Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2014

Westwood One Classic Country network AfD...

Heads up that Classic Country (radio network) could use a little help with sourcing because it's up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Country (radio network); I know the national automated networks are harder to source but I'd like to see this kept. Nate • (chatter) 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for input: The Monsters in the Morning

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monsters in the Morning (2nd_nomination). Please help generate discussion. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 12:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for input -- Template:Transmitter

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_10#Template:Transmitter. Please help generate discussion. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding article names

I am helping someone with a page for a historic radio station WVCX, which was on of the first radio stations in AFRTS. After WWII, the station shut down, and the call has since been reassigned. How should I name this article? Would "WVCX (Historical, Sitka AK.)" be acceptable?

Thanks, Name Omitted (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Typically we use the previous callsign and the word "defunct" for any stations that were previously on the air, in this case WVCX (defunct). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

The WINC (AM) article was promoted to Good Article Status on April 10 and I am looking for a peer review of the article whole prior to taking the article to FAC. Advice is also welcome. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Please see Talk:KLGO#Requested moves for a discussion relevant to this WikiProject, and in particular to Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Article naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Best to take the requested moves to WP:RM for a quicker resolution. As for the naming conventions, I wouldn't mess with those. Shitstorms happen when people bring up changes to those. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The requested moves are currently listed at WP:RM, that's what brought me here. But I thought the WikiProject would probably like to provide some input to them, and to the discussion there regarding the project's own naming convention. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

WTOB

There are 2 editors who keep putting unsourced info on this page. One (an IP address) appears to be trying to advertise some new regime change at the radio station and another one just seems to put in whatever they purport to know about the station, along with bad syntax. That user has a talk page and told them they need to source their info and what syntax needs to be corrected but they just keep putting it back. I've had to revert it several times and even think the reversion has info which is questionable (uncited, etc.).Stereorock (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Stereorock:: I took a look at the page and a bunch of the content was indeed unsourced. What was sourced either was a 404 error or the information wasn't in the source given. Some, of course, couldn't be checked. With the dubious other references, I removed those to be on the safe side.

I updated the infobox, added a sourced logo, updated the branding, website and webstream information. I also updated the lede. I have the article on my watchlist, so if any other problems arise, I can take care of them quickly. If you see any issues on other articles, please let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, @Neutralhomer:. One of the users also seems to edit a few other southeastern station, including WSMX. I'll compile a list.Stereorock (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WSMX is getting it too.Stereorock (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Took care of that one as well. Updated it with corrected and sourced information, even a webstream. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP user essentially reverted your WTOB edit today (June 4th) at 13:14Z (9:14 here). I reverted that and wrote a quick note to him on his talk page under your comment. If I had to guess, I'd say it's someone involved with the station somehow. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Radio Stations At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mexico station list reference templates

To ensure consistent updating of articles that cite Mexican CFT (now IFT) information, a new template has been created to ensure all articles have the latest IFT source: {{Mexico-inf|AM}} also has an FM first parameter ({{Mexico-inf|FM}}; each creates a preformatted citation. There is also a TV parameter for TV stations. Here's hoping it's useful to you. Raymie (t • c) 06:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WBOZ

WBOZ The Solid Gospil Station has merged with WFFI & WFFH, And as a result is now Simualcasting 94 FM The Fish. Is there anyway that WBOZ's Page can be merged with WFFI & WFFH's Page?

Sorry double entry still new to wikipedia.

Stations don't have to be merged into other stations that they've started simulcasting — rather, it's a case by case situation. For example, a station which has its own sourceable history of originating its own programming, and then converts into a rebroadcaster of another station later on, still has its own independent history of originating its own independent programming and thus usually gets to keep its own separate article. We redirect call signs to their programming source if they've only ever existed as rebroadcasters — unless the article proves completely unsourceable, we don't do so if the station has its own history as an originating broadcaster before being converted into a repeater. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Attention needed

I've just noticed the recent creation of two articles about radio stations in Arkansas, both of which are badly written and inconsistent with Wikipedia's style, formatting and referencing rules:

