Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2018

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

Sirius/XM channels

Earlier today, User:Zacharycook597 proposed several pagemoves of channels on the Sirius/XM platform. In two of the four discussions, at Talk:SiriusXM Hits 1 and Talk:The Highway (Sirius XM), his entire rationale consisted of the single word "revision" without actually providing a reason why a revision was needed — but more importantly the other two, at Talk:Sirius XM Pops and Talk:SiriusXM Love, are effectively in conflict with each other, as on Pops he's proposing removing the space between Sirius and XM from a title that has it, and on Love he's proposing adding a space between Sirius and XM to a title that doesn't have it.

I've asked him to hold off on proposing any more page moves for the moment, but there's obviously a consistency problem that needs to be looked at here: should the titles of Sirius/XM channels have a space between Sirius and XM, or should they not? As things stand right now, most have the space but there are several that don't — so either way, we need to review whether it should be with space or without, and move the outliers.

I also question whether we still need to hold on to separate categories for Category:Sirius Satellite Radio channels and Category:XM Satellite Radio channels anymore, but I don't want to initiate a CFM discussion on them until it's clear whether the merge target should be "SiriusXM" or "Sirius XM". Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the company copyright, the company is "Sirius XM Radio Inc." So, while it is written "SiriusXM" (in the logo), it is "Sirius XM" and that's how it should stand. Since Sirius XM has been a combined platform for awhile now, I don't see the reason for seperate categories. They should be merged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:07 on January 15, 2018 (UTC)
While I agree with Neutralhomer's statement regarding the space in "Sirius XM", I disagree regarding the categories. From my understanding, although the companies have merged, there are still differences in the channel lineup depending on whether you have an XM radio or a Sirius radio, as can be seen by comparing the XM channel guide with the Sirius channel guide (last updated "October 12, 2017" according to the date on the bottom). I had Sirius in a rental vehicle recently and I noted that there were certain stations I could not receive that were listed as "XM only". - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 06:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Since the vast majority of the channel lineup is common to both types of radio, and only a select few stations are still either XM-only or Sirius-only, I'd suggest that we should still keep the shared stations in a shared category — instead of just merging them wholesale, we could always also rename the two existing categories to names that have "only" or "exclusive" in them, and keep them as smaller categories for the exclusive stations. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Bearcat: So you mean, merge the categories into one SiriusXM category, but the exclusive channels would have an "XM exclusive" or "Sirius exclusive" category? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58 on January 15, 2018 (UTC)
It would be more that we would create a new parent category for "Sirius XM channels" (or some similar name), and move the ones that are common to both types of radios up to it, but keep these as subcategories of it (with renames to make it clearer that they were meant only for the exclusives.) Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no issues with Bearcat's recommendation; it would remove the current redundancy and keep the differences clear. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 05:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, works for me too. Support Bearcat's recommendation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:02 on January 16, 2018 (UTC)

KQVN & its related Part 15 stations

It looks like somebody made a page for their Part 15 stations. The station calls itself KQVN. It's in the Thosand Oaks, California market, but has no notability currently. I don't like deleting things, but these stations don't seem to pass the notability tests & appear to be just hobby stations. There's an A.M. on 1620, & 2 F.M.s on 99.3 & 106.1. Any input would be appreciated, thanks!Stereorock (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Part 15s are not notable under NMEDIA, which is the policy that gives all radio station articles their notablity. Unless there is wide coverage in third-party sources about the station (which there never is), then it's not notable. This is the case here. Nom it for deletion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:13 on February 1, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at Stations http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Radio Stations

