a different grid calibration (NAD27) and Wikipedia editors being erroneous by failing to convert the numbers to the grid (WGS84) explicitly required in the {{Coord}} documentation, yet asserting they are correct for {{Coord}} anyway. NAD27 and WGS84 are different by 2–4 seconds of arc on the coasts: see NADCON webpage for maps of this difference. My point about visual errors was that, when I have noticed they "appear" wrong on Google Earth, that it wasn't because the FCC data was wrong; it's because the FCC numbers were cut-and-pasted literally into Wikipedia, where those numbers don't mean the same spot. Once the FCC numbers are converted to NAD83 or WGS84, the then line up correctly with {{Coord}} on their own — the FCC data is correct, but it's not the same coordinate base Wikipedia uses; it has to be converted first. And one certainly doesn't want 0.01" "precision" on a measurement once one knows could be ±0.75" off in latitude and ±4.00" off in longitude from the actual point if it hasn't been converted yet. --Closeapple (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then someone (not the editor) should find a way to instantly convert these numbers (which I admittedly understand little about their differences) from as you say "NAD83 or WGS84" so they convert automatically. I speak as a layman of Wikipedia, I don't understand them. I don't think John Q. Editor understands them either. So I think the {{Coord}} template should convert them numbers not the editor, who might not understand them, be the one converting them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think all we WPRS folks need to know is the format of the template you'd like to see us using. At a guess, for a station in Alabama it would be {{coord|0|0|0|N|0|0|0|W|type:landmark_region:US-AL_source:NAD27|display=inline}} (with the actual D/M/S in place of those 0s) but please correct me if I'm wrong. - Dravecky (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• What I use is different from Dravecky's, I use {{coord|0|0|0.0|N|0|0|0.0|W|type:landmark}} (actual coords in place of 0s as well). There is not link to a source, just the direct link to the {{coord}} template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's helpful to provide the _region:US-AL part (with AL replaced by the appropriate state abbreviation). The _source:NAD27 part is also helpful; though it's not exactly per the intent of {{Coord}} template, it gets the point across. I also recommend that coordinates appear in the title line of the article, which implies |display=inline,title. And definitely _type:landmark rather than _type:city. So my model would be similar to Dravecky's: {{coord|0|0|0|N|0|0|0|W|type:landmark_region:US-AL_source:NAD27|display=inline,title}}.
• I still want to discourage the use of 0.01 second-of-arc precision because I feel it is misleading. Although the FCC website gives latitude and longitude to 0.01 second-of-arc precision, I'm sure their data is not really that accurate (even to the NAD27 datum) because the last two digits of the latitude and longitude are almost invariably .00. It's undoubtedly false precision. If the coordinates were accurate to 0.01 second-of-arc (about 9-12 inches on the surface of the Earth) then the digits 0-9 would appear about equally often in the hundredths place of the numeric values.
• To counter the argument that we have to copy the FCC data exactly because the FCC is the reliable source, I point out that rounding is a routine calculation that can be performed without getting into original research.--Stepheng3 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Have put some time into WMAQ (AM) and the WCFL section on WMVP. Neither have been rated.

