Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Mattwj2002 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 116: Line 116:
Thanks JPG. I've put the request in. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks JPG. I've put the request in. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:Pleased to report that through bot and manual efforts, the number of pages in the project unassessed for quality has been nearly halved. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
:Pleased to report that through bot and manual efforts, the number of pages in the project unassessed for quality has been nearly halved. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

== Transmitter Coordinates ==
What do you guys think about adding the transmitter coordinates to radio stations like the tv stations have? I added a comment to the [[Template:Infobox Radio Station|Infobox Radio Station Template]]. Thanks. --[[User:Mattwj2002|Mattwj2002]] ([[User talk:Mattwj2002|talk]]) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:32, 18 September 2010

Has the question of how to link to streaming radio been addressed? The question has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_spam_.2F_malware about the possible safety/security (as well as desirability) of this type of file directly linked in the station infoboxes, and guidance from a subject matter expert would be helpful. this diff shows an example of the types of links in question (it looks clean to me, but as a matter of due diligence use caution if you follow the link). Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.pls are moderately safe. The mechanics of the stream are that the web browser will attempt to connect to the URI and "download" the playlist - that playlist is then examined depending on the browser settings - it will either follow the .pls file type or look to the MIME headers to launch the appropriate player that has been assigned to handle Shoutcast mp3 playlists. If the visitor has set their browser to "Open files based on content not file extension", then the link may look like .pls, but potentially could download and launch a different type of "payload" that is dangerous. The older the browser, the more likely that might succeed. Putting Wikipedia in your "Trusted Zone" probably further increases the risk of an unsafe link being trusted and succeeding. I've never seen an attempt like this on a "real" radio station web site - I have been on the receiving ends of attacks by insecure radio stations using unscreened 3rd party content and expired domains being redirected to hacker web sites.
Note that Windows Media Player cannot launch .pls playlists even though it is capable of playing mp3 stream - WMP uses .m3u, which is very similar in format if no "extensions" are used.
Another consider is whether the link is "in plain view" on the web site - most U.S. radio stations go to significant lengths to hide the actual streaming URLs - if you "deep link" to a direct streaming URL, especially if it bypasses advertisements or a registration process, that's asking for copyright type legal trouble. .pls is mostly used by college stations and not-for profit stations as the MP3 format is subject to patent royalties that commercial stations would find objectionable.
Linking to player links (streamtheworld, etc...) other than playlists (.pls,.m3u,.asx) is as dangerous (or not) as any other direct link. I operate StreamingRadioGuide.com, so my general opinions about the value of this will not be objective. My view of "encyclopedic" is it documents the past, not facilitates the present or predicts the future. Providing active links to sources of entertainment seems to not be in that spirit, but that's not my call.69.37.68.72 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates FMQ, AMQ, and TVQ

In Oregon Public Broadcasting, a public radio and television broadcast network, these templates are used over 60 times to cover all of the network's radio and TV stations, including repeaters. Has anyone ever considered allowing {{FMQ}}, {{AMQ}}, and {{TVQ}} to support multiple parameters? For example, instead of having to

In Oregon Public Broadcasting's case, multiple template instances would still be used, but multiple parameter support would greatly improve the organization of the external links section. Thanks. 67.100.125.19 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This only works for radio stations, but one could use {{RadioTranslators}} on the rebroadcasters and translators. This gives all the information, plus an FCC link, but at present no Radio-Locator link due to a code problem. - NeutralhomerTalk20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, thanks. FWIW, I forgot to mention that if wikiproject members think my suggestion is a good one, particularly since I am 99% certain it can be done while remaining backwards-compatible to the current implementation, I would be happy to submit a change request on the project's behalf to Wikipedia:Requested templates. Thanks. 67.101.6.174 (talk) aka [[::User:67.100.125.19|67.100.125.19]] (talk · contribs) 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KCTB-LP query?

KCTB-LP doesn't show up in the FCC query database. What gives?

It seems a different KCTB-FM 102.7 once existed in Cut Bank, MT, but it was canceled. The New Raymie (tc) 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to fccinfo.com & recnet.com, KCTB-LP was deleted 7/1/2009 and KCTB-FM was deleted in 1993.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But regardless of that, notability does not end when the license is cancelled or at all for that matter. - NeutralhomerTalk16:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Person Questioning Notability of Radio Stations

