Talk:KCTY (Kansas City)

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KCTY (defunct). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct television station disambiguator changes[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: This discussion, contrary to the RfC, does not find a consensus to move these articles. Therefore will refer this back to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting) for further discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– This RM follows from a recently concluded RfC. It proposes 13 page moves to change (defunct) disambiguators to more specific ones for television station articles in the United States.

In the WHDH-TV case, year disambiguation is a must given the reuse of the callsign for another Boston TV station. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The changes don't indicate that the station is no longer around, & look like they could be for an active station. At current, only a further delineation is needed if 1 or more stations have used the same callsign, like WRAP.Stereorock (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, bad idea and confusing. Location-based hatnotes are for disambiguation...the WHDH one could be acceptable, but that's because the callsign is shared with another TV station. Xenon54 (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stereorock and Xenon54: My response to both of these would be rooted in the RfC. I particularly appreciated this comment from SMcCandlish in the RfC: Note that we don't have bio articles named things like "Xerxes Y. Zounds (deceased)", or company articles like "XYZ Corporation (defunct)", or bands like "The Primitives (disbanded)", or a product like "ABC Biscuits (discontinued)". A search for articles using (defunct) as a disambiguator is primarily turning up radio and TV station articles. That finding correlates with the comment by SounderBruce that kick-started this whole process last month in one of my DYK nominations: I didn't realize how many articles are breaking the normal conventions for disambiguation...it definitely needs to be addressed at the project level.
    If I were to have articles "John Q. Public" and "John Q. Public (deceased)", those titles are not as useful for disambiguation as "John Q. Public (painter)" and "John Q. Public (politician)". This is a similar change to that one. Raymie (t • c) 19:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xenon54 and Raymie:Broadcasting stations are different. The callsigns get reused, whereas “XYZ Corporation” may not be. WHDH-TV/5 is defunct, and operated on a separate license from WCVB-TV, & the current WHDH/7. Similarly, WHDH aid a different license from WNAC-TV in Boston, which is also different from the current WNAC-TV in Providence. Having WNAC-TV (Boston) & WNAC-TV as separate articles could imply that there are 2 currently-operating stations with the callsign WNAC-TV! No, marking defunct stations as defunct is the clearest way to denote that fact & that the station no longer operates, & therefore is not the same as the current holder of the callsign. What you’re suggesting just creates further confusion & muddying of the waters, so to speak.Stereorock (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous consensus discussion. The above opposes are sorely confused. WP does not indicate in article titles whether something is current, new, extinct, obsolete, dead, active, retired, a lost work, or any other such temporal notion. Ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish:Comment We oppose commentors are not confused. Radio & Television stations have a finite number of callsigns available, some of which get re-used on different stations in the same geographic location. This is not the same as "The New York Metropolitans" & "New York Mets", for example, which are 2 separate teams in 2 separate centuries using the same nickname, for example. Each U.S. broadcasting station has a callsign issued to it by the F.C.C., which "owns" the callsign, & can reissue it whenever the old station gives it up, either through a callsign change, or going off the air. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between a current callsign holder & a defunct station which held the same callsign, if that callsign is in current use. If no station has taken a callsign since when the previous holder gave up that callsign, the "(defunct)" doesn't have to be added.
    All callsigns may be "current" in that they can all be issued by the F.C.C., and this is important to consider when discussing this issue. This is what the "consensus" doesn't take into account in this situation. When discussing WXKW, there were 2 unrelated stations in the past which used it in the Albany area, neither of which is current, so the callsign WXKW can be reissued, and in fact exists in Key West. It therefore becomes necessary to indicate that these old stations are defunct because the callsign has been reissued. Otherwise, there arises the need to created 2 separate articles, one based on the 1948-53 WXKW, & another based on the 1961-6 incarnation. They were both in the Albany area. Adding (defunct) is a cleaner, easier method of article naming.
