Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2013

WTKK-HD2 image

I haven't done this before but would like to upload the logo for WTKK's HD2 channel "96.9 Irish" which is found at [www.969irish.com]. There are no copyright notices anywhere on that page. Has anyone uploaded images before & know what to do in this case? Can it be uploaded because there are no copyright notices?Stereorock (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to upload it as a non-free image with a fair use template. It's actually pretty simple, if you follow the old guided form. (Rest assured, almost every logo you'll find is under copyright protection in the United States. Copyright notices are no longer required.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Translator box

What's wrong with the translator box? I can't get it to display correctly & all that shows up is html!Stereorock (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh? {{RadioTranslators}} appears to be working just fine. - Dravecky (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of "first air date" in the infobox

I have understood this to be for the date the radio station first took to the air, not for callsign nor frequency nor format changes. I have seen cases in which other dates (like the latest call or format) was posted but understood this was for the former callsigns/frequencies lines. Another member of WP:WPRS disagrees & wants the latest callsign to also be reflected. So, we both need clarification on this. Thanks.Stereorock (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that there are already related discussions at Talk:WHKW#Start date and User talk:Levdr1lostpassword#WHKW start date. Neither this talk page nor Template talk:Infobox radio station offer any clear guidance on what exactly "first air date" is, and I suspect there is good reason for this. Readers and reliable sources alike identify radio stations with current callsigns, particularly older stations. For example, the "first air date" for radio station WMMS/Cleveland is often identified as September 28, 1968, when in reality this is when the WMMS callsign was first assigned (prior to 1968, WMMS broadcast as WHK-FM). Incidentally, many FM stations only simulcast programming from AM sister stations before the 1960s (WHK in the case of WMMS). I see nothing wrong with including the first air date overall for a station and the first air date for the current callsign. The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key points of the article subject. Is the current callsign not a key fact most readers would like easy and direct access to without having to sift through all the article content? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I'd say that current callsigns/frequencies/etc. should be covered on those appropriate lines of the infobox. Maybe there should be a "current callsign" line or one for format or whichever like there is for owner & then licensee in parentheses below it. I am actually not opposed to listing the current call or frequency or format but think that the first airdate means just that. So, WMMS's first airdate should be August 1946. The format change date should be included in the article & if so determined here to be infobox worthy, it should go underneath the 1946 date. Again, to me anyway, first airdate means first time they took to the air.Stereorock (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I am not proposing first air date w/ current callsign instead of first air date overall. I propose using both with a qualifier for each (example for WHKW). And I'm not proposing a single policy/guideline for every radio station, but rather an option for editors to choose from depending on the case. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Need Help Saving KTTR AM and FM Pages From Deletion.

KTTR AM and FM pages have been nominated for deletion. KTTR has been on the air since the 1940s and I think it should be in Wikipedia. It was cited for copy-write violation but I have heavily edited to ensure it is not in violation. Please help me by reviewing this entry and make changes to anything you think is violation of copy-write. Any help improving these pages would also be very helpful.

The two pages that need help are: KTTR-FM KTTR (AM)

LukeBK

Copyvio text removed, completely revamped the infobox and all information on the page, removed schedules in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Removed copyvio templates as pages are no longer in violation of copyvio rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

KCLS

This station's city of license was changed from a city in Nevada to a city in Utah. I don't know how to do that. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcgibson55 (talk • contribs)

Looks like someone took care of that back in January. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WAQX-FM : NPOV dispute [format]

Per Wikipedia guidelines, I am posting this notice to point out the lack of a "neutral point of view" under the "Format" section of the WAQX-FM page. The writer spends much of the first paragraph expressing an opinion about the station's original program director.

Furthermore, I think it would be more appropriate that this section be re-titled "History," as that seems to be the focus of the content. If desired, a separate section could be created to discuss the format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnaw10 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

None of it was sourced and what was was unencyclopedic, so I removed it all. It's now a stub. I would work on a history with third party reliable sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with WikiProject Radio Stations template

I'm new and trying to figure out how to edit inside this template. It seems very complicated, so there must be an easier way. I'm looking for helps for this template. Is there a link to such a page that I am missing? Dr. O. Curiosity (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. You want to edit the project's talk page template? That's something we should discuss here before changing it, not something for a brand new editor to be altering unilaterally. - Dravecky (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WGSS (FM)

I've started working on a new article for WGSS 89.3 FM (User:DrChuck68/WGSS (FM) is my work in progress). However I'm not finding much information about the station, possibly because it's so new. Can anyone make any recommendations for sources of info, and/or how this article can be expanded? Thanks! --DrChuck68 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

