Talk:Rhythmic oldies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

R&B and Soul Music

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Big excuse for a list[edit]

Consider for deletion. The only thing justifying this page being separate from Adult contemporary music is a very long list of songs. The actual text is too small in comparison and lacks significant information or any example stations.Slithymatt 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are two completely differnt formats. Oppose. --ChrisP2K5 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it[edit]

I remember the "Jammin' Oldies" format. I somehow ended up here when I wanted to do research on it. And I remembered one of its stations. So I started doing research that a certain package at this library made easier--and free.

I'm not finished.Vchimpanzee 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me return to the real world now, okay? I've got other things to do than sit at the computer. I'm sure that with what I've started, others can come along and do more. This isn't even my computer.Vchimpanzee 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the reason for the Washington, D. C. bias--I go to several libraries that get the Post. They get the New York Times too but I really only look at the comics and TV and radio in the Post. It was because I found out I could read Art Buchwald there that I got started. Anyone is welcome to add to the article and make it less D. C.-centric.

And the format is OLDIES, not adult contemporary.Vchimpanzee 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at another library. And my time is limited here. Just a thought: someone (or several people) wrote an article on oldies that includes classic hits but says virtually nothing about that format. Perhaps if it's ABSOLUTELY necessary to move this one it can be added to that one.Vchimpanzee 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back at work now. I'm trying another set of sources at the library where I was working on this last week. Hopefully I'll have better results. Vchimpanzee (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm tired. This has been a lot of work. I know the article is far from complete and it's still probably a mess. I'm having a difficult time finding sources.Vchimpanzee (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, one more thing. I didn't put the sources at the end in the proper form. I know that. It's enough work finding the sources, and I just try to put what is there at the top of the page of the source in the correct order.Vchimpanzee (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of something else. Under "urban contemporary" there is a section called "urban oldies" which I linked to, but it seems to refer to this format. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect but I have no desire to go fix that.

And some people may be aware there is a "rhythmic oldies" format in use today. Give me time and I'll go beyond the year 2001.Vchimpanzee (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few new details while I was fixing another article and discovered some stuff I could add here. No luck finding recent history for the format.

I know the format of my references needs cleaning up. Since I did the hard work, can someone else go behind me and make my references look good?Vchimpanzee (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not having much luck. I found something wonderful, and it turned out to be from 2000. Oh, well.Vchimpanzee 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. I did find another article about the format, from 2002. The format is pretty much dead at this point. And I'm tired of this. This library will no longer be open after today as they install new carpet. A crew has been here all afternoon putting together boxes to put the shelves and books in. Very noisy, which is appropriate for this format. I think others should take over at this point. There are other libraries where I can access this information, but why is it my problem? This article is no longer a candidate for merger in the opinion of anyone reasonable.Vchimpanzee 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot. I went to another library today where I could have done more here, but I didn't.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I did a lot of work here[edit]

And I'm not letting it be deleted.

This format does not belong under "adult contemporary". Neither does "urban adult contemporary". Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]