We hope (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved this discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Often among USA radio stations, a radio station changes its code, and later another radio station takes over that code. For example, around 23 April 2010 WTOD was renamed WWYC, and later WHSC was renamed WTOD. Does Wikipedia have a discussion area about USA radio station articles? In WTOD, I have put a hatlink pointing to WTOD's old meaning. But I have not seen many if any such hatlinks in other articles about USA radio stations, when I have history-merged radio station pages. But very often likely someone finds a reused radio station code in literature which is a few years old, and looks it up in Wikipedia, which does not say that that code has an old meaning as well as a current meaning. If someone has a general database of all USA radio station codes and their renamings and re-uses, it would be useful to have such disambig hatlinks put in the articles for any USA radio station codes which have been re-used. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• If a code has changed, the that code should really be a dab page. WT:WPRS might be a good venue for discussion of this issue. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• See also WP:WPRS#Modifying article titles for stations that change their call signs. Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• This should be renamed "Re-used USA radio station call signs" as there are no "codes" only "call signs". Would you could do is have a disambig page like WTOP and link to the pages there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nobody has a database of every callsign ever used. The FCC comes the closest; its database (CDBS, in the =former_call_sign= table) goes back to 1978, when the Commission switched to electronic record-keeping. Anything before that, you'd have to compile from the FCC's records or tertiary sources like David Gleason's archive of old Broadcasting Yearbooks. Most of these are unlikely to be significant. 121a0012 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may want to look at this discussion for an article move that may not follow the guidelines of this project. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it (other than WP:NOTDIR #4) that says Wikipedia doesn't list station program listings. Are program listings allowed or not? The station in question is WATD-FM. Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In that form, yes, they violate WP:NOR#DIR. They should be written in prose, which is generally accepted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some mention is prose (without the run-times) is acceptable and normal. The bare schedule as it stands is not, however. To quote, "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera[...]" (emphasis mine) - Dravecky (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I appreciate it!Stereorock (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! By the way, an example of a prose mention would be like "The schedule for WXXX has John Doe working mornings, Jane Doe middays, Jack Doe in the afternoons, Jim Bob Doe in the evenings and John Boy Doe at night. Weekends are covered by Jay Doe, Jill Doe and Jackie Doe." That is how it would look, short, sweet and to the point. (Man it was hard thinking up "J" names :)) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You got my name in there! Well, the 1st name anyway! Anyway, I'll be on a lookout NOT to question a listing like that! Thanks again mis amigos!Stereorock (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am currently in a discussion with another editor regarding List of 50kw AM radio stations in the USA. He is of the opinion that the naming conventions on the other page state that the Frequency column should read 640 AM, rather than 640 kHz.

My opinion, on the other hand, is that the column is about frequency, not type of modulation. Therefore 640 kHz would be correct.

Looking for comments, please? Appreciate your time.

--Manway (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, kHz would be the preferred unit since "640 AM" is really "640 kHz on the AM band" and. given that the whole list is of AM stations, what would be the point of repeating "AM" over and over again? - Dravecky (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, my point of view has been that most of the lists of stations that I have seen have used the modulation method (such as AM and FM) instead of the units of frequency magnitude (such as kHz or MHz) even on lists of station solely on a single band such as:

• List of AM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W)
• List of FM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letters KK–KM)

So the ultimate question is (to me at least) is there a standard style for these lists and if there is none what should it be? --Dlrohrer2003 15:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome here, Dlrohrer. Thank you for your viewpoint. My point here is that all the lists of radio stations are wrong. The list header says "Frequency." And AM/FM are modulation types, not frequency measurements. The measurement of frequency is the Hertz.

The actual guideline is for the header. It reads: "Here is one suggestion on how to begin: KLMN (102.3 FM, "The Illuminator") is a radio station broadcasting an oldies music format. Licensed to the suburb of Smallville, Kansas, USA, it serves the Metropolis metropolitan area. It first began broadcasting in 1933 under the call sign KRYP. The station is currently owned by Lexcorp." I have no problem with that. The problem is in a list with a column marked "Frequency" you need a description of how that frequency is measured. Not the type of modulation it is.

AM does not mean 540 - 1700 kHz, nor does FM mean 88.1 - 107.9 MHz. Just because it's (wrongly) used that way does not mean that an encyclopedic article should perpetuate the problem. --Manway (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Clock time is measured A.M. or P.M.; frequencies are in Hertz, not AM or FM. And, for that matter, why have a suffix at all when it can just be "Frequency (kHz)" in the header? Maybe there should be a manual of style for these kinds of tables. --Closeapple (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Closeapple - however, FM frequencies are measured in MHz. I'm trying now to go beyond the one - and change just about every one of the "list" articles that have Frequency columns, now that I've investigated further. --Manway (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On the creation of a specific manual of style for these lists, should we not at least consider what methods other sites use on their lists of stations? And some of my suggestions for how to proceed are:

1. stay with the "AM/FM" suffixes, so as not be as confusing to less technically minded people
2. go with the "kHz/MHz" suffixes so as they are more technically correct
3. do away with the suffixes entirely