    One final word about consensus: I do not know of any other members of WP:WPRS, or its equivalent T.V. articles who were made aware of this discussion, apart from Raymie (if Raymie is a member of the TV group, I do not know. It appears Raymie isn't in WP:WPRS). Therefore, I put forward that the consensus isn't valid as we were not made aware of this discussion, and could have provided input then.Stereorock (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of things have a limited, prescribed number a names available to them, and we still do not disambiguate them with temporally specific labelling. It just is not done here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because "it's not done elsewhere" doesn't mean that this isn't the right way to do it here. We have been doing it this way for over a decade. It works. There is no need to change it. Might I add that I did not see any note of the RfC on the WP:WPRS talk page, meaning the "consensus" is invalid as it was not made known to the appropriate groups.Stereorock (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional: as noted below, changing it to (community) creates an impression to a less-knowledgeable user that the current callsign holder is being heard in another city. There are several active stations calling themselves "WEEI", for example, but the only actual WEEI is on 850 kHz in Boston, and WEEI-FM is on 93.7 MHz at Lawrence, Massachusetts. WVEI & WVEI-FM are not WEEI, but call themsleves that. Changing defunct stations to the community methodology may create confusion that a defunct station is relaying an active station. Also, the F.C.C. does differentiate defunct stations by adding a leading D in front of the callsigns (at least in stations listed in the CDBS.)Stereorock (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. This amounts to a "consensus is wrong, dammit!" argument. If the community has already decided we do not disambiguate this way, an argument that it should do so after all is a day late and a dollar short. You're welcome to make a proposal to change it, at WT:DAB, or WT:AT, or WP:VPPRO, but trying to change it one article at a time is not constructive (it has WP:CONLEVEL and WP:FAITACCOMPLI issues). Just because you can think of a rationale for using such disambiguation doesn't magically mean it trumps all the rationales for not doing it. No one said the idea was stupid or crazy; it's simply outweighed by other concerns. If it weren't, we'd've been disambiguating this way from the start, across innumerable topics. The "well, we've been doing it with these articles for a long time" argument someone made is bogus, per WP:CONTENTAGE. Lots of wikiprojects on subjects of narrow interest do unhelpful things that end up being reversed years later after sufficient numbers of disinterested editors notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish:Two communities have decided that (defunct) is the way to go, because it is sufficient for our needs: the radio projects, and the television projects. Quite simply, the convention used elsewhere is insufficient for the needs of these projects. Our way of doing this has a good amount of uniformity, as usually it gets changed when another station takes the callsign of a defunct station, but this is not always the case. I am in favor of it always being the case when a station signs off permanently, but that is another issue. You say that the "we've done it this way for a long time" argument is bogus, but also say that "If it weren't, we'd've been disambiguating this way from the start, across innumberable projects". So, it's not O.K. to do something for a long time in one scenario, but it is O.K. in another scenario? I have no problem with "smaller" groups doing things a little differently, because maybe those editors know nuances about the topic, that "disinterested" editors do not. If the baseball project wants to call the article on the New York Metropolitans "New York Metropolitans (defunct)", or "New York Metropolitans (19th century baseball team)", or something else, then they should. I don't think this requires a change, because what should be happening, as I see it, is that Wikipedia, as a whole, can have these MOS rules, but exceptions should be made by the community when the stated rules do not suffice, as they don't here; and more importantly, the community as a whole should be able to see that, take a step back, and say "OK, I see what they're going for here. This is good." The point is that (defunct) does not violate the spirit, but in fact is the cleanest, clearest, method of disambiguation in these cases, so it should remain, and be used. Other oppose commentors & I have illustrated in which ways other methods are not conducive to understanding an article via its title. To boil this all down: one size does not fit all.
