Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations

Nomination of DYAJ for deletion

A user has requested discussion about whether the article DYAJ is within Wikipedia's criteria for articles or whether it should be deleted. You are being notified since you created or contributed to this topic.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYAJ until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the criteria which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. You are encouraged to add useful evidence as well.

While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy. You may edit the article during the discussion, including improvements to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, you must not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

New cleanup resource

Just dropping a quick note to alert project members to the fact that I've revised the project template to include a new cleanup category, Category:Radio station articles without infoboxes. I'm just beginning to populate the category — I'd already identified a handful of U.S. stations that were missing them, although I'm sure there are more, and I'm now finding a bunch in Canada.

Articles can be included in this category by adding |needs-infobox=yes as a parameter in the project template on the article's talk page. Naturally, once a missing infobox has been created and added to an article, that parameter should be removed. Mlaffs (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of non-com radio network affiliates

I have been going through many regional non-commercial radio network articles and creating individual articles for the individual stations, as a way of simplification and clutter reduction. On one, Allegheny Mountain Radio, I have run into a conflict with another user, who immediately reverted all of my work, claiming that the stations themselves (full-power licensed by the FCC) are not notable by themselves. Any suggestions? --Fightingirish (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that non-commerical stations are not notable, I am saying that since they are part of a network of stations (like say K-Love stations...which are in some parts full-power) and don't carry their own individual programming they are not notable. If they were independent of the network, they would be immediately notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that if a full-power station solely acts as a repeater (even as part of a decent-size network), then it does not merit its own article? Better remove all those Ion Television Network stations then. I've been trying to break up some of these network pages, since they had gotten a bit cumbersome. Some, like Wisconsin Public Radio, typically ended with massive lists of station data for each individual affiliate. Pretty ugly stuff.

Most stations that are part of regional non-com networks duplicate all programming in various markets. Why are they notable while the APR stations are not? And don't the APR stations break away individually for high school sports? Typically, if a station is listed in a regional radio navbox, then I give it an article, with its own FCC data and other information. Why not?

In addition, some of the K-Love full-power stations (like WLVE) have their own articles, as they should. Translators that function as repeaters should not, and should always be redirects, if the pages for them exist at all. Part of my little project will include listing translators for individual stations. Bear with me, I haven't gotten to it on all of them yet (the Colorado Public Radio ones really fried my brain!).

I'm trying to avoid a revert war here. Those get pretty stupid (as you no doubt know). Whatever the consensus is by other users here is what I will abide by. In the meantime, if you want to claim the APR articles as your own personal online fiefdom, then have at it.--Fightingirish (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If a station has any sort of history and/or originates any local programming, an individual article (with strong pointers back to the network article) is my preference over a network article with a dozen infoboxes. It also makes for cleaner navigation in categories, navboxes, and lists by frequency or other criteria. - Dravecky (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was actually pushing "Save page" at the same time as Dravecky, and he's said it better than I was going to. But since I've done the typing anyway, I might as well complete the process.

I've actually been running across Fightingirish's work as I've been going through a little project of my own and, I have to admit, I've been enjoying seeing articles pop up for some of the individual stations in these networks that were simply a mess of redirects.

Here's a question that may help in this discussion — beyond the questions raised above about whether they're totally network-programmed, did any of these stations exist prior to joining the network? In other words, is there a history that could be fleshed out beyond just the fact that they now carry the network programming? Neutralhomer, I think you know where I'm coming from here, as we've both seen the magic that people like Dravecky have worked on articles like these.

Anyway, just my two cents. Mlaffs (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There might, I really don't know. I know that WVMR, WCHG and WVLS (the original stations of the AMR network) have always been owned by Pocahontas Communications Cooperative Corporation (the owners of AMR). I can't say for certain, but I think since these stations came online, the stations have just joined the network and simulcasted parent station WVMR-AM. Again, I could be wrong (normally am) but I don't think they have ever had individual programming. As for WVMR-FM (launched this year) and the soon to be WNMP (not yet on the air), they will simulcast parent WVMR-AM.