Looks like we have another user questioning the notability of radio stations. Oh joy. This all started when I requested a rangeblock for vandalism on the WGGH page on ANI. Their plan, delete the page, no vandalism. They, then, questioned the notability. Completely disregarding the admins clearing them, the WP:NME rules, the AfDs setting the precedence, and other stuff. So, could a few WPRS members enlighten the user on the notability of radio stations, the precedence and the discussions about this. I am really tired about telling people about this. - NeutralhomerTalk20:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of being opposed to water and supporting genocide!
There was an obscure radio station that was the source of vandalism. This should be stopped. However, I noticed that the station is obscure. WP:BCAST requires one of 3 criteria be met to establish notability, long history, large audience or unusual format. WGGH fails 2 but I don't know it's history so it could very well pass on one criteria.
Rallying support on a wikiproject could be seen as barely legal canvassing. I am not a deletionist so I will not be going on an AFD rampage. In fact, I like radio and even started a new article on a radio station! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then do this, ask User:Dravecky, who is a guru at finding sources about radio stations. He can dig them up from all kinds of places. Slap a {{references}} template on it for the time being, ask Dravecky if he can help and sit back and let the work happen. There are alot of stubs in the WPRS area. We are actively working getting them updated into at least "Start" class, but it takes time. There are over 17,000 US radio stations, not to mention the Canadian radio stations, and other radio stations in other countries that are "under the WPRS flag". It is alot of work and only some many people are interested in the area. So it takes alot of time to get everything up to stub. We have one of our main people on Wikibreak (due to WP:REALLIFE) so we are down an expert person. We can only do so much with so many people. - NeutralhomerTalk21:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another person commended me on writing an article about a big Finnish company, saying that there is a shortage of company articles in Wikipedia. Another area that needs work! Let's concentrate on the notable companies just as we concentrate on the notable radio stations. Don't waste effort on obscure, possibly non-notable stations. Some stations are non-notable. One type was even explicitly mentioned, i.e. traveler's radio. I am not anti-radio. I even started a radio article a few minutes ago! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're free to edit any articles you may choose and don't get to pick which articles other editors edit. WP:BCAST is part of an essay, not a policy, but in any case the text includes "established broadcast history" and "unique programming" as criteria for presumed notability. WGGH originates a significant amount of unique programming and a 60-year broadcast history. (The station began broadcasting on September 24, 1949.) The article certainly calls to be expanded, but not deleted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that I am neutral and even wrote that it could possibly pass under one of the three criteria, being history. Then you pointed out 1949. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have set rules, not everything gets an article. If it is class D (a translator), rebroadcasts a network (like K-LOVE or something like that) with no local involvement, or has never actually been on the air (only a construction permit with call letters)....then the article is either put into userspace (for construction permits) or redirected (for translators, network stations) to the parent station. Not everything gets an article. So, there aren't 17,000 US radio station articles on here, I would estimate about 3,000 total, with a majority being redirects. - NeutralhomerTalk21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Dravecky rocks. He has added a large amount of information and several references. I do believe this brings the article in "Start" range, but I will let an admin decide on that, I don't assess articles. - NeutralhomerTalk22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any WPRS-involved editor, not just an admin, can assess articles. Indeed, if we relied on just the three active admins involved with WPRS to assess articles the task might never be completed. One note, beyond "Stub" or "Start" I find it best practice to let somebody else assess an article I've written or to which I have contributed significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't aware of that. Per that, though, I have upped the WGGH article to "Start" class. - NeutralhomerTalk01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've been unhappy with the unwritten guidelines that make most radio stations notable without actually having to meet guidelines, ie just for having an FCC licence. Examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCRX-LP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLRY. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Rushville, Ohio (WLRY) for example is a town of 298 people. Even with surrounded residents it is unlikely to have a large audience given that most likely the next town over has yet another radio station. There does not seem to be specific policy anymore, given that the project page only. I can't find one at the notability page. Might we ought to create a new ? --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the official broadcast area for WLRY per the FCC. It covers ALOT more than just 298 people and that isn't a notability concern. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't mean it should go "bye-bye". I don't think we need every bus stop and train station in the nation, but we do. I think that is just silly. But people have created them. Why? Notability and there are rules for them. - NeutralhomerTalk15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KRMS up for Deletion

Folks, KRMS, an active radio station is up for deletion. !Vote the way you feel you should. - NeutralhomerTalk21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality scale

Hi all. I was hoping to assist with updating the quality on some of the more obvious articles (stubs, starts...), but I noticed that the project is using the standard quality scale instead of the extended scale. Have you given any thought to using the extended scale? --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Stub, Start, C, B, etc scale, plus an importance scale. Just become a member, grab a userbox, and go nuts. :) - NeutralhomerTalk03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. In addition to the standard qualities (Stub, Start, C, B, etc.), the extended scale adds Category, Disambig, Image, Portal, Project and Template. Right now, the project only uses the standard scale. Would adding these additional types be desirable? It requires a change to a parameter in the project template. --Bsherr (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fire away, as, at last check, we have lots of Templates tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell,  Done. JPG-GR (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you are at it, please find sources like crazy for all the radio station pages. Most have them, some don't. Some get picky when they don't, so source too. - NeutralhomerTalk03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JPG, the President of TfD! :-) Good to see you. --Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, ok. Maybe it IS official now :D JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warm welcome. I'll do what I can to help! --Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and if you need help, please feel free to ask on my talk page or here. - NeutralhomerTalk04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'd like permission to request User:AnomieBOT to perform task AutoAssessor2 on project templated pages. This does the following:

"Redirects and disambiguation pages will be automatically assessed with class=redirect/disambig and importance=NA, stubs will be automatically assessed with class=stub if not already assessed, and non-article pages will be automatically assessed with the appropriate class and importance=NA."

Unlike other autoassessor bots, this bot does not assess articles to higher than stub class. --Bsherr (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll proceed on September 1 absent comments. --Bsherr (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Whatever gets this done quickest (and, therefore, ends the useless stream of info at the usually helpful Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Radio station articles by quality log) is fine by me. JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JPG. I've put the request in. --Bsherr (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to report that through bot and manual efforts, the number of pages in the project unassessed for quality has been nearly halved. --Bsherr (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmitter Coordinates

What do you guys think about adding the transmitter coordinates to radio stations like the tv stations have? I added a comment to the Infobox Radio Station Template. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]