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not my field but I've started looking at a few pages such as 1130 AM. The first section (Argentina) consists of a redlink and a link to a disambiguation page. Does this project have any standards for dealing with this sort of problem? Do we want redlinks in these lists, and if so how should they be qualified to distinguish them from other uses (e.g. Show (radio station))? Certes (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I am the one who is adding argentine statios to the lists. It is acceptable to include the stations with no link? I mean, in not always neccesary to include a link to a non extant (yet) page? If this is correct, i will start to retire this red links from the lists. Regards --Amanuense (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a judgement call and I'd like to hear from subject experts, but I would say: if they're notable and should have an article, redlink them with an appropriate qualifier. Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Article naming conventions says how to disambiguate from other similarly named stations: basically WFOO (Springfield). I don't see anything about what qualifier to use if the name conflicts only with non-radio articles, e.g. WFOO (radio station), but there's probably a project standard for that. If they're not notable and don't deserve an article, then they shouldn't be listed on a disambiguation page at all, though they could stay if the page is changed into a WP:set index. Any mentions elsewhere should probably become plain text without a link. Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
But, if the red links are incorrect, we should start to retire all of them from the lists, not only the argentinian ones... --Amanuense (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Body" section

I propose that the following be added at the end of the existing "body" section:

A simple list of on-air personalities falls in the area of an employee directory; see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A simple enumeration of airstaff history is not particularly informative either. Ideally, mentions of on-air personnel should be interwoven with the station's history, describing how each person mentioned helped shape the station's format, or affected the ratings, or even how their time at the station affected them, etc.; persons who did not have such an effect and are otherwise not WP-notable (i.e. they do not have their own WP article) should generally be omitted.

Jeh (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of flips

Me and @Alex jirgens: have gotten into conflicts over how detailed coverage of radio station format flips can be before they reach the level of trivia and intricate information, particularly mentioning first/last songs of formats, as well as use of sources such as formatchange.com to "cite" them.

My opinion is that if a reliable source outside of just a normal radio industry publication acknowledges that there is a significance to the first song or last song played in a format (KKLQ (FM) and playing "The End" at the end is a little obvious, but that their final DJ as a rock station played the entire album side it came from is a lot more significant.) can be appropriate. Routine flips by non-major stations do not have such historical significance.

While I'm here, this will also be a reply about their assertion that, in response to my argument that formatchange.com may violate WP:COPYVIOEL, that "An over-the-air radio broadcast can not be copyrighted"; actually, yes. Most broadcast regulators (CRTC, FCC, etc.) require that stations maintain a log and recordings of their on-air output for regulatory purposed. Copyright exists once something is fixed, plus, the legal definition of "fixed" in U.S. copyright law includes that "a work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is 'fixed' for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission. On-air materials between the copyrighted musical recordings can qualify as a work for hire by the station's owner.

In the end, I'm not sure if we have any real consensus on this. I think we really need to address this, if not already. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In order to include information about individual songs played by a radio station, even at a key event such as the initial launch or the temporal borders of a format flip, you're correct that what we require is verification in reliable sources. The station's "recently played" scroll on its website, further, is not appropriate verification, because it can usually only be accessed for a few days before it expires — so we would need a permanent and enduring source writing about the station's choice of song. And you're correct that an OTA radio broadcast most certainly can be copyrighted, in exactly the same way that television stations most certainly can slap YouTube with a take-down order if somebody uploads a broadcast TV segment without permission. Typically radio or television stations won't bother unless the content somehow reflects poorly on them, but they absolutely do have the right to enforce a copyright take-down on YouTube or an aircheck site like formatchange.com — so our copyright rules, under which we can't source stuff to unauthorized copies of broadcast content on sites that aren't that content's copyright holder, do preclude using formatchange as the source.
I'm less sure about whether a radio industry trade publication would be insufficient; it certainly fits the verifiability bill, but you're right that it's weaker as a notability builder than general-market media coverage is. (For example, a radio personality wouldn't necessarily get an article just because they could technically be sourced to the employment notes column in a radio industry tradepub.) Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, FormatChange.com meets the requirement of a third-party source, as the operator of that website is not affiliated with any radio station or broadcast company. The operator of the website also owns and operates RadioInsight.com, which has - in the past - been a subject of discussion as to being a reliable source and, as I recall, the consensus was that it is. I'm not one for an "If this, then that" argument, normally, but I feel that passes muster in this case. With regard to information such as the final song before a format change and/or the first song of a new format, I see no harm on it being included as part of the explanation of the flip. Yes, it is trivial information, but in many cases, those songs mean something to the station being flipped and the new format being put in its place. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, to this point - "The station's "recently played" scroll on its website, further, is not appropriate verification, because it can usually only be accessed for a few days before it expires — so we would need a permanent and enduring source writing about the station's choice of song." - such a permanent and enduring source exists, as long as the radio station is in one of the top 150 or so largest markets in the United States. Mediabase 24/7, mmr247.com, logs the daily playlists of radio stations across the U.S. and in some Canadian markets. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 21:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize format labeling on FM stations using HD Radio subchannels