What about using the band as a prefix and the frequency unit as a suffix? (e.g.: "AM 530 kHz")Stereorock (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm squarely with those who (correctly) note that frequency, band and modulation type are distinct, and regardless of popular usage, should be used correctly here. The example above "AM 530 kHz" introduces ambiguity and needless repetition. I like the idea of having a column heading "Frequency (kHz)" and only a numerical value as the column entry. Esjones (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Now for the last two options we should consider to some degree splitting the mixed lists of both AM and FM stations so they are less confusing. --Dlrohrer2003 05:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Stereorock's comment, I had recently thought that we should consider both the "AM/FM" and "kHz/MHz" modifiers as well, although my thought was use both on the same end such as "530 kHz AM". I say this because I my position is and always has been that the average person may be baffled if just the technically correct "kHz/MHz" suffixes were only used, since in my experience, most average people are not knowledgeable about the technical aspects of radio, much less licensed Hams. Now it is not that I am against technical correctness as a whole but that I am trying to make thing understandable to the greatest number of people. That is why I still say that we should at least include the "AM/FM" suffixes where possible on the lists of radio stations. --Dlrohrer2003 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm an inclusionist by nature, WILI's page seems to be a blatant advertisment for the station. Included is a program guide & about 20 pictures of the personalities & of the station's "Boom Box Parade" which used words like "our" & "you're invited to come next year!" I removed the last 2. Anyway, it seems a bit much.Stereorock (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more cleanup but it could use a bit more attention to turn that schedule list into a couple of useful paragraphs of prose discussing local and syndicated programming. - Dravecky (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the policy about Part 15 stations? Do we include them or are they not notable as a whole? There are 2 pages that I know of but one does apparently lease out time on a commercial station. The other one is a college station that no longer leases time on a non-commercial frequency. They are KONK & WXIN (FM). Thanks.Stereorock (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BROADCAST: It appears unlicensed broadcasters are not presumed notable, but might meet WP:CORP, and stations not notable enough for their own article could be included in an article that meets notability. (That being said, both of those articles have severe WP:RS problems to say the least. And KONK doesn't seem to even be its own WP:RS for basic information: they seem to have retroactively changed their original May 2009 press release to look like it has always referred to a frequency they've only been on this last two weeks. It appears from the edit history that they were originally on 1630 in May 2009, then 1680 in June 2009, and then 1500 in May 2010.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new category, Category:Weather radio stations in the United States, as a counterpart to Category:Weather radio stations in Canada, and placed KWN59 in the category. If any people in this project know of any similar articles on NOAA Weather Radio stations, feel free to add them to the category. Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a re-work of UK ILR stations, offline at present but will put online an area at a time. I am currently dealing with a series of stations which changed their formats and names numerous times, sometimes reverting to original names. If I name these pages as per the conventions suggested on the WikiProject page I will end up with multiple pages with the same name. What should I do about this? My suggestion would be to use the Station Name and then the Frequencies in brackets to distinguish between services. e.g. Blah Radio (999.9 FM and 9999 AM), Blah Radio (999.9 and 999.9 FM) and Blah Radio (9999 AM). These stations were not broadcasting at the same time as each other so there would have been no ambiguity at the time but there now is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrouseyGrouse (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a college station's logo but it is new. Maybe the old one can be moved to a historical logos section & the new one put where the old one is now? I'd do it but I don't know how. Can someone put the new logo on its Wikipedia page? The new logo is on their site, www.1320warlradio.com. Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the question of how to link to streaming radio been addressed? The question has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_spam_.2F_malware about the possible safety/security (as well as desirability) of this type of file directly linked in the station infoboxes, and guidance from a subject matter expert would be helpful. this diff shows an example of the types of links in question (it looks clean to me, but as a matter of due diligence use caution if you follow the link). Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

.pls are moderately safe. The mechanics of the stream are that the web browser will attempt to connect to the URI and "download" the playlist - that playlist is then examined depending on the browser settings - it will either follow the .pls file type or look to the MIME headers to launch the appropriate player that has been assigned to handle Shoutcast mp3 playlists. If the visitor has set their browser to "Open files based on content not file extension", then the link may look like .pls, but potentially could download and launch a different type of "payload" that is dangerous. The older the browser, the more likely that might succeed. Putting Wikipedia in your "Trusted Zone" probably further increases the risk of an unsafe link being trusted and succeeding. I've never seen an attempt like this on a "real" radio station web site - I have been on the receiving ends of attacks by insecure radio stations using unscreened 3rd party content and expired domains being redirected to hacker web sites.