• KOSE
• KQXF

I'm willing to attempt some cleanup on them, but as I don't have nearly the same depth of knowledge about the US broadcasting system as I do the Canadian, I wanted to ask if anybody here could assist in expanding them beyond the very basic cleanup that I would be able to do. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I will try to find some time tomorrow for these two articles. Levdr1lp / talk 04:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for the record, I've converted both from their improper original format to basic stubs that properly follow our standard radio station "template" — though of course both still need some actual expansion and referencing improvements if possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Bearcat: and @Levdr1lostpassword:: I updated the pages in question with sourced infoboxes, ledes and other information. Correct categories and templates as well. Feel free to add to either page. I also updated the talk pages with project templates (within a shell) for WP:WPRS and WP:ARKANSAS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

US FCC North American Datum 1927 station coordinates causing mapping errors on worldwide mapping services

The US Federal Communication Commission lists station (transmitter) coordinates using the North American Datum 1927 (NAD27). These coordinates are being cited on many radio station pages, and they link to worldwide mapping services including Bing and Google Maps, which use the World Geodetic System 1984 datum (WGS84). NAD27 and WGS84 are not compatible. If coordinates based on NAD27 are mapped on these services, they won't be in the correct location. The error can be small - a few feet - or much larger depending on location. The North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) is compatible with WGS84. If the FCC's NAD27 coordinates cannot be converted to NAD83 and posted on Wikipedia pages without violating Wikipedia guidelines, I propose either:

1. Removing the hyperlink so transmitter coordinates do not link to worldwide mapping services, or

2. Including a note informing the user that the coordinates may contain a location error due to the datum shift.

I'm a new editor and still learning how things work here, but I'm also a geographer by trade and think I've found an underlying problem. I thought that converting the FCC's coordinates to NAD83 and posting those was ok but apparently not. A workaround is needed to solve this issue. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pageographer (talk • contribs)

This has come up once before. The FCC uses NAD27, we use the FCC documents with the NAD27 coords, for the main source of the radio station page. Until the FCC changes the version of the coords they use, we can't change them on the page. Reason being, the coord on the Wikipedia page will not be the same the FCC source, making it in violation of WP:OR and possible WP:V.

Removing the hyperlink is just silly. Those are used on each page and the coord link is part of the infobox. A note would have to be very small as most coord hyperlinks are in the infoboxes. Too big of a note will crowd the infobox.

If the note idea is used, I suggest a simple "(NAD 27)" at the end of the coords (minus the quotes) with a Wikilink to what that means. A bot would be needed to add this to each and every radio station page as doing this manually would take forever.

My personal opinion is we do nothing. Most radio geeks (myself included) know that the FCC uses NAD27 and that sometimes it is off by a couple feet. Plus, without corrected sources, all the pages will be OR with any "datum" change on Wiki. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Neutralhomer on this one. As a general rule, there's no particular reason why any Wikipedia user needs to know the exact location, right down to the millimetre, of a radio transmitter — the fact that the mapping tool gets close to the right location, even if it's technically off by a couple of feet at most, is sufficient for our purposes. Even if you have a geek-hobby of visiting radio transmitters for the sake of visiting radio transmitters, a few inches of discrepancy isn't going to interfere in any substantive way with finding the one you're looking for — the only discernible reason I can imagine why you'd need the map to pinpoint the exact correct coordinates of the transmitter would be if you're planning to launch an extragovernmental drone attack on the tower, and that's obviously not the kind of thing Wikipedia should be going out of our way to facilitate.

If this discrepancy were creating wild disjuncts of tens or hundreds or thousands of miles between the actual location and our mapping tools, then we'd certainly have an actionable problem — but if it's off by a mere handful of inches then there's no compelling reason to treat that as a major crisis. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Following up on Neutralhomer's and Bearcat's comments, I'll refer to this graphic: Datum Shift Between NAD27 and NAD83. In Indiana, for example, the shift is less than 10 meters--not too bad. On the east coast, however, the shift increases to 30-40 meters, and on most of the west coast, the shift is greater than 90 meters--almost the length of a football field. I agree that a few inches or a few feet off is fine, but something like half a football field or more off is not fine, especially if the station's facilities are co-located with those of several other stations in a tower farm.

I would like to suggest another solution. On many (but not all) radio and TV station pages at the FCC, the "Tower coordinates" are listed on the station's page in addition to the NAD27 coords. They're located below the section regarding ERP and antenna height. An example is here: "WQUE". These tower coords come from the FCC's Antenna Structure Registration database, and they are in NAD83. How about using those instead of the NAD27 coords, if they're available? Pageographer 08:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not the same location though. See the "Convert to NAD 27" page. 29°55'13.1" W 90°1'28.5" (in NAD83) converts to 29°55'12.36329" W 90°01'28.24587" N in NAD27. The official location of the WQUE tower is 29°55'11.00" N 90°01'29.00" W. Not the same. So, no, the Antenna Structure Registration database location wouldn't work as it isn't the same as the location on the FCC license.