There is currently no information on the Project or Infobox template pages as to how to label formats on FM stations using HD Radio that run subchannels. The HD Radio section on the Project page only states to add (HD Radio) 

next to the frequency in the Radio Station infobox. Most editors, myself included, are simply adding the formats in the Format field, separated by line breaks and labeling them as "HD2", "HD3" and "HD4". However, others are adding the formats to the frequency field, and labeling them for example as "97.1-1", "97.1-2" and so on.

There is also disagreement as to whether the main channel format should be labeled “Analog/HD1” or perhaps “FM/HD1” or not at all. I suggest that we label the main program format with one of these labels. Another editor has stated to me that Analog/HD1 is assumed and therefore it should not be labeled. I don’t think we should be making that assumption, considering that most people don’t even know that HD Radio exists, much less how it works. With that in mind, leaving off the Analog/HD1 label might impart the idea in the reader’s mind that the main program is FM (analog) only, and that an HD Radio receiver would simply add the ability to listen to the subchannels. Including the label makes it obvious that the main program is offered “in HD” as well as “the old fashioned way” that they can already receive.

We should reach a concensus and update the Project page and the Infobox template, so it's clear to everyone where and how to add the formats and their labels.

Pageographer (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been using the same logic when editing FM stations with HD radio subchannels. It just makes sense to simply indicate in the frequency field that the frequency is available in HD. The formats indicate which format is available on each subchannel, and should not be intermixed in the frequency field. As for using "FM/HD1" in the format field, I have been doing this as well. Again, this just makes logical sense. We cannot assume that the reader has prior knowledge of HD radio and how it works. --DrChuck68 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, HD subchannels are not different "frequencies" and so should not be listed in the "Frequency" field (any more than we list the analog FM stereo difference subchannel).
I'll support notation such as "FM/HD1: " introducing the main channel format with a separate line added for each of "HD2: ", etc. These and the text that follows them should be in default type (not italicized or bold, as the paramater name "Format:" is already in BF) nor should the format names.
It's worth mentioning here that in both the template and the body copy, per MOS:GENRECAPS, radio formats do not ordinarily get title case. E.g. "urban adult contemporary" is not a proper name (but some syndicated formats such as "Pride Radio" may be). The format name does get a leading cap in the usage here because it follows list item name that's demarc'd by a colon. Jeh (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
On air and over the air, HD Radio stations are ID'd as "HD1", "HD2", etc. The legal ID the FCC allows is "WXXX-FM and HD1" or "WXXX-HD2", for example. I would recommend that they be formatted as HD1, HD2, HD3, and HD4. Please note, there is not an HD5 or above in radio.
As for formats, per Jeh, I would move that to another thread. This is about HD Radio formatting, not radio formats themselves. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:58 on April 30, 2018 (UTC)
"...there is not an HD5 or above..." That's not technically accurate. In theory, a radio station could split its HD channels as many times as they wanted to and they had the money to do so, but the down side to going beyond HD4 is the significant decrease in audio quality and signal strength with each additional channel. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 21:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Two legacy page splits that should be merged