Note that Windows Media Player cannot launch .pls playlists even though it is capable of playing mp3 stream - WMP uses .m3u, which is very similar in format if no "extensions" are used.

Another consider is whether the link is "in plain view" on the web site - most U.S. radio stations go to significant lengths to hide the actual streaming URLs - if you "deep link" to a direct streaming URL, especially if it bypasses advertisements or a registration process, that's asking for copyright type legal trouble. .pls is mostly used by college stations and not-for profit stations as the MP3 format is subject to patent royalties that commercial stations would find objectionable.

Linking to player links (streamtheworld, etc...) other than playlists (.pls,.m3u,.asx) is as dangerous (or not) as any other direct link. I operate StreamingRadioGuide.com, so my general opinions about the value of this will not be objective. My view of "encyclopedic" is it documents the past, not facilitates the present or predicts the future. Providing active links to sources of entertainment seems to not be in that spirit, but that's not my call.69.37.68.72 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In Oregon Public Broadcasting, a public radio and television broadcast network, these templates are used over 60 times to cover all of the network's radio and TV stations, including repeaters. Has anyone ever considered allowing {{FMQ}}, {{AMQ}}, and {{TVQ}} to support multiple parameters? For example, instead of having to

In Oregon Public Broadcasting's case, multiple template instances would still be used, but multiple parameter support would greatly improve the organization of the external links section. Thanks. 67.100.125.19 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This only works for radio stations, but one could use {{RadioTranslators}} on the rebroadcasters and translators. This gives all the information, plus an FCC link, but at present no Radio-Locator link due to a code problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thanks. FWIW, I forgot to mention that if wikiproject members think my suggestion is a good one, particularly since I am 99% certain it can be done while remaining backwards-compatible to the current implementation, I would be happy to submit a change request on the project's behalf to Wikipedia:Requested templates. Thanks. 67.101.6.174 (talk) aka 67.100.125.19 (talk · contribs) 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

KCTB-LP doesn't show up in the FCC query database. What gives?

It seems a different KCTB-FM 102.7 once existed in Cut Bank, MT, but it was canceled. The New Raymie (t • c) 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

According to fccinfo.com & recnet.com, KCTB-LP was deleted 7/1/2009 and KCTB-FM was deleted in 1993.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But regardless of that, notability does not end when the license is cancelled or at all for that matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have another user questioning the notability of radio stations. Oh joy. This all started when I requested a rangeblock for vandalism on the WGGH page on ANI. Their plan, delete the page, no vandalism. They, then, questioned the notability. Completely disregarding the admins clearing them, the WP:NME rules, the AfDs setting the precedence, and other stuff. So, could a few WPRS members enlighten the user on the notability of radio stations, the precedence and the discussions about this. I am really tired about telling people about this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being opposed to water and supporting genocide!

There was an obscure radio station that was the source of vandalism. This should be stopped. However, I noticed that the station is obscure. WP:BCAST requires one of 3 criteria be met to establish notability, long history, large audience or unusual format. WGGH fails 2 but I don't know it's history so it could very well pass on one criteria.

