Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:23, 25 April 2009

• WT:WPRS

Archives

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

ILR Radio pages (UK)

I don't think GCAP Radio stations should have been updated to became hearts on here. why not keep all the old names as they are and add that they ceased on the date Heart took over?

An Example of this would be

Wester National does not rediect to First group ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.168.17 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What. JPG-GR (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a protest that some articles for stations under new ownership have been updated to reflect the new name and ownership but the poster wishes they had just been marked defunct and new articles created for the renamed stations. But that's just a guess. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

KCFF, Clifton Forge, VA?

Anyone know anything of the history of this construction permit? Why the K callsign east of the Mississippi? Is there some history there or did someone at the FCC just screw up?--RadioFan2 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In one exciting day, Ron Elmore Ministries received callsign assignments for construction permits in Clifton Forge VA (KCFF), Licking MO (KIKG), Storm Lake IA (KOIA), Oketo KS (KOKN), Crook CO (KOOW), Louisville MS (KOUI), Bovina TX (KOVA), and Paragonah UT (KRRA). That Mississippi station is pretty far east of the river, too, and should clearly be a W--- callsign.

My bet is that like the former "KCBE" (now WEGB) on Long Island, New York, these too will be corrected in the fullness of time. However, for now, that's what the FCC has assigned so we just need to keep an eye on it. - Dravecky (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frequency swap

If a station changes its broadcast frequency, but retains its call sign and programming, are they still considered the same station covered by a single article? If yes, does the same apply when two stations swap frequencies?

For example station A broadcasts its programming under call sign X on frequency 1 and later broadcasts that same programming under the same call sign on frequency 2. At the same time, station B broadcasts its programming under call sign Y on frequency 2 and later broadcasts that same programming under the same call sign on frequency 1. Should the article on station A titled "X" include information on that station's history both before the swap on frequency 1 and after the swap on frequency 2 (and similarly or article "Y")?

This is what happened with WTAR and WNIS.

WTAR began broadcasting in 1923 on 790AM continued on that frequency until 1992 when it moved to 850AM in a frequency swap with WNIS. It continues to broadcast on 850AM. All of the programming that was being broadcast on 790AM at the time moved to 850AM along with the call sign. WNIS and all its programming moved from 850AM to 790AM at the same time. Since these articles is titled with the station call sign, I think they should reflect the station's history under both its old and new frequencies following the call sign across the swap.

The current articles seem to mix this up treating this more like a call sign change. For example, the WTAR article shows a first air date of 1952 rather than 1923, while the WNIS article gets credit for a 1923 start. Also, the predecessors to WNIS are listed on the WTAR page. I'd like to clean this up, but would like your opinions first. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a supporting change to the {{Infobox Radio station}} template here. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very rare for stations to actually "swap frequencies". More commonly, stations swap programming (if they are under common ownership), or owners swap stations. The FCC Facility ID Number is a permanent, unique identifier for a station which can help you disambiguate these cases. (Sometimes there may be three or more parties involved, as when Nassau Broadcasting bought the programming of WCRB (102.5 Waltham) from Charles River Broadcasting and the facilities of WKLB-FM (99.5 Lowell) from Greater Media, while Greater acquired the facilities of WCRB from Charles River and an unbuilt construction permit from Nassau.) 121a0012 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. Looking at the FCC database the facility ID for WTAR is 60472 while the facility ID for WNIS is 4671. However, looking at other 1923 stations such as WTAM, I get large facility ID numbers (59595 for WTAM). So, it's difficult to know if there is any correlation between facility ID and original air date (at least for those earlier that when the facility ID system was implemented).

Even so, the Misplaced Pages station articles are named by call letters not facility ID, and do not even mention facility ID, so it makes sense to me to follow the history in terms of those call letters. In contrast, if a station changes ownership, call sign, and programming, but possibly retains the existing facility ID, guidelines would call for creation of a new article, not continuation of the existing one. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no correlation between facility ID numbers and original air date, except insofar as very new stations were assigned numbers in sequence after the system was instituted in the late 1990s. The facility ID identifies the station, permanently (and it should be listed in the infobox if it isn't already). The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this: "If a station changes its call sign: Move (rename) the article to the current call sign". Here you have a case where two stations changed call sign, so you move both articles. (This probably requires going through an intermediate step; MediaWiki will not allow you to "swap" two articles unless one of them is a redirect.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree at categorizing this as "a station changes its call sign" situation. If all they changed was their call sign, I'd agree, but virtually everything that makes up the station's identity – offices, studio, staff, programming lineup, listener base, and probably the bank accounts, business license, and IRS tax ID – stayed with the call letters, only the transmitter and its facility ID became disassociated from the rest. I suspect if I visited the WTAR-850 studio today, I'd might find 1920's and '30s WTAR-790 memorabilia on their wall, not so in the WNIS-790 studio. From an FCC licensing perspective, it would make perfect sense to call it a call sign change, but from the public's point of view (station audience, Misplaced Pages readership, local historian) it was frequency change, not much different from a street address change.

