User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2015/October

Nomination of KRCB-FM for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KRCB-FM 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/KRCB-FM 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. --  Kethrus |talk to me  00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Mexico stuff

You're a peach!

I've put in dozens more authorizations (the IFT gave us another spectacular document dump with many of the missing Televisa stations). I'm also starting a project to change the way shadow channels are handled in all the state lists, for my sake. (Example: Television stations in Querétaro. Yup, the Celaya XEZ etc. stations are now listed with their parents. My rule of thumb is that shadows must serve a significantly sized different locality (e.g. Atlixco Puebla), be 15 kW ERP or higher (e.g. XHLEJ Lagos de Moreno at 19 kW or XEQ Toluca at 200!), or otherwise be noteworthy.) I don't think I'll finish with it until after the national apagón. If a shadow is separately listed that will mean it has different content to its parent — there are very few of these, like XHI Los Mochis, XEQ Toluca, XEFB "XHCNL" Saltillo and XHVSL's two shadows.

I also used the state-level list to rebuild the Azteca 7 and 13 affiliate lists. I'm waiting to do C5 and CE because I need still-missing transmitter information.

Speaking of which, I'm working with User:Negative24 to eventually get approval to have a bot do the necessary mention changes (-TV to -TDT). It was time-consuming just doing the seven or eight BCS/Durango/Hidalgo stations that were affected. The big lag is in bot approval, unfortunately. The hope is that by the end of the year, we can get all this stuff automated and run it beginning December 31. Raymie (t • c) 03:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WIXK logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WIXK logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

Yet another misguided editor creating yet another misguided TfD, see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So, first of all, I wanted to acknowledge that the comments I added to this TfD probably aren't what you might have expected. But if the community is going to weigh in on this, then it's important that they look at the entire picture - the last thing we need around here is more inconsistency. And the nominator and some of the commenters are technically correct - WP:NAVBOX is a guideline rather than a policy, but it's pretty clear about what's included in navboxes and what isn't. I'd argue 'leave well enough alone' but, again, the community's going to decide what the community's going to decide.

I think you'd probably agree that the embedded market navbox link templates that have been nominated for deletion are more for power users and editors than for the average reader. Nothing would actually get orphaned; it'd just make it slightly less easy for power users to move around. And so, your question about the state lists got me thinking, and I might have a solution. It'd mean an extra step, but it addresses the power user/editor need.

First, add each of the various state market navboxes to the bottom of the each appropriate stations by state list, within a collapsed frame so that they don't dominate the page. Second, within each market navbox, remove the market navbox link template that's contentious, and replace it with a link to the stations by state list (if it's not already there, which it often is). So, for example, the List of Radio Stations in Texas article would have the navboxes at the bottom for DFW, Houston, San Antonio, Killeen, etc. and each of those navboxes would have a link back to the List of Radio Stations in Texas article. If you're on a specific station article, you could follow that to the List of Radio Stations in Texas article to get a look at the other markets in Texas, if you're trying to get from a DFW station to a Houston station.

Like I said, one extra step, but it might satisfy everyone's needs. What do you think? Mlaffs (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, lemme make sure I understand, you are meaning adding each of the market navboxes (ie: Richmond, Norfolk, DC), within it's own navbox for space, and then putting it at the bottom of the stations by state page. Then removing the problematic/TfD'd template from the market navboxes? Right? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Something like this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd use "radio market" rather than "Arbitron market", but yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of. Bingo. Mlaffs (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mlaffs: Cool, I can put a slew of those together. Now, do you want me to put these in the sandbox until the TfD ends (so we can see how that goes) or do you want me to go BOLD and push them out across the templates? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have the time, I'd build them in the sandbox so that they're on hand. Might still be a good idea even if the TfD ends up status quo, but probably best to let it play out. Biggest piece of the work might end up being checking each of the market navboxes to make sure they have the links to the relevant state list(s). Mlaffs (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the easy part. :) Putting them together, in alphabetical order, that's the tricky part. :) I'll get on them now, might take me a couple hours to finish them completely. I'll let you know when I'm done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It took all 8 of my sandboxes, but I got them done. :) Now...we wait. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work! Mlaffs (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Anything I should do with them and the state pages in the meantime? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No - I think we wait and see what happens with the TfD. Mlaffs (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought, I just always like to make-for-absolute-sure. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of WOAP

Contacted WOAP through Facebook asking about the station's current ownership. https://www.facebook.com/woapradio/ Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary research? Gasp... :>)

No, seriously, I'm curious to see what they say. Depending on the answer, they could open themselves up to some trouble with the FCC. Mlaffs (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply from WOAP from their Facebook page: Hi Gary. That's interesting. The sale of WOAP was finally approved last month to Cano's Broadcasting. It took since 2012 for them to approve it. The close happens at the beginning of November. As for the license renewal, we received the renewal for WOAP a while ago. It's still under Birach Broadcasting while the sales closes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Gotta love the government. That's great - when I see the consummation notice come through, I'll make the update, if nobody beats me to it. Mlaffs (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)