    On a final, personal, note, I commend you for your double contraction "We'd've". I've not seen such a thing before, but like it!Stereorock (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiprojects are not "communities". They have absolutely no authority to dictate anything to other editors, and cannot override side-wide WP:P&G. See WP:CONLEVEL policy and various ArbCom cases. WikiProject are simply pages at which editors with shared interests meet to collaborate on content. That are resources, not authorities. "We'd've" is rather colloquial, I suppose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—as noted, this sort of disambiguation is just not done here for other subjects, and this case doesn't warrant an exception. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this has been done this way for over a decade, and the RfC was not made known to either the Radio Stations nor TV Stations project that I can find, skewing the results. The way we label articles simply works, and works well.Stereorock (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No good reason to treat stations differently fron anything else. older ≠ wiser 09:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, as station callsigns are not merely names, but callsign issued by the government, which is the entity that "owns" callsigns. The stations themselves operate under a license, and own the physical assets, but not the frequency nor the callsign. If this were a case of naming by the station name, like "Z100 (New Jersey)" & "Z100 (Portland, Oregon)", that would be one thing. Those companies own that intellectual property, but the callsigns WHTZ & KKRZ are not. In that sense, the callsigns are never officially retired, and can be reused, so there must be a differentiation made between the active station using that callsign, & any inactive stations. The only times that is currently deviated from is if more than one defunct station used the call, like in the case of WRAP (Orlando, Florida-area station in the 1920s vs. the Norfolk, Virginia-area WRAP). With how many stations came on the air & went off in the 1920s, changing the current naming convention would create issues. I maintain that the current system is best.Stereorock (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support. The proposal is a good implementation of the RfC's consensus and matches other areas of Wikipedia. WXKW (defunct) is unusual because it describes two former stations using those letters at different times. As the topic is the radio stations rather than their callsign, it should probably be split into one article per topic, called WXKW (1948–1953) and WXKW (1961–1966) or just WXKW (1948) and WXKW (1961). In fact, we should consider qualifying all these titles by date rather than place, as dates are unambiguous and future-proof. We might also modify WHDH's title to WHDH-TV (1957–1972) per MOS:DATERANGE, or just WHDH-TV (1957). Certes (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I say the RfC is invalid because there was no notice made to the Radio Stations nor T.V. stations projects' pages, that I can find. There is no good reason to change it because (defunct) has been done this way for over a decade, it works, and callsigns may be reissued necessitating the need to differentiate a defunct station from one currently using a callsign. There may also be a problem with using (C.o.L.) after the callsign as more than one station licensed to the same municipality can use the same callsign. Even (date) could be ambiguous if 2 defunct stations used the same callsign within the same year.Stereorock (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Another exception to the above WXKW case: WFCI. WFCI was the callsign on 2 separate stations at Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which had the same owner, but existed at different times. The first one was in existence circa 1927-32, & again from 1941-1954. There are 2 distinct separate licenses for these stations, but are covered at WFCI (defunct) because of the common callsign & owner. One could argue that the second station was a continuation of the first, in a sense, but as far as the F.C.C. is concerned, these are 2 separate licenses.Stereorock (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The problem with "(defunct)" is that it places all the emphasis on what is past vs. what is current. As an encyclopedia, and not a guide to current FCC call signs, there should not be a presumption that subjects which are no longer around are less notable than ones that are. Also, there is an inherent contradiction regarding scope. If the subject of the article is a station, "(defunct)" does not adequately distinguish former stations from each other - both the location and years might be necessary to do so in some cases. (If the subject were the callsign, there would be no reason to separate the current incarnation from the former incarnations. But as the stations have nothing in common other than an arbitrarily assigned callsign, I don't think that is an appropriate scope.)--Trystan (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is there a presumption that a defunct station is less notable than the current holder of a callsign? In some instances, the defunct station may be more notable than the current callsign holder, but the current callsign holder is the current callsign holder. When the callsign changes, the article changes with it. There is more chance for confusion by putting in a community of license than defunct because it makes it look like there are 2 holders of that particular callsign! At least with (defunct), there is a differentiation being made. In the instance of 2 or more defunct stations with the same callsign, only then does a need arise to add another modifier, like years of operation or community of license. No, Wikipedia is not a guide to callsigns, but for stations that are licensed by their regulatory authorities, that is how we name their pages. There is so much misconception about callsigns that Wikipedia should follow the regulatory authorities' methods; for instance, there are not 2 WPROs in Providence, R.I.. WPRO is the A.M. station whereas WPRO-FM is the F.M. station. We add (AM) to WPRO's call for the article as there is a need. However, if there is an earlier, defunct, WPRO, your average Joe could think that WPRO is being relayed in another city today. That is another problem with the proposed changes: it makes defunct stations' articles look like active stations.Stereorock (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not the job of the disambiguator to convey if something no longer exists. The lead sentence should clarify that. If the former station is the primary topic, it wouldn’t have a disambiguator at all, only the newer one would.