I would like to clarify something else. When I say "network" (which only I use, I think, not even AMR), it is a very teeny, tiny network. Allegheny Mountain Radio only serves three counties: Pocahontas County in West Virginia and Bath and Highland counties in Virginia. All of which are right up against the VA/WV border. The stations don't serve the entire county either, just parts, due to the Green Bank Telescope and the United States National Radio Quiet Zone (which covers more area than they enforce). So this isn't a network over a wide area or a statewide network, it is just parts of three counties.

With all that said, if Dravecky can dig up anything about any of the stations outside of just the basic FCC information, I am all for creating articles for the stations. As Dravecky and Mlaffs know, I have no problem with articles for all stations and in fact support their creation. I am just going by the WP:WPRS rules is all.

I am heading off to bed (haven't gone to sleep yet), so I will catch up on things when I wake up. Have a good day, all. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested content for introduction

The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Introduction section suggests writing that the station is Licensed to the suburb of Smallville, USA. This seems very misleading as the license for a radio station is rarely held by a locality. A station is licensed to provide service to a particular locality, but in most cases the license is issued to another entity. I've no particular interest in radio station articles, but this seems like sloppy use of English prepositions. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like perfectly standard use of English prepositions to me. 121a0012 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also the most common use in stand conversation on the topic. No reason to change from it that I can see. JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

UPSU:Radio

Hi, I'm part of a student radio society in the UK and had wanted to get our station on wikipedia, but shortly after upload it was deleted for 'not being notable enough' (A7?) we're in the middle of applying for an L-RSL am I right in thinking once we are OFCOM licenced that counts as being notable enough to warrant inclusion? Or does it only apply to permanent licences? (re-building it in my userspace till we either get our licence or some press coverage)

Scratchedguitar (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum, would like to add apologies if this is condescending but this page appears to focus on US stations, an L-RSL is a 5 year licence that is almost always automatically renewed at the end of it's life unless OFCOM (licencing body) feels to need to take it away

Scratchedguitar (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My view would be that, if you get a licen[cs]e, and you have independent locally-originated programming, then the article should at least not be a candidate for speedy deletion. However, you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be the one creating such an article. Press coverage would certainly help, as that would demonstrate that someone outside your club thought it worth writing about. (One of the rules is that an article should explicitly make a verifiable claim for its own notability; most student groups are not considered notable, but most licensed radio stations are.) I'm not sure how the UK contributors feel about the general notability of RSL operations; it might help your case if you can point out articles about other such stations that have been considered notable in the past (i.e., gone through a formal deletion review with the result keep). 121a0012 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Call sign musical chairs

As the new year begins, there are a few cases of call sign swaps between stations. In San Francisco, three stations have swapped call signs. Two were easily moved, while I requested an administrator move for KNEW (AM). However, in Cedar Rapids, IA, KKSY and WMT-FM have essentially swapped call signs. Aside from the crude method (merely swapping info between the two pages), is there a more delicate way to move the information between the two pages? --Fightingirish (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a deeper issue here. We see this happening all the time, and there's a great deal of confusion about the scope of articles on particular radio stations that have moved callsigns. Such articles frequently get messy.

I think we actually need a (hopefully brief) guideline. Here are some recommendations to consider:

• An article whose title is a callsign which has been used by several different stations should cover all those stations at least briefly, with a section on each. If this would otherwise make the article too long, some or all of these sections can be summaries linking to more detailed articles. In some cases, a disambiguation page may be more appropriate even if only two-way, listing the stations.

• An article on a station that has used more than one callsign over the years should not use one of those callsigns as its title. If any of these callsigns has been used by no other station, then it should be redirected to the article; Otherwise, either a disambiguation page (even if only two way) or a high-level article is preferred.