Rallying support on a wikiproject could be seen as barely legal canvassing. I am not a deletionist so I will not be going on an AFD rampage. In fact, I like radio and even started a new article on a radio station! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then do this, ask User:Dravecky, who is a guru at finding sources about radio stations. He can dig them up from all kinds of places. Slap a {{Unreferenced}} template on it for the time being, ask Dravecky if he can help and sit back and let the work happen. There are alot of stubs in the WPRS area. We are actively working getting them updated into at least "Start" class, but it takes time. There are over 17,000 US radio stations, not to mention the Canadian radio stations, and other radio stations in other countries that are "under the WPRS flag". It is alot of work and only some many people are interested in the area. So it takes alot of time to get everything up to stub. We have one of our main people on Wikibreak (due to WP:REALLIFE) so we are down an expert person. We can only do so much with so many people. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another person commended me on writing an article about a big Finnish company, saying that there is a shortage of company articles in Wikipedia. Another area that needs work! Let's concentrate on the notable companies just as we concentrate on the notable radio stations. Don't waste effort on obscure, possibly non-notable stations. Some stations are non-notable. One type was even explicitly mentioned, i.e. traveler's radio. I am not anti-radio. I even started a radio article a few minutes ago! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're free to edit any articles you may choose and don't get to pick which articles other editors edit. WP:BCAST is part of an essay, not a policy, but in any case the text includes "established broadcast history" and "unique programming" as criteria for presumed notability. WGGH originates a significant amount of unique programming and a 60-year broadcast history. (The station began broadcasting on September 24, 1949.) The article certainly calls to be expanded, but not deleted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You will note that I am neutral and even wrote that it could possibly pass under one of the three criteria, being history. Then you pointed out 1949. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We have set rules, not everything gets an article. If it is class D (a translator), rebroadcasts a network (like K-LOVE or something like that) with no local involvement, or has never actually been on the air (only a construction permit with call letters)....then the article is either put into userspace (for construction permits) or redirected (for translators, network stations) to the parent station. Not everything gets an article. So, there aren't 17,000 US radio station articles on here, I would estimate about 3,000 total, with a majority being redirects. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Dravecky rocks. He has added a large amount of information and several references. I do believe this brings the article in "Start" range, but I will let an admin decide on that, I don't assess articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Any WPRS-involved editor, not just an admin, can assess articles. Indeed, if we relied on just the three active admins involved with WPRS to assess articles the task might never be completed. One note, beyond "Stub" or "Start" I find it best practice to let somebody else assess an article I've written or to which I have contributed significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't aware of that. Per that, though, I have upped the WGGH article to "Start" class. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been unhappy with the unwritten guidelines that make most radio stations notable without actually having to meet guidelines, ie just for having an FCC licence. Examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCRX-LP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLRY. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Rushville, Ohio (WLRY) for example is a town of 298 people. Even with surrounded residents it is unlikely to have a large audience given that most likely the next town over has yet another radio station. There does not seem to be specific policy anymore, given that the project page only. I can't find one at the notability page. Might we ought to create a new ? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the official broadcast area for WLRY per the FCC. It covers ALOT more than just 298 people and that isn't a notability concern. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't mean it should go "bye-bye". I don't think we need every bus stop and train station in the nation, but we do. I think that is just silly. But people have created them. Why? Notability and there are rules for them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks, KRMS, an active radio station is up for deletion. !Vote the way you feel you should. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I was hoping to assist with updating the quality on some of the more obvious articles (stubs, starts...), but I noticed that the project is using the standard quality scale instead of the extended scale. Have you given any thought to using the extended scale? --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a Stub, Start, C, B, etc scale, plus an importance scale. Just become a member, grab a userbox, and go nuts. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. In addition to the standard qualities (Stub, Start, C, B, etc.), the extended scale adds Category, Disambig, Image, Portal, Project and Template. Right now, the project only uses the standard scale. Would adding these additional types be desirable? It requires a change to a parameter in the project template. --Bsherr (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fire away, as, at last check, we have lots of Templates tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell,  Done. JPG-GR (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, please find sources like crazy for all the radio station pages. Most have them, some don't. Some get picky when they don't, so source too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

JPG, the President of TfD! :-) Good to see you. --Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, ok. Maybe it IS official now :D JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'll do what I can to help! --Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and if you need help, please feel free to ask on my talk page or here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd like permission to request User:AnomieBOT to perform task AutoAssessor2 on project templated pages. This does the following:

"Redirects and disambiguation pages will be automatically assessed with class=redirect/disambig and importance=NA, stubs will be automatically assessed with class=stub if not already assessed, and non-article pages will be automatically assessed with the appropriate class and importance=NA."

Unlike other autoassessor bots, this bot does not assess articles to higher than stub class. --Bsherr (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll proceed on September 1 absent comments. --Bsherr (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Whatever gets this done quickest (and, therefore, ends the useless stream of info at the usually helpful Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Radio station articles by quality log) is fine by me. JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JPG. I've put the request in. --Bsherr (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to report that through bot and manual efforts, the number of pages in the project unassessed for quality has been nearly halved. --Bsherr (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you guys think about adding the transmitter coordinates to radio stations like the tv stations have? I added a comment to the Infobox Radio Station Template. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take care of this: KCOR (AM) & KCOR-AM? Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since KCOR-AM was a carbon copy of KCOR (AM), I just made KCOR-AM a redirect. You can delete the KCOR-AM page since it is a bad redirect name. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've edited to move the radio station to KCOR and move the disambiguation page to a parenthetical. --Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've updated the four templates that included KCOR (AM) as well as List of radio stations in Texas and other pages that linked to what is now a redirect. - Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to edit this in correctly.

