Template talk:Infobox radio station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Operator field[edit]

This actually worked quite well on Template:Infobox broadcast, so I think it'd be good here too.

Due to the significant proliferation of local marketing agreements and other similar arrangements that are basically the same in practice, I feel that this infobox should explicitly separate the "owner" of a television station from a company that operates it, rather than our current practice of shoving them in with the Owner field.

This would require the addition of a new field, "operator". Operator would be listed in the infobox below the current Owner field (or maybe should it be above?). If the station is being operated by a company that is different from its owner, i.e. those Mission Broadcasting stations that are actually run by Nexstar Broadcasting Group and treated as their own, the operating company (Nexstar) would be listed in this new "Operator" field alongside the FCC license holder (Mission) in the "Owner" field.

I've seen this happen in radio too at times, so I think this would be a good addition. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Just some notes: Frietjes applied Special:Diff/696479167/697433956 to {{Infobox broadcast}} per ViperSnake151's edit request in December 2015. This appears to be an equivalent request. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done  Temporal Sunshine Paine  22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Would love to see an example of a radio station where owner, operator, and licensee are all populated. Otherwise, I fear we're just adding additional parameters rather than solving a possible labeling issue. JPG-GR (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This is only if the station is essentially being programmed by a different entity than its legal owner, such as WRME-LP, and Midwest Television's San Diego cluster, which are in a joint operating agreement with Local Media San Diego under an entity known as SDLocal. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up - is there a consistent way to source this, such as the FCC database? JPG-GR (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Share" parameters considered harmful[edit]

Well, they're not "harmful" per se, but I don't think this is encyclopedic information. Rather, I think it's material that's covered by WP:NOTNEWS. They require updates whenever a ratings "book" comes out, or else they're out of date. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Do the most recent book's ratings really have "enduring notability"? Jeh (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Good lord, now we're getting crap like this. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And this. Jeh (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
A problem wit her including this information (the shares) is that they are "beauty contest" numbers; the 6+ ratings are virtually meaningless & don't mean anything in any worthwhile sense. A station can be highly rated overall, and be forced to change formats if a lot of the "wrong" people listen (usually age 55+) that advertisers refuse to gear their ads towards. So, the overall rank and share are meaningless numbers, especially the share which is probably meaningless to the average person.Stereorock (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
minus Removed. Parameters |share=, |share source= and |share as= were removed because:
  1. The call for removing them cited a fundamental policy. Such a policy cannot be easily ignored.
  2. There was no opposition since 27 February 2017.
  3. There was one support since that date.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to this decision about the ratings; I've always hated them in the infobox with a passion because they're only edited by the very few who care about radio ratings and those editors are very few and far between, in addition to some stations not purchasing the numbers because they disagree with ratings entirely. Also to be taken in mind that Nielsen went after WMF and WP:TVS (and rightly so) involving their copyrighted DMA positions years back; now that Nielsen bought Arbitron, that was a ticking time bomb to when they would OTRS those. This was the best decision to be made here, and I'm glad to see them being pulled. Nate (chatter) 05:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment! I've been bracing myself (figuratively) for an onslaught of complaints from the ratings updaters. Jeh (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I oppose the ratings parameters because they would have to be updated every quarter, which is too frequent, to stay accurate. I concur with Stereorock that the publicly available numbers (the "6+") are meaningless. SirChan (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2017[edit]

On the redirect Template:Infobox Radio station, add on the third line:
{{Rcat shell|{{R from move}}{{R from template shortcut}}{{R from modification}}

This is the new text of the redirect:

#REDIRECT [[Template:Infobox radio station]]

{{Rcat shell|{{R from move}}{{R from template shortcut}}{{R from modification}}}}

stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 09:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: It is not a shortcut. — JJMC89(T·C) 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Character formatting for "slogan" and "branding"[edit]

There is no guideline specifically for character coding of the "slogan" and "branding" arguments. Many editors use italics, many use bolding, some use bold italics, some use quotes, some use various combinations of them, and some use nothing. As a result you will be able to find numerous examples of just about any style you care to defend. My read of MOS is that they are quotations and nothing else, so per MOS:QUOTE they get quote marks. And nothing else, because nothing in MOS:BOLD or MOS:ITALIC supports their use for slogans or brands. See e.g. MOS:NOITALQUOTE. Unless it's in a foreign language, in which case italics and quotes are called for.

This would be consistent with the recommendation at Wikiproject Radio Stations: Introduction, which shows using e.g.

KLMN (102.3 FM, "The Illuminator") is a radio station ...

... putting the call letter in bold (as it's the article title) and the branding in quotes, no other embellishment.

Radio station articles in particular are overfilled with boldface as it is, as many stations change call letters often and it seems to be deemed necessary to boldface them all.

In any case, I would like "put them in quotes per MOS:QUOTE, unless they are non-English words, in which case add italics within the quotes" stated explicitly in the template documentation. Thank you for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If in the above example, branding is "The Illuminator", that should be in bold probably in the main text; in the infobox, it should probably be undecorated. Slogans are clearly quotations, however. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Branding is a quotation too (it's something often said on the air). I see no reason why either is not a quote, or why either should be bolded anywhere. Stations change their branding often and it is not going to be an alias for an article title; I find no other reason in MOS:BOLD that can justify bolding it. Jeh (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
No, they are clearly a different name, which should not be styled with quotation marks. Whether the name changes often or not is immaterial. I could be persuaded that they should not be bolded, but if it's a name (and especially if there is a redirect to the page with the title), it should definitely be bolded. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't agree. Granted that brands are often names, this is not a "name". It's part of brand identity. A name is what something is called. The station that for a long time here ID'd as "one thirty-six KGB" was never called that by anybody but a jingle singer. Today, KOGO AM is never called "Newsradio six hundred ko-go" except in the jingle package and on the sides of their vans. And so on. And I think such things should go in quotes because they are said on the air like that, just as the slogans are. Jeh (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
When we say the name of a station's brand, we are saying its name. When we are saying its slogan, it is quoting a branding. But one may argue that the branding is a title of a "work" (the station's programming). What I've gone towards is italicizing the branding but not the slogan. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)