Comments? The goal is to make it clear whether each article is about a station or about a callsign. If this is kept clear, many problems will be avoided, and fewer moves required. Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally disagree. The article should, as a general rule, describe the entire history of that licence, regardless of callsign. If the programming moves to a different facility, well, that's life. For U.S. stations, the FCC Facility ID number uniquely identifies a licensed facility. In other countries, different regulatory regimes will apply; the treatment should be appropriate for how that nation's regulator looks at it. To give a concrete example, WQXR-FM should follow the history of 105.9, not 96.3, as the station that is now WQXR-FM has no legal connection to the station that used to be WQXR-FM. Similarly, the article WGMS (defunct) should not exist; that history belongs in the article under that license's current callsign. Stations do cease to exist from time to time; the (defunct) treatment would be perfectly legitimate for a station like WZLS (Biltmore Forest, N.C.), which had its construction permit revoked after it had already started operation. Or WBZ-FM, which ceased to exist not once but twice -- and the third incarnation (now WMJX) has nothing to do with the current WBZ-FM. But the general rule: programming comes and goes, and so do callsigns. What endures is the license, and that's what should determine which history gets discussed in which articles. 121a0012 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK... I begin to understand. The problem is that this approach is a mystery to the rest of the English-speaking world. Does this "license" have any unique identifier? That's the problem as I see it. Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally what we do in the case of multiple callsigns on multiple stations, we have a disambig page (like say WTOP) and the page for the actual radio station on a related page (in this case, WTOP-FM, the station's actual callsign). If the station doesn't have a -FM in it's callsign or is an AM station, you will see a (FM) or (AM) in the page name. That is just to differentiate the radio station page from the disambig page. An example for this would be WAJR (AM).

In some cases, when a station is using the callsign of an unrelated station, like WDUQ-LP does (formerly used on a Pittsburgh public radio station), we will put a note in the article text that the calls were used on a different station in the page as well as create a disambig page. This is a secondary way of directing people to other articles, in case they may be on the wrong page, and adding more information to articles.

Having a page about, say, WRKZ, with information about the current WRKZ, plus information about WMDM and KDKA-FM (the last two places the "WRKZ" callsign has been), would just be silly and a major glut to all radio station pages. Even WBZ (AM) in Boston, which you noted above, was once WBZA (the WBZ calls were in Springfield, MA). Think about that article. Bad idea in my opinion and something that isn't needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that having a page about WKRZ with information about other callsigns too would be just be silly. That is not what I'm suggesting at all, in fact it's exactly what I'm trying to address. Far better to have the information in an article on the station, whatever that might mean. The issues then are:

• What does station mean? You indicate that it's linked to the broadcast license, and that makes sense to me. Facility ID is probably not directly helpful so far as article titles go, but it may be a good basis for deciding the article scope.
• How best to name these articles, with a local convention if required to precisely identify the subject (WP:AT of course). Your description above of the practice to date is a good start, thank you.
• How to document the scope of these articles so that all readers can easily find the information they want (the priority), and all contributors can easily identify the article in which their contributions belong (also important).

This is not USA Wikipedia. Think about the rest of the world, we read these articles too. We don't want to have a standard hatnote on each page This is an article on a US radio station. The article title is the callsign by which it is currently most commonly known, and is not necessarily the one it currently uses, it may even be one currently used by someone else. Or alternatively, This is an article on a US radio station. The article title is its current official callsign, and is not necessarily the one by which it is most commonly known, or the one it used last year or will use in a year's time. There must be a better way!

Disagree anything I've proposed would be a major glut. I'm not suggesting any duplication of information, just its logical organisation. I'm not suggesting any longer articles, just the opposite.

It may even be that we need to have two naming conventions, one for stations whose callsign has been stable for a number of years, and another for stations whose callsign has recently changed or has frequently changed in the past or for whatever reason is unclear in common usage. It would be nice to avoid that, but it's a possibility, and if the common name of stations whose callsign has changed is hard to determine or varies by locality or both, there may be no choice.