More references would certainly be a good idea if possible — local community newspapers in the immediate area might be a good place to look — but as long as a radio station's broadcast and licensing data shows up in the FCC database that in and of itself is entirely sufficient referencing to get a radio station past WP:BCAST. Accordingly I've moved the article into mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for input: Jeff Phelps AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Phelps. Please help generate discussion. Although article does not currently fall under this WikiProject, subject hosts a weekday sports talk radio show. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Austin, TX radio market question

I've come across a problem with KTXZ, a radio station in the Austin, Texas radio market, which I was wondering if anybody could help with. Specifically, about a week ago somebody partially overwrote the article to be about K236AY, which is listed in the article as an FM translator of the AM station, instead of KTXZ — however, I've done the necessary queries on the FM site and confirmed that at least according to them, KTXZ and K236AY are owned by two different companies.

I've located a source which suggests that K236AY's programming source once was KTXX-FM rather than KTXZ ([1]) and that the current owner of K236AY is also the owner of KZNX, although it falls short of clarifying whether that station is now K236AY's programming source — and I can't find any evidence (not even by tracking license histories on the FCC site) that K236AY and KTXZ have ever had common ownership or programming.

Is there anybody familiar with the Austin radio market, or does anyone know another way to verify what's actually airing on K236AY so that we can make the necessary corrections. Gracias! Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for Company A to lease out their translator to Company B while the translator is still owned by Company A. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested-move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Highway advisory radio#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Miniapolis 15:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A radio station that has changed its name

Dear radio station enthusiasts: This radio station KIK FM has recently had a change of ownership and has changed its name to Darwin FM. There is a new article in the works at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darwin FM which is substantially similar to the KIK article, since the format hasn't really changed. Is it appropriate to have two articles, or should the articles be combined and the older title be made into a redirect? If the articles should be combined, maybe someone from this project could contact the editor. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just move the old article to the new name, so that the history is properly maintained. 121a0012 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Darwin FM and a few updates made. Any interested editor can continue to improve this article to bring it fully up to date. - Dravecky (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Notablity Discussion

An editor has opened a discussion as to whether radio stations are inherently notable. This has been rehashed numerous times, each time the answer is "yes". If you wish to participate in the discussion, you can find it here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you could provide a single example of "each time the answer is yes" that would help you tremendously, because right now it's your claim of inherent notability at odds with the community consensus. - SudoGhost 09:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Do me a favor, keep all discussions on the WP:N page and your talk page. Waaaay too many discussions about the same thing on waaaay too many pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to make a claim on multiple talk pages, try to show this claim on at least one of them. Since you seem unable to do this very simple thing, perhaps others might be able to. That's why I'm asking a very simple question, one that you'd think you'd be more willing to provide an answer to since it would solve this rather quickly. - SudoGhost 17:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have provided numerous answers, you refuse to accept any of them. You have now been told by an admin that radio stations are inherently notable, you refuse to accept that. We are now moving (quite quickly) into WP:TE, WP:REHASH and WP:HEAR territory. You might also want to read this. You want us, the community, to find the discussions you are desperately wanting...that's your job, not ours. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You provided a bunch of AfDs, which shows that those individual articles were kept, nothing more. Given that what I have found (actual consensus) says you are dead wrong, and I can find nothing to support your claim, I can only go by what consensus says; that radio stations are not inherently notable. - SudoGhost 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. An admin supports me, I doubt you actually looked and policy backs me up that you need to find these dicussions, not me, yeah, we have ventured into WP:TE, WP:REHASH and WP:HEAR territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are. Wikipedia policy contradicts what you're claiming, as does the community consensus. If you wish to stop with your tendentious editing, you simply have to stop asking others to provide evidence for your claims. - SudoGhost 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't spin what I said back to me. That's not an arguement. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep using the word "spin" but not once have you used it correctly. Since this seems to be a difficult concept for you I'll spell it out very clearly: If you're going to claim that radio stations are inherently notable, you need to provide a link to this consensus, it is not my job to do that for you. I have made a claim that radio stations are not inherently notable, and have provided proof of that consensus, which is documented at WP:ORGSIG. I have backed up what I have claimed, and you have not. Yet you somehow expect me to do it for you. Therefore when you cite WP:TE it does nothing but reflect poorly upon you, since it highlights the behavior you are guilty of. This is not "spin" by any definition. Why don't you try that again, but with some sort of proof of this consensus this time? - SudoGhost 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sudo, to my knowledge I am uninvolved here. Homer has pointed to WP:BROADCAST, which by the looks of things has had a decent amount of traffic. If you feel the essay does not match the community's definition of notability, how about starting a RfC? VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And the information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Media is quite clear: Though low power stations with limited range and no original home-made content are normally not considered notable, other radio stations are usually kept as notable. That's been the repeated outcome when they're taken to AFD. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This same issue is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Are radio stations inherently notable? and User talk:SudoGhost#WBSC (AM) -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they are not usually kept, nor am I arguing that they do not have a very strong presumption of notability. What I am saying is that they are not inherently notable. Evidence that they are usually kept means just that, that they are usually kept. There's a line between "an overwhelming majority of these articles are kept because most are notable" and "radio stations are just inherently notable", and evidence for the first does not become consensus for the second, especially when the actual consensus regarding inherent notability is quite clear. I agree that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Media is indeed quite clear, and it doesn't support any claim that such articles are inherently notable, nor does anything else. - SudoGhost 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually say that they are inherently notable. I said that the usual outcome when these articles are taken to AFD is Keep. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The established consensus on Wikipedia is that any radio station which is properly licensed by the appropriate licensing authority (FCC in the US, CRTC in Canada, OFCOM in the UK, etc.), and which originates at least some of its own programming, is notable enough for an article. There are radio stations which are excluded by this — a transmitter which serves only as a rebroadcaster of another station, for example, should be redirected to its parent station or service rather than having a separate article, and low-power or unlicensed (Part 15, carrier current, pirate radio stations, etc.) broadcasters may or may not be notable depending on the strength of sourcing that can be added to counterbalance the lack of a license — but a radio station which has a broadcast license and originates its own programming is notable, because the public licensing documents themselves count as sufficient reliable sourcing about the station to get it past WP:GNG.