--Trystan (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Qualifying by date range rather than location should convey the closure to even the most average of Joes. We might also create redirects from KABC (Place) to aid searching. Certes (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If we did end up changing this, I like your date suggestion over the by-community suggestion.Stereorock (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I am neutral as to whether there is a better alternative to using "defunct" as a disambiguator. However, I strongly oppose qualifying by date range. The articles for defunct stations, as with currently operating stations should be about the station's entire history, regardless of how many call signs it has had, with very few exceptions. As such, in order to properly convey what the article is about, the date range should include the station's entire history of operation. If this method was used there could be overlap with other stations that held the call sign used as the article's title within that period, making it rather confusing for readers. Using only the years the station held the call sign used as the title is even more problematic, as creates the false impression that the article is about the period the station held that call sign, rather than about the entire history of the station, leading readers and editors alike to believe that the main content of the article should be confined to the history of the station that is within those years. It effectively changes the article's subject in the minds of many of the readers. If a defunct station only held one call sign during its entire years of operation this would not be a problem, but there should be one consistent method for dealing with defunct stations.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I am in favor of keeping the naming methodology as-is, as it works. If it's one defunct station, it gets (defunct). If it's 2 or more, then it gets a (community) or variation thereof.Stereorock (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That simply proves that other disambiguation is readily available, and we thus have no need to apply "(defunct)" to this category – alone of all categories – as if it were mystically special.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other methods, but they're not necessarily better. What we have currently is the best option for us, and what we, as the radio/TV projects, have developed for over a decade.Stereorock (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeat: The community has a strong consensus (for over a decade on almost all points, including this one) on how to disambiguate things. Ergo it is better, unless and until you convince the community otherwise. You've been pointed twice already at where and how to propose changes to the disambiguation guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this something that is codified? I haven't found that yet. As for the what was vs. what is argument above, (defunct) tells what it is: the station is currently defunct.Stereorock (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern: I can't find a 13-page RfC, nor was this change brought up on the WP:WPRS nor TV pages, and should be.Stereorock (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The radio station discussion on this same issue is here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28 on April 4, 2019 (UTC)
    Because there are 2 discussions happening, I don't think consensus can be reached on one page & not the other. This should all be on a single, separate, page.Stereorock (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is actually being carried out on four different talk pages with different proposed alternative disambiguation methods. I agree that a consensus should be reached on one page on whether the pages should be renamed at all and on what if any alternative method should be used. However, there are specific problems with some of the current and proposed titles, and nominating so many pages to be moved all at once has resulted in those problems being overlooked in these discussions. A general consensus should be reached first. Then, if that consensus is in favor of renaming, a consensus should be reached for each station individually.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tdl1060: I am going to straight up admit that dividing the RfC into what seemed like more manageable pieces fragmented the discussion, and I apologize. I also realize I failed to advertise the RfC adequately in the issue area, which resulted in a very striking dichotomy. (This was just the third RfC I had ever made, after one on a style topic and another on schools, and I learned a valuable lesson.) The RfC attracted editors from outside broadcasting, and they supported the move. The RM discussions have attracted the topic editors, who are very much opposed, and only now are we starting to see editors who are not specialized in broadcasting come in. Had I understood that the WikiProjects probably should have been formally notified, we might not be here right now, and I apologize for not doing that. Raymie (t • c) 07:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raymie: Since we have multiple discussions in play, none can truly come to a binding conclusion. We are going to have a support for the change here and an oppose for the change over at WPRS. We have competing decisions. I move that we close all discussions, cancel all !votes, move the discussions to a neutral place, and start over. Alert everyone who has participated in all discussions of this and start over with that discussion and only that discussion being the binding discussion on this change and decision. If not, we are going to have a BIG mess on our hands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:31 on April 5, 2019 (UTC)