According to the FCC, as of June 30th, 2014, there are...

• 15,425 commercial AM and FM and non-commerical FM stations
• 1,782 full power television stations
• 432 Class-A television stations
• 6,141 FM translators
• 3,838 television translators
• 2,028 low power television stations
• 814 low power FM stations

In total, there are 30,460 total broadcast stations in the US. If the Antenna Structure Registration database coordinates did match up to the FCC license coordinates, each and every single page (nearly 31,000 of them) would have to be updated....manually. Couldn't have a bot do this, it would have to be done by hand.

WP:WPRS has four full time editors, User:Bearcat, User:Dravecky, User:Mlaffs and myself. Even if we all worked together at the same time, we would be at it for weeks. Again, that is if the Antenna Structure Registration database coordinates did match up to the FCC license coordinates.

As Bearcat said above, a few inches or a few feet isn't that big of a difference and your idea just isn't do-able. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Coverage Maps of radio stations

Every radio station article should include their coverage maps. Mr. Slinks (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really necessary. Two of the three external links (FCC and Radio-Locator) contain coverage maps. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Under the copyright rules that apply to Wikipedia, we could not simply grab or screenshot any map that already exists on another website — rather, we'd have to create our own new map each time. Sure, it would be a nice thing to have, if we had infinite time and resources to get that done, but unfortunately both WPRS and the mapping project are significantly "understaffed" and have much bigger priorities to deal with. Making new coverage maps, when many of the directories we already use as external links already offer their own versions as it is, isn't a project we can prioritize with the resources we actually have, especially when many radio station articles still don't even have very much substantive or properly sourced text content about the station's history and programming (which is a much more important use of our time and energy.)

The other problem with coverage maps is that they're approximations, derived by taking the station's technical parameters and extrapolating assumptions about how it's actually going to propagate. So right off the top, they're not always exactly correct to begin with — and further, climate and weather conditions and other factors can frequently cause significant shifts in a radio station's coverage area (extending beyond the usual limits, signal borking inside the usual limits, etc.) They don't result from any technology that actually measures the exact broadcast range of any signal; they're generic estimates that may or may not actually correspond to reality. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Clear Channel Communications changes to iHeartMedia, Inc

As of today, Clear Channel Communications is now known as iHeartMedia, Inc.. With that comes the change in the ownership names of many radio stations under that company's portfolio. So far, I've managed to update many station articles in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (my market), Los Angeles, Chicago, San Antonio, Austin, and Jackson, MS. But I'm not gonna get to every Clear Channel/iHeartMedia-owned station in each market, so I'll be needing everyone's help. In the template under "owner", replace "Clear Channel Communications" (or similarly worded) to "iHeartMedia, Inc." and on the page summary, type in "The station is owned by iHeartMedia, Inc. (formerly Clear Channel Communications until September 2014)" or put your own wording in there.

Thanks for your time!

Mbrstooge (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Clear Channel radio stations rename discussion

Please consider providing input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_20#Category:Clear_Channel_radio_stations. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 08:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion closed, new category created, and all the articles recategorized. Solid gnoming opportunity. Mlaffs (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work to all involved! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for input

Template talk:Sandusky Radio#Request move

Levdr1lp / talk 01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I overlooked a recent merger proposal for KCAM (AM) when it came up. The nature of the proposal is along the lines of an issue I've previously brought to the attention of this project. Unless we're content to push the POV that the FCC license is the only thing which is notable, something which I doubt the average radio listener would at all agree with, I see no reason to have multiple stubs and a dab page to cover a singular broadcasting entity simply because they hold multiple licenses. If extenuating circumstances exist which suggest or confirm independent notability, AND someone is willing to expand the article to reflect that, I see no reason to object to having a separate article. As it currently stands, we have lots of subpar content floating about may reflect the opinion of an editor or editors, but doesn't necessarily reflect reality. The discussion can be found at Talk:KCAM (AM)#Merger proposal. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For the dab pages, that would have to go through Wikipedia:Disambiguation. As it stands, their rules say we have to have a dab page for both. Plus, it avoids confusion.