Thanks for the reply. I've been puzzling over US radio station RMs for a while, and you're certainly shedding some light on them. Andrewa (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the practice needs to be appropriately grounded in whatever the regulatory structure each individual country has for broadcasting. What is correct for the U.S. is not going to be correct for many other countries (particularly the majority of countries that do not use call signs to identify their stations). In those countries, a license might be attached to a national franchise, or (at the other extreme) the regulator might consider that when a station changes hands -- even if it uses the same frequencies and has the same "name", it's treated as a completely new license. (The U.S. used to be like this, in the very early days.) So there's no overarching, global principle: every country does it differently, and Wikipedia articles should reflect that. 121a0012 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree to a point. Generally we go with common usage for article titles rather than what the regulatory structure may use, see WP:official names and the relevant policy pages starting of course with WP:AT. But this seems to be a problematical subject area, and it may be helpful to defer to the authority and let redirects handle the common usage, and that's where local naming conventions come in. Also agree that what works for the USA may not be best for the rest of the world; Again, that means having local conventions. They are a bit of work to write and maintain (keep them short if you can!) but save everyone's time in the long run. Andrewa (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Since branding of US radio stations shifts frequently and without solid referencing in most cases, and because we'd likely wind up with 30+ articles called "Lite 103.7" or "Mix 102.9", the use of current legal call sign is the sanest solution for US radio stations. It's reliable, verifiable, easily tracked, and radio stations are legally obligated to identify themselves with this call sign (and their city of license) at the top of every hour. - Dravecky (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that having an article for every branding of a radio station is not the way to go. That's one extreme, and I'm not suggesting it. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with 121a0012. As a general rule of thumb, the article should go with the license/facility ID, rather than the call sign. For call signs with a history on different frequencies, at least a brief mention should me made, as well as disambiguation links at the top of the page if necessary. No need for going into too much redundant detail. For example, the new KTWN-FM in Minneapolis has no connection whatsoever to the station that held that call sign back in the early 80s. No mention should be made whatsoever, aside from a link to the current incarnation of the station, KQQL.

I've no argument with the general rule of thumb that the article should go with the license/facility ID, rather than the call sign. My problem is, what do you then call the article? If it's to be a call sign even in the case that the call sign is ambiguous, then please document this and its rationale as a local naming convention.

I was able to reassign article titles for the KNEW (AM) and KKSF rather seamlessly. However, the two Iowa stations, WMT-FM and KKSY, merely traded call signs. Was thinking of bending the rules a bit and doing a 'dirty edit'. Seems to be the only way it will work. --Fightingirish (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the swap but it seems that the FCC has yet to formally make the call sign assignments and I won't move an article until the FCC makes it official. In any case, the swap is simple and clean: Move WMT-FM to KKSY (FM) temporarily, move KKSY to WMT-FM over the redirect, then move KKSY (FM) to KKSY permanently. No muss, no fuss, and the only 'extra' redirect is both useful and harmless. - Dravecky (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good.

But I'm still nervous about the resulting article structure. Wikipedia is supposed to be optimised for readers rather than for editors. Is it really appropriate to have the information about a station that has had a different callsign up until a few days ago in an article whose title is the current callsign, still only a few days old? I'm skeptical. At best, surely such moves are premature. At worst, perhaps they reflect a quick and dirty approach of adopting the current official name, which may be convenient for the editors of the WikiProject but doesn't reflect the overall Wikpedia policy. Is there a better way? Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No. 121a0012 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's easily solved with a hat note like For the Alabama radio station known as WVOV from 1985 to 2012, see WTAK. You need not create every possible scenario nor would a hat note be needed for a station known by a call sign for only a short time, only those few cases where a reader would be confused unduly. For some call signs, a paragraph on "call sign history" (The WTAK call sign was most recently assigned to...) in the article might be appropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The hatnotes and callsign history are both really good ideas. In some parts of the world, callsigns are rarely reused, and certainly not immediately reissued. We tend to assume that nobody does it. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not all that difficult to swap article titles while preserving edit histories, and if there's consensus on that action then I'm happy to do it. Please don't do a cut-and-paste swap if that's what you mean by dirty edit, it's not necessary and will probably mean someone later doing a lot more work to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Broadcast license#Global view also seems relevant to this discussion (discussion dormant on the talk page since 2007, although the corresponding tag was only recently added to the article [1]). Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)