    @Raymie:@Neutralhomer:Agreed. That there are 4 separate discussions is quite a mess. I too vote to close all discussions, cancel all votes, & move discussions to a neutral place.Stereorock (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: Having these pages with current-like callsigns makes the reader thing the station is still active. The word "defunct" clearly states the station is no longer on the air. If there are two stations with the same callsign and each is defunct, then the callsign and city and state can come into play. But when it's just one callsign it's silly and a bad idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:29 on April 4, 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with Neutralhomer (talk · contribs)'s statement.Stereorock (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indicating the active/alive/current versus inactive/dead/defunct status of a subject is not the purpose or part of the purpose of our article titles; that's the job of the article content. How you can you (plural) not already be aware of this? Do you not notice that we do not have article titles like "Jasper Wood (deceased)" and "The High Life (canceled TV series)" and "Albania (former satrapy)"? It's not how we disambiguate – we use "(photographer)" and "(1996 TV series)" and simply "(satrapy)", respectively. When we need to disambiguate further we add a detail, e.g. "(TV series)" → "(1996 TV series)"; we don't add "currentness" status. If there'd been two satrapies named Albania and one still existed, the historical one would would be at "Albania (Sassanid satrapy)", not "Albania (former satrapy)".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish:In the case of a person, there are several instances of different people with the same name in Wikipedia, but in different fields, so most likely we wouldn't used (deceased) as the modifier because of the sheer number of people involved. John Smith (pilgrim) is different from John Smith (Man in the High Castle), who is different from John Smith (publisher), who is different from John Smith (footballer), who is different from John Smith (American Football player), etc.. Similarly, with callsigns, we only move from (defunct) when there are 2 or more defunct stations with the same callsign. Going back to the name analogy, there are probably a lot more people with a given name than callsigns, and people know this, so sorting them the way we do makes sense, but does not translate over to stations because there may be a handful of instances where a callsign has been used on a station. Sometimes the callsign isn't the most thought-of-by-the-public callsign, but one in the middle of the pack (remember stations can change callsigns at will). Station WHRN became WOHN, before signing off with WVBK, but would probably show up as "WOHN (defunct)" because, if DCRTV article is to be believed, it is the most remembered out of the 3 callsigns. Anyway, WOHN (Herndon, Virginia), & WOHN (19XX radio station) become cumbersome, especially if a station in the same community takes the callsign. As for disambiguating by place, we then have the added question of "do we sort by community of license or by market?" All changing the current method does is bring up more questions, which don't need to be asked.Stereorock (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just repeat this until it sinks in.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMcCandlish.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, because something is "not done here", doesn't make it the right way to do it. The best way to do it is how it is being done.Stereorock (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then make a WP:PROPOSAL at WT:DAB to change our disambiguation rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why have subcommunities if we have to get permission from the community as a whole? I can imagine an RfC about callsigns where the community at large votes to give all F.C.C.-licensed A.M. stations -AM suffixes, when in fact the F.C.C. doesn't issue such things. It's not something that is widely known, but we in WP:WPRS have held for a long time (predating my Wikipedia involvement 13 years ago) that we label the article as the country's regulator does (in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and a few other countries). For the Mexican articles, all A.M. stations are given -AM suffixes because that's what CoFeTel does; similarly, Industry Canada gives all F.M. stations (with the exception of VF stations) -FM suffixes, and so we have named the articles according. But, the F.C.C. is different, and we name them as they do, which may not be how the populce at large would, or even Wikipedia as a whole (for instance, WHJY is WHJY, not WHJY-FM). So, if we're not allowed to operate with autonomy and as we see fit, then why have any subgroups?Stereorock (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because wikiprojects are not "subcommunities"; they're just pages for getting the work done among people who care about a topic enough to focus some [maybe even all] their time here on it. They're not for making up their own rules, creating good ol' boys' clubs, serving as a form of social networking, or otherwise being any kind of barrier to entry, variance (much less defiance) generator, or other walled garden. The job of a wikiproject, really, is to make topical content fit as perfectly as possible into Wikipedia, not make it stand out as something uniquely different from the rest of the encyclopedia. Basically, wikiprojects are nothing at all like Subreddits, topical boards on Facebook, or the topical wikis on Fandom (formerly Wikia). You're question's a bit like asking, "So, what's the point in Chevrolet hiring us for this regional branch and factory in Tennessee if we don't get to make up our own minds, to produce toasters and skateboards instead of Chevrolet vehicles?"