But I'm starting to ramble and repeat myself, and suspect that each of us are fast in out opinions and each correct from our chosen perspective, so perhaps other opinions would be useful. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the the naming convention guidelines suggests moving both articles, I've seen it done both ways. I think historic call signs, as is the case here, deserve special consideration. This particular case isn't all that complicated though as we're just dealing with article content (the "frequency swap" was in 1997 so no article moves obviously). Personally I feel that the article "edit history" should stay with the facility ID as was already stated by 121a0012, but I see no problem with the majority of the call sign history sticking with the calls while also including a brief history on previous formats/call signs on the new frequency. YMMV RobDe68 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on a possible bot task

As I've been going about various radio-related cleanup tasks, I've come to realize that a lot of articles are still using the separate {{AMARB}}, {{AML}}, and {{AMQ}} templates rather than the consolidated {{AM station data}} template that's recommended at the project page (or their FM equivalents).
I thought about making that my next cleanup, but then realized that's a perfect job for a bot instead. So, I wanted to ask whether there'd be general agreement with — or, alternatively, any opposition to — my putting in a task request with AnomieBOT to have all uses of the individual templates in article space be replaced by the consolidated templates? I can't see any downside to this, but perhaps those of you with more article creation experience than I might know a wrinkle that I've overlooked. Mlaffs (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no real benefit to a mass change since the consolidated template simply invokes the three individual templates. Also, the potential for chaos is high if the bot is not very carefully crafted. It's sometimes acceptable and sometimes necessary for the FMQ template to be fed a callsign appended with -FM so as to distinguish it from a -LP in the FCC search but that same -FM would break both the FML search (and there's a whole separate LPL template for the -LP stations) and the FMARB search. I do create new articles using consolidated template and often convert existing articles to it but only while performing other editing tasks and only after careful evaluation of the current functionality. - Dravecky (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See, and this is why D is my favourite letter in BRD. I figured the primary benefit of the consolidated templates were that they ensured none of the individual ones were missed, but I hadn't thought through to the unique cases you've so nicely outlined. Based on that, yep, bad idea. Of course, that turns my mind to two new questions:

1. Is there value in adding some of that detail to the article creation guidelines? If I'd been creating an article from scratch, I wouldn't have known about needing to handle the FMQ differently from the FML or FMARB in some cases, although I'd like to hope I would have figured it out when I tested the links before saving them into the article. I think that's valuable information.
2. Maybe a better idea than the template replacement is a toolserver report analyzing the intersection between articles linking to the three individual templates, to uncover articles that are using one or more but not all three? Or do peoples' experiences suggest that I'm looking for a unicorn (something that doesn't exist)? Mlaffs (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a unicorn hunt—there are plenty of articles with one, two, or none of these three templates and every US radio station article should have all three, in one form or another. - Dravecky (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I use the seperate {{AMARB}}, {{AML}}, and {{AMQ}} templates rather than the consolidated {{AM station data}} template as I personally dislike the consolidated one. I like to be able to manually put in the information and be able to correct the information that the consolidated one sometimes gets wrong. I have actually considered nominating the consolidated one for deletion as unnecessary that I dislike it so much but haven't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 22:59

Well, then I think I've made the acquaintance of just the toolserver savant that can help with that. I'll give him a ping and see what he can put together. In case anyone's interested in seeing it, I already got him to modify one of his existing toolserver reports slightly so that it's possible to identify most articles that are using the radio station infobox but that haven't been tagged with the project template on their talk page. I say "most" because the talk page has to exist to see that the templates not there — it's not able to find the situations where the talk page hasn't been created at all. Mlaffs (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have pointed to the report, which is here. Just put Infobox Radio station in the Template field, WikiProject Radio Stations in the Category field, and click the inverse box. Mlaffs (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Feasibly, I might be able to help with that, on a very basic level. *ponders* JPG-GR (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Got the queries back — there are about 2600 articles that are aren't using either of the consolidated templates, and that aren't using all three of the individual templates. There are some false positives — unlicensed stations, for example — but I see much gnoming ahead! Mlaffs (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for HD channels being broadcast in regular FM