  • WCFL (AM)
  • WMAQ

These are two Chicago area stations that back before this project had a best practice on how to deal with this situation, had their 'more famed callsigns' split into their own page. Today, this doesn't happen with a simple sale and change of call letters, and as such these articles should be merged into the current call letters they carry regardless of the fame of the previous. Skybunny (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, on further review I get why WMAQ and WSCR are considered separate entities. WSCR started in a weaker broadcast facility (predating WMAQ), bought out WMAQ's, took its call letters to WMAQ's frequency, and now broadcasts there. The succession is properly, by call letters (which after all is how articles are named and organized), that WMAQ died in 2000, and WSCR has existed from 1992-present (just on two different frequencies, one of which is WMAQ's former.) Skybunny (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

KAPY-LP no longer defunct

According to the article's title and text KAPY-LP is defunct, but according to the FCC's website this is no longer the case: https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/sta_det.pl?Facility_id=196829. I've posted information regarding this on Talk:KAPY-LP (defunct). Allreet (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page, but it's not the same FCC license, so it would need its own article. Mlaffs (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of WDRV

IP editors keep putting back the program schedule & station directory of WDRV against WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE & WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Stereorock (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Call sign meanings

Was there any local consensus here to justify things like: KIEM (Keep Informed Every Minute) which doesn't follow the MOS:ACRO guideline: "Do not apply italics, boldfacing, underlining, or other highlighting to the letters in the expansion of an acronym that correspond to the letters in the acronym." It seems to me that most of these call signs are backronyms and that any attached meaning is a bit trivial. (Mind, now that I look, the backronym article also strays from this guideline.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think somebody just started doing it.Stereorock (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
While it doesn't follow ACRO, is it something that we want to consider adopting for specific use with radio station articles? I would be supportive of such a guideline, if proposed. StrikerforceTalk 21:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It's the way we've always done it since I've been here and that's bordering on 12 years. I would be supportive of a guideline in ACRO as well and in NMEDIA to cover all bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15 on July 26, 2018 (UTC)
A clean reader pool
  • No, we don't do that. Our readers do not have brain damage. See MOS:ABBR#Expanded forms, MOS:TEXT#Expanded forms of abbreviations. See also WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policies; wikiprojects cannot make up their own pseudo-rules for "their" articles, against site-wide consensus like policies and guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    How do you know our readers don't have brain damage, when it's clear that many of our editors do? EEng 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    Cuz onlies us dain brammaged ones become editorz, and leave the clean reader pool behind. It's like voluntarily deciding to drink kerosene.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No The Letters are already Capitalized what more is needed? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No. BTW, I usually despise list pages, but I think List of TV and Radio Call Signs That Stand For Something would be fun. WGBH=Great Blue Hills, WQED/KQED=Quod erat demonstrandum, KFOG in San Francisco, KRON=San Francisco Chronicle, WEEI=Edison Electric Illuminating, etc. EEng 21:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for across-the-board stream edits for iHeartMedia and Entercom stations

Because iHeartMedia and Entercom now have their stations stream exclusively on their own respective co-owned platforms, articles pertaining to these stations really should have a sentence added or modified to reflect this, pretty much along this phrasing (the stations below are hotlinked in the below examples for access purposes here):

Again, this would only apply to stations owned by iHeartMedia and Entercom. Nathan Obral (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

KUSP -> KLVM

KUSP of Santa Cruz, CA went bankedrupet a while ago and the callsign was re-assigned to KLVM - but KUSP played a major part of Santa Cruz history for over 35 years - where should the history of KUSP be kept on Wikipeida? All under KLVM seems odd. The KUSP Wikipedia page was re-named to KLVM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyle troxell (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

New York City radio research help

Is anyone aware of a radio station that was operated by, or related to Madison Square Garden (1925) in New York City? I have come across research from hockey promotions, but I cannot connect it to a specific station. Thanks for any help. Flibirigit (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

W232AI page merge into WGFT

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W232AI should be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGFT This station prior to 2014 was a a repeater of WGOJ-FM 105.5 Conneaut, OH and no longer provides orginal programming to Youngstown Ohio

Do you have a reference to support "no longer provides...", please? StrikerforceTalk 19:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations/Archive_2018&oldid=1136411601"