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Changing my position from neutral to oppose. The current method of disambiguation works fine. Defunct is a useful disambiguator for TV and radio stations. Whether is is useful for other kinds of articles is irrelevant. I am open to an alternative if one can be found that could be consistently applied across articles. As it stands, none of the proposed alternatives can be consistently applied to the articles on defunct stations, and there is no consensus support for any of them.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMcCandlish. There is no need for custom title conventions for this or any area of articles except for when disambiguation is necessary. Even then we follow WP:D unless that's inadequate. In this case it is quite adequate. --В²C ☎ 03:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Born2cycle:There is a need for a custom title convention in this case, because as explained above, radio stations' callsigns get recycled. Hell, there is one station that's had about 16 callsign changes in about as many years (WLRI-LP). There has to be a differentiation between the one active station using a callsign (because callsigns may consist of more than just the "base" 3 or 4 letters (i.e.: WLRI-LP doesn't prohibit another station from becoming base WLRI). Adding (defunct) is the cleanest, easiest way to put across that the article on said station is about a former station. Sometimes, the article is about the intellectual property which several stations may have shared over the years. I can see arguing in favor of a moniker being disambiguated by community (there are "Z100"s in the New York metro area; the Portland, Or. metro area; a few defunct ones as well). Simply put, the RfC, and the disambiguation used elsewhere, is insufficient for needs here. One size does not fit all.Stereorock (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, no one cares but you and a handful of other people. Everyone else understands that if WXYZ is used in 1997 by a station in Poughkeepsie, and in 2005 by another in Boston, and in 2015 by another in College Park, that they'll be disambiguated by location. Whether any particular one of them is active this month is a matter for the article content, not the title. If it changes as frequently as you suggest, then we need to be able to simply fix the text in the article, not have RM after RM after RM moving these articles around to reflect a constantly changing "landscape" of callsign usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, per SMcCandlish. Or if you prefer, there has doesn't have to be a differentiation between the one active station using a callsign... The closest analogy I can think of right now is names of people. We don't change their disambiguator when they die. Look at the list of people named John Smith, for example. Even though many if not most are no longer with us, not a single one is disambiguated with "(defunct)", "(deceased)", "(RIP)", or anything like that. It's not necessary to distinguish active from inactive people, even though their names get reused. Why do you think it is for call signs? --В²C ☎ 00:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny you mention John Smith, as I made mention of that very name above. Please see above in the chain of Neutralhomer's opposition.Stereorock (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! Okay. So what's the convention if a callsign has been used multiple times. Say 4 inactive and 1 active. You have 4 disambiguated as defunct? But they need further disambiguation anyway. So why leave the defunct? --В²C ☎ 01:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I have seen, it varies article-to-article. For example, the histories of the 2 WXKWs in the Albany area have been combined into WXKW (defunct) as they were both in the same market, and are both defunct; The stations were not separately given their own articles. On the other hand, WPEP was the last station to use the callsign, so no modifier at all has been made. Short answer is: it has varied station-by-station on whether or not there has been a need to disambiguate it from another station. In the case of WHIM, there is the page about the intellectual property of the old country station in the Providence area, plus 2 former holders of the callsign &, I believe, a redlink of the current WHIM-LP. As for WRAP, there is the old Florida station WRAP, which is defunct, the intellectual property of the Tidewater-area WRAP (Norfolk) (which was on 2 different still-active stations: A.M. 850 & 1350) (there was also a page of the same material: WRAP-AM (Norfolk), which violates the callsign pattern of the F.C.C., & was made into a redirect), & the current WRAP-LP. This clearly hasn't been codified, & has essentially been left up to the editor creating the page. In the case of historic WRAP in the Tidewater area, (Tidewater) would be much better versus (Norfolk), as this could be a different Norfolk (like Massachusetts, for example). But, from what I've gathered, if there is no conflict with another station, it stays as-is; if there is a conflict with only 1 other station, & the callsign is active, the older station gets (defunct); if there are 2 or more stations in the same region that used the same callsign & are defunct, they may be combined & (defunct) added; if there are 2 or more stations that are defunct & not in the same area, the articles have been disambiguated by location with the understanding being that the simple fact that there is a modifier means the stations are no longer active. This is not ideal, however, as it could cause confusion. Sorry as that is the best answer that I can give, as there is no explicit codification, as far as I know.Stereorock (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I used different wording but also addressed this the other day [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as explained by others. No good reason to not follow normal method of disambiguation. MB 02:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, other methods create more problems than ones they "solve".Stereorock (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:KCLA (defunct) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 01:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - dinging ALT1, but ALT0 is good :)
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Nice job, Sammi Brie! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KCTY_(Kansas_City)&oldid=1200836176"