There is a discussion taking place on Talk:99X (Atlanta) about the new name of the article. The station was WNNX for 15 years, but was then moved to WWWQ-HD2, where it stayed for 15 months. During this time, the 99X (Atlanta) article described the station as no longer existing. Since then, however, the station has begun broadcasting at W250BC. The station, however, remains at WWWQ-HD2, so it is being broadcast at 97.9 FM (W250BC) as well as 99.7-HD2 (WWWQ-HD2). What is the correct naming convention for this situation? Some believe it should be at W250BC, since that is how it is usually heard. Some think it should be at WWWQ-HD2, since that is the originating signal, where the station actually begins. Others believe it should stay at 99X (Atlanta), since that is how it is known, particularly since nobody thinks of it as W250BC or WWWQ-HD2, but rather by its old call letters (WNNX, now Rock 100.5). Any input would be helpful; thank you! --Evil Eccentric (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it originates from WWWQ, it should be WWWQ-HD2 and a redirect on W250BC to that page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 04:57

I first read about this station launching a few days ago and was going to move the 99X article but thought I should look into the matter a little closer instead of performing a hasty move. It turns out that technically W250BC is still considered a translator for WNNX broadcasting the HD2 channel from sister station WWWQ (still within the FCC definition of a translator). And since the WP:WPRS guidelines for translators states "... Translators should be included in the parent station's article and should not have their own page.", I would say that there should be a mention of 99X on the WNNX article regarding its translator signal with a link to the main, mostly historic, 99X article (perhaps with a better name). That's my 2 cents. RobDe68 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an example where I think it's reasonable for the HD2 program service to be given its own separate article. This case isn't even the only one in Atlanta -- there's a company leasing out the HD2 on one of the rimshot FMs (I forget which one) that has, or is planning to, put the programming on an analog translator from one of the tall east-side towers (I forget which one). There's also one like this in Manchester, N.H. (The other case, where the HD2 is simulcast on a primary station, should continue to be listed under the callsign of that primary.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The WP:WPRS guidelines are pretty clear. Now if we wanted to go about changing the guidelines regarding translator signal broadcasting separate programming than its parent station, then that's a different matter. RobDe68 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the addendum be made that analog FM stations simulcast by an HD-only channel on another station be treated as separate stations (including locating each article at its "translator" callsign) in Misplaced Pages, the way they are treated by stations and listeners, for the following reasons:

• These stations use the FM "translator" frequency as their branding/moniker/identity. Even without other factors, this fact makes each its own separate and distinct radio station in this situation.

• The signal has been majorly altered, therefore it is by definition not a translator (regardless of what the FCC wants to call it).

• The idea that they are "retransmitting" another station is entirely a technicality and a loophole that gets them around the anti-origination rules.

• They are essentially super-LPFM stations (which also have their own articles), although being unlimited in height and having a higher power limit (250W, vs. 10/100W at only 30m), many actually have the broadcast range of class A stations.

• It is clear that these stations are considered and are used, both by the licensee/owner and listeners, as the primary station.

• Almost nobody has even one HD Radio receiver, and many have no idea what it even is. It may never even succeed. Therefore it is irrelevant for the vast majority of people, like a subcarrier.

• Almost everyone has multiple FM receivers. Millions of people can hear the FM, while maybe thousands can hear the "HD", which was the whole point of putting it on an FM "translator" in the first place.

• The alphanumeric broadcast callsign may be unusual for FM, but it is common on LPTV stations (which do not have a differentiation based on translating or originating programming), so it would by no means be outside of the standards.

• "HD" channels do not deserve their own articles, but unique FM stations do, including these stations.

• HD2 and HD3 are not a part of the callsign, therefore putting these stations in that title format is inconsistent with the policy of using the legal callsign.

• WP:WPRS was written well before the HD-to-FM issue came about. While the policy still makes perfect sense for stations that are actually translating another FM, it does not make sense in these new cases for the reasons outlined above.

 –radiojon (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Callsign vs. brand name

In what special situation should a radio station article go at its brand name?? (See the requested move at Talk:99X (Atlanta). Georgia guy (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we always go with the call sign no matter what. I don't know of any special situation where we have gone with the brand name....ever to be honest. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 22:18

I don't know if it's a special situation or not, but most European station articles are named for the station branding. But for North American stations it's always the government issued call sign. RobDe68 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from, according to what many Wikipedians think, 99X (Atlanta). Georgia guy (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is ongoing but it will most likely wind up on the -HD2 call letters as an article name with the translator and 99X (Atlanta) as redirects, the way that Seattle's "Radio Hankook" is a redirect to KSUH. - Dravecky (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration FM

Declining speedy deletion; anyone want to have a look? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)