As for the radio station pages themselves, I can work on them, but it will take me some time. Currently, my left hand is working at about 80% after carpal tunnel surgery. Plus, each page takes about 2 to 3 days to come together with the research, breaks to rest my hand (doctor's orders) and such.

But for the notability aspect, you would need to get consensus to change that. There is long-standing established consensus that radio stations are notable, per WP:NMEDIA and WP:OUTCOME. Not to mention the numerous AfDs and ANI discussions (no, I'm not going to look for them) all of which back that consensus up.

If you want to help, instead of creating a massive discussion which crosses WP:DISAMBIG, WP:TVS and this WikiProject, find an article, use some of the available resources and work on getting these articles up to par. Remember, WP:BURDEN. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is WMMA notbale?

I am confused is WMMA a notable radio station if not I think the word WMMA should be merged to Women's mixed martial arts as it is a used acronym to describe Women's MMA. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, all licensed radio stations are inherently notable.Stereorock (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Stereorock is right, they are. But if they simulcast a main station's programming 24/7, like it appears WMMA does, then it should be redirected to the main station page. In this cast, that would be Relevant Radio.

I'm waiting on an important phone call, but once I'm done, I will work on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I get a merge

WRAP-AM (Norfolk) should be merged into WTAR because it's the same license & because the former's title violates our naming method (as we go with the given FCC callsign & no AM station is assigned an -AM suffix). How do I go about getting the merger? Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WRAP-AM (Norfolk) is about a former version of what is now WTAR. Though, I agree, the information on the WRAP page could be condensed and merged into the WTAR page as part of a "History" section. Let me ping @Mlaffs: and @Dravecky: and see if they can work their magic on the merge. I will give the WTAR page a fresh update. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Fresh update to the WTAR page including an updated infobox, updated links, information, templates and logo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I already had merging these two articles on a list of stuff to do "someday". I'm in the middle of another project right now but if nobody gets to it before me, it's noted! Mlaffs (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That'll work! No real rush here, so whenever you get around to it (unless someone else does). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Naming conventions for radio stations

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Naming conventions for radio stations. The discussion is limited to those who contribute to the articles related to Philippine radio stations. Thanks. Theenjay36 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dig Radio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dig Radio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dig Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theenjay36 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Westwood One (1976–2011) links

Westwood One recently became a disambiguation page, so I retargeted all of the incoming links to that page to Westwood One (1976–2011) (because that article had previously been located at this title. It has been pointed out to me that some of these may intend the Westwood One (current) article. I would appreciate if those in the know would check the incoming links to Westwood One (1976–2011) and correct any that should be pointing to Westwood One (current). Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WTOB

2 different I.P. address editors keep adding things to the WTOB page which appear to possibly violate WP:OR as well as advertising & neutrality. These 2 I.P. editors seem to downplay previous management (1 even deleted the person's name) & play up the current management.Stereorock (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Mexico AM-FM conversions

Mexico has had many AM stations change to FM.

In the process, all of them have undergone callsign changes. Examples: XECK-AM -> XHCK-FM; XERU-AM -> XHERU-FM.

There are many articles to be moved and the move should probably happen sooner rather than later especially if the AM is no longer listed in the AM source of Template:Mexico-inf. Raymie (t • c) 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some important notes for those working on Mexico station articles:

• Migrating stations change their callsigns. Examples: XERF-AM to XHRF-FM; XEMIT-AM to XHEMIT-FM. Note that not all changes simply change out the E for an H but may add an E for disambiguation purposes.

• New articles on migrating stations should be made at the FM callsign name (as with XHEMIT), and old articles should be moved (as with XHRF). Most stations promote FM as their primary, and the use of dual simulcasting frequencies must be temporary before the station turns off its AM frequency.

• Technical parameters (particularly ERP) are available from the IFT's data sheets. Make sure to check the FM sheet for possible odd callsigns. Note that names of some concessionaires and permit holders maintain the old callsigns.

• Some new disambiguation pages will be necessary where a callsign change means it has the same calls as an unrelated TV station, such as XHLAC or XHWX.

• Templates, and often articles, are horribly out of date in regard to migrations and potential new stations. Use the IFT data sheets first. Raymie (t • c) 08:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)