There is no value, furthermore, in arguing about the definition of "inherently notable", and whether or not that's the same thing as "always or usually kept" — that's simply splitting hairs for no productive reason. The consensus is what it is and the argument that's being raised just isn't going to alter it at all, because even if you can prove that radio stations aren't "inherently notable" that still won't actually result in the actual deletion of any radio station that meets WP:NMEDIA by virtue of being duly licensed and originating at least some of its own programming. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Two stations of questionable notability

As a followup to the above discussion, yesterday I came across two articles about radio stations whose notability is questionable:

• Radio Aleluya WRAR 1700 AM appears, as far as I can tell, to be an unlicensed low-power community broadcaster; the article cites no reliable (i.e. non-primary) sources, the station pulls up no records in a query at either AMQ or RecNet, and even its purported call sign, WRAR, conflicts with another station in a different city.
• WKID 96.7 FM also appears to be an unlicensed low-power station with no AMQ or RecNet records, its article is dancing on the edge of promotional (not quite blatantly enough to trigger my speedy reflex, however), and while it does cite secondary sources all but one are dead links whose content cannot be verified and the one source that can be accessed is not enough to get the topic past WP:GNG by itself.

So I'd like to solicit some additional input, are these salvageable articles for which improved sources are available, or should they be prodded or sent to AFD? Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

First one's been deleted, second one probably should be too. Looks like a kid's 1) pirate radio station or 2) internet radio station. -MrRadioGuy P T C E 17:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitron is now Nielsen

Effective today, Nielsen has completed it's purchase of Arbitron. As you all may know, back in 2009, Nielsen field a DMCA Takedown Notice (via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854), which caused all TV region templates to be removed because they had Nielsen television "DMA" information. Since Arbitron's radio "DMA" information is now owned by Nielsen, this will carry over.

So, please do NOT use any Arbitron radio "DMA" information and remove any Arbitron radio "DMA" information listed on any page, else we are going to be getting another DMCA Takedown Notice. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Arbitron query links? Levdr1lp / talk 14:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. They are part of the {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}} templates. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

KWFM

Situation reported on ANI about an edit conflict involving an editor with the radio station and a general user conflicting about what information should be included, along with what's been interpreted as a legal threat from the former, so a couple experienced eyes from Arizona would be appreciated. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quay West Radio and its variants

Could someone take a look at Quay West Radio, QuayWest 107.4FM and Quay West 102.4/100.8. I spent ages trying to clean up dozens of clarify tags and deadlinks on the last one before discovering the other 2. I have proposed they should be merged into one better article and some of the uncited claims removed.— Rod ^talk 11:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)