I know up until 1990 at the very least (I'm not sure after I left for DRC) 1600 AM IN East Longmeadow (currently noted as WHNP in Wikipedia) was WIXY16 (WIXY 1600 AM) a country music station. I am not sure how to go about editing this in.

75.44.12.49 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Tesseract (PJ)

Do you mean technically or content-wise? --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Content wise... I wasn't sure how to go about listing it other than just dry facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.12.49 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry about that. If you put it in there as best you can, someone from the project will come along and weave it into the narrative. Do you happen to have a reference for the fact? That would be very helpful. --Bsherr (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The WFHT page is being edited by a user who seems to have a stake in the station. The user has reverted an edit to make the article less like an advertisement for the station & has neglected to keep the night power in the opening paragraph (although it still appears in the dialog box). I'm going to go through to see about possible unsourced material.Stereorock (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Radio station articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

do you think this might be a good idea or a bad one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonmoy (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In November 2010, [[WDYN (FM 89.7) was sold Tennessee Temple University to Bible Broadcasting Network, which then became WYBK. In December, the school bought QUUS AM 980, and began broadcasting the same singal as it had on 89.7.

Should WDYN cover both the former FM and current AM stations, or should we have one for the FM station at WYBK, including its old history, and a separate article at on the AM station, indluding that frequencies old history (which is quite "extensive")? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• From looking at the guidelines, it looks like I should have a separate article and history for the FM station. The previous AM station, WUUS, was covered at WUUQ, so I'll move that history to the new AM station article. I think I've got it now! - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. In case anyone is interested, I've proposed a replacement draft of the article WCSP-FM on its attendant Talk page. At present, the article has no inline-references, misstates some information, and is written as a single, unbroken section. My draft includes citations to numerous independent, reliable sources verifying all of the information contained and slightly expands and re-organizes the article into a logical heading structure. This draft can be found in my user space, here: User:WWB_Too/WCSP-FM.

As a point of disclosure, I happen to work part-time with the C-SPAN communications team; they are aware of and have been supportive of my efforts to rework this article as well as a few others related to their network. I've disclosed this fully at every step and have received positive feedback from editors on other WikiProjects (Television and District of Columbia). Based on these successes, I'm inclined to implement the new version myself shortly. However, in case anyone here is interested in reviewing the draft and offering comments, I'll wait at least 24 hours before doing anything else with it. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good suggestions, all accepted. WWB Too (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox radio station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox broadcast. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A user has requested discussion about whether the article DYAJ is within Wikipedia's criteria for articles or whether it should be deleted. You are being notified since you created or contributed to this topic.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYAJ until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the criteria which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. You are encouraged to add useful evidence as well.

While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy. You may edit the article during the discussion, including improvements to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, you must not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

An editor has proposed eliminating the {{Infobox radio station}} template in favor of merging it into the television-centric {{Infobox broadcast}}. The discussion can be found here and should be ongoing for the next few days. - Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, in other words, see the section two above this one on this page. --Bsherr (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that one. Apologies for the duplication. - Dravecky (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Until Monday, December 20, all FCC links will be down per the following message on the FCC.gov website:

The normal FCC website and related electronic filing systems and documents (except for NORS) will be unavailable beginning 6:00 p.m. (EST) Friday, December 17 through 6:00 a.m. (EST) Monday, December 20 for scheduled maintenance.

This means all Radio links (FMQ and AMQ) and TV links (TVQ) will give you the following message:

Not Found The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page.

I recommend using http://cdbs.recnet.net:8080/fmq.php? for all queries, AM, FM and TV. Just cause it says "FMQ" doesn't mean it is just FM. Just put in the call sign and go. Has a nice little Google plot map too.

As for any links to applications or other FCC material, those are down for the duration.

Sorry for the inconvenience. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All links are back up and working. Thanks for the understanding. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)