Talk:WNCX

In depth changes to WNCX history

CoolKatt number 99999: Sorry... I see you made changes to my update from earlier today. Then I updated my own changes over yours. Sorry about that. As you can see, my new changes are much more in depth than previously and contain the Clear Channel info you added.

Hillrhpc: I'm guessing that you contributed much of the material for the article -- thank you for doing a great job with it! My name is Dave and I've been employed at the radio station for coming up on 16 years now. They've kind of nominated me to be the stations historian, given the background knowledge that I have.

I am 99% positive on most of the material I posted today. I'm a little shaky on the background to WGCL, as there is few sources available for it. The info on WERE-FM I'm very confident on as this came direct from our engineers. The only question mark is that they're not sure if the official sign on year was 1947 or 1948. We won't be able to confirm this until the next trip out to the transmitter site... so I went with 1948 in the meantime, due to all the references to WERE-AM in 1949 (which signed on a year later than the FM).

The WNCX info is 100% accurate, considering I've live it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. | Djockers 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Jockers: Please remove the reference to "a girlfriend.... of a previous manager was making 18K a year for 4 hours work". This is completely false. The person in question coordinated and delivered live traffic reports every weekday afternoon for three hours, was #1 sit-in jock on sick days and vacations (no extra pay) and did two full weekend shifts (6 hours each) every weekend, working seven days a week in the initial launch period of the station. 18K annual was hardly exorbitant. It works out to about $350 a week! Please remove this completely inaccurate and petty entry. By the way, to insinuate that this person was merely some babe is shameful. She was on the air for 10 years before joining the station, and was hired on her portfolio. By the way, the manager and the individual did not start going out together until AFTER the station collapsed in February 1987.

WNCX and The Bob and Tom Show

I hope WNCX becomes an affiliate of The Bob and Tom Show.--Josh 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, but allows listings

Attempting to clarify what the "official policy" states:

"Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages."

There are no "upcoming events" listed; there are no "current promotions" listed; there are no "phone numbers" listed; there are no "current schedules" listed. But what is listed is a historical listing of the programming schedule -- which is allowed -- in accordance with the official policy here on WP. This policy clearly allows for the listing of "historically significant programme lists and schedules" -- which on-air personalities and when they air, clearly fall under.

There are hundreds of radio station articles here on WP that have the on-air personality schedules listed on them. Whether it be in WCBS in New York City, or KROQ in Los Angeles, or even WXTB in Tampa. No where on WP does it state that such info should not be included... as such information is historically important for the integrity of the article.

If a consensus here on WP wants to clarify this policy further to state that such info is to be excluded in that form, then that is fine -- it should be removed from ALL radio station articles across WP.

It should be pointed out that this discussion has recently taken place in the discussion of WP:NOT. Where you are more than welcome to join in on if you'd like, but there you'll note that a consensus has already determined that such information is allowable. The discussion centered in on "current schedules" (as in electronic program guide) as primarily defined for Televsion... not radio.

Furthermore, there is more than enough ambiguity in regards to this and its impact on radio station articles to allow the information to remain in said articles. If you are unhappy with this consensus decision, then please bring up your concerns there. Djockers 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion here on this very topic. Also see my talk page. These are merely cruft, redundant and a possible copyright violation. And I think the personalities on KROQ are probably more notable than the ones on any of Cleveland's stations. Even still, that schedule should be converted to a more prose-like form.

Incidentally, I also feel these schedules should be removed from ALL station articles, but I am only one person, and cannot do everything at once. I've been removing them as I've seen them. Think whack-a-mole.

In closing, note the sample tag above. --Fightingirish 12:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fightingirish... I agree that the topic is certainly deciphered differently by different editors. And as I noted in my previous comments -- on the discussion of WP:NOT, there are some (myself included) that believe there is some historical value to including the information within the articles. But with that said, I certainly see the concerns raised by you and others on this topic... though I do disagree on your take regarding the notability of personalities between Los Angeles and Cleveland. In all fairness, that type of qualitative data is very difficult, if not impossible to fairly conclude.

After opening this to discussion here, I contacted one of the administrators involved in the discussion of WP:NOT, in an effort for further clarification on this topic. The administrator posted his response on my talk page where rather than taking a position or attempting to clarify more, he made the suggestion of coming to a compromise.

With this in mind, I do feel that a compromise is certainly in order. One suggestion could be to include the information in the same (or similar) manner as it is included for BBC "presenters". In a prose-like form, giving historical data of past and present personalities... perhaps even categorized by air shift. For example, for "mornings" the information would include all who have worked in that particular air shift over the years. Djockers 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wgcllogo.JPG

Image:Wgcllogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Maxwell Show

I believe that the correct title of The Maxwell Show is MWL-The Maxwell Show. Possible due to copyright issues with Clear Channel.Weatherman05071 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Analog format

• Only 2,000 of the 13,000 analog AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have converted to HD; of those that have converted, all still broadcast via analog as mandated by the FCC. Moreoever, the first HD channel of every HD Radio station is a simulcast of the analog signal -- again, as mandated by the FCC.[1]
  
• 239 million analog radio listeners in the U.S. vs. only 3 million HD Radio units. By far, analog is still the preferred choice among radio consumers.[2]
  
• Clearly, the infobox should reflect that analog technology is still the dominant form of transmission. It's also no secret that the radio industry has been heavily promoting HD Radio; by including only the HD Radio formats, one begins to question the credibility of this article's content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavor, not a brochure for iBiquity. Levdr1 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)