This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Was wondering if someone from WPRS might take a look at Nation Radio London and assessing it for notability. No sources are cited so it's not clear whether this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. If it's not notable enough for a stand-alone article, then may redirecting to Nation Radio Wales would be worth consideration as an alternative to deletion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this article. It's been a redirect for awhile, but recently an editor has been rather insistent on creating its own stub. When looking at the FCC license, it says that it merely relays WPTY. This would appear to not make it qualify as per WP:BCAST. However, according to the websites of the two stations, their formats are completely different: Oldies and Pary, respectively. So I don't see how it could possibly simply retransmit, in which case it would qualify for its own article. But I don't do a lot of work on radio articles, so could use some input. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if maybe editors from this project could help me out here.
Template:FCC history cards is marked as deprecated with the explanation of: This template is no longer useful. It currently points to an HTML page that contains JavaScript code with a very limited list of facility IDs. All active radio stations already have links to the FCC, and the FCC has (proper and correct) links to a station's history cards. The only time a direct URL is needed for history cards is if it used in a citation (for active or defunct stations) or as an external link (for defunct stations).
. It is still used on 410 pages. Does this have any replacement? --
Gonnym (
talk) 16:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from WP:WPRS mind taking a look at this article and assessing it per WP:NORG? It has been previously deleted twice before per WP:A7 (once in April 2015 and once in October 2018), but has been created once again. If the opinion is that the station's not quite notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written, then maybe further discussion at WP:AFD would be a good idea. Since I'm unable to see the previous deleted versions, I cannot tell whether this latest version is an improvement. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This template is being discussed for deletion. The original reasoning was that it only had 3 links/1 station, but it has been improved to 19 stations. It is being Relisted. Stereorock ( talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The self-admitted owner of WPNC-FM has attempted at least twice to delete a notation about his station's license being revoked due to non-payment of a debt to the F.C.C., saying that it is inaccurate. The public letter from the F.C.C. to the owner (Durlyn Broadcasting) states otherwise, and the article does note that Durlyn's authority to broadcast was reinstated a month later. I see nothing wrong that we Wikipedians have done, but a definite violation of WP:COI is evident. I left a note on the talk page of the station owner, and while writing it, a different IP reverted my reverting the article to its prior state. I've reverted the article twice in the past 24 hours, as I see it as vandalism, but am going to walk away to not violate the 3RR. Please review the article to make sure it's up to snuff. Thank you. Stereorock ( talk) 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Just need a confirmed second opinion on this; several editors, including the blocked Martini Lewis X, have insisted on maintaining this Denver translator of KBPI as a separate article, even though its five year history is just a number of re-tunes to various Denver market AM/HD2 iHeart stations, and they won't accept a redirect to a paragraph section about the TX history on KBPI, and think that most laymen think K300CP stands alone. I'm also having issues insisting that we don't spotlight HD Radio statuses if there is no HD broadcast (they seem to be a little cross that KBPI or the translator that isn't FCC-allowed to carry HD Radio aren't doing so and want it pointed out), so I need a few more eyes on the situation. Nate • ( chatter) 22:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
When I went through the (defunct) articles, I also found some pages that merited merging into another article as they were about specific periods in the history of a given frequency. I would like thoughts on the merge proposals at Talk:KDLD and Talk:KFRC-FM. There are about 30 pages in total, mostly articles of this type that describe one era in a given frequency's history or about stations/brands that have used multiple frequencies like WGMS (defunct), that I had identified in my initial search for (defunct) pages. Raymie ( t • c) 00:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about how we have labeled defunct radio stations on the talk page at KCTY (defunct). This would force us to label them differently than we do now. Stereorock ( talk) 10:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
On many television templates, there are sections dedicated to “Outlying area stations” (suburban or exurban signals that do not cover the core of a market) and “Adjacent locals” (station’s that have widespread carriage, or in this case, a signal that reaches a sizable portion of a market that it is not home to). Could this concept be used on radio templates as well?
Establishing a section devoted to outlying and out-of-market stations would help distinguish such stations from full-market signals. For instance, the Boston market has plenty of outlying stations — WXRV, WCRB and WEEI-FM from the Merrimack Valley, WBOQ from the North Shore, WPLM-FM/ AM and WATD-FM/ AM from the South Shore, WSRO, WXLO-FM and WAAF from the MetroWest, and plenty of non-commercial operators as well. This technique is already used on many Canadian templates, but for whatever reason, has not been implemented on USA templates. Would such an idea be feasible on American market templates? TomG2002 ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBCQ (SW)
Providing notice here because of the rarity of shortwave stations in the US to begin with, but also the article definitely needs some help as it's been slimmed down by our guidelines to remove ADVERT and RADIOGUIDE content. Nate • ( chatter) 09:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Many years ago, our old practice of creating "State/Province Radio Market" templates, that would be embedded inside individual radio market templates in order to ensure that they were crosslinking each other, was deprecated and replaced with direct crosslinks in each template rather than by calling a second nested template. Most of the old nesting templates were accordingly deleted, although stragglers have occasionally been found which, even though they're no longer used at all, got missed in the deletion process and still have to get taken to TFD.
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_10#Template:Vermont_Radio_Markets is such a straggler, and should rightly be deleted since the Vermont templates are already crosslinking each other in the contemporary direct-link format. However, some users are actively trying to expand the scope of that discussion beyond the usefulness of that template itself, and are trying to force a new rule barring any form of radio market templates crosslinking to other radio market templates at all — thus not just deleting that template itself, but also mandating the complete and total removal of any reader-facing cross-template links from radio market templates in any form. But, of course, that defeats a critical purpose of the market templates, because the reason we started crosslinking the templates in the first place was to try to stop people from adding adjacent-market stations to the wrong templates and then adding fifteen market navboxes to each article in defiance of WP:TCREEP.
The discussion, in other words, needs some additional input from other participants in this project. Bearcat ( talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A requested move of interest to this project is being discussed at Talk:XHHIT-FM#Requested move 16 July 2019. Raymie ( t • c) 02:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
We've been at a bit of an impasse between several editors, particularly DJSharke and Stereorock, over the styling of lists of FM stations in Canadian market navboxes. Stereorock argues that templates should list -FM suffixes for all FM station callsigns and has edited several templates ({{ Ottawa Radio}}, {{ Cape Breton radio}} and a couple of others) to that effect. DjSharke and Stereorock have reverted several of each other's edits on the Ottawa template, and though I personally lean toward not listing a redundant suffix dozens of times on a list and note that currently most templates do not list the -FM suffix for all FM stations, I think the matter needs to be settled at a wider level to build consensus and not just between editors at loggerheads on a user talk page. Raymie ( t • c) 03:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
Sherbrooke Radio}}
, I discovered a station listed as “CBF 92.7” in Victoriaville. Clicking on the link brought me to CBF-FM, which is in Montreal but not on 92.7! In Canada, a rebroadcaster can become a full-fledged station, unlike in the U.S. where a translator can’t originate programming except for one very-limited circumstance. The rebroadcaster doesn’t even have to give up its old callsign for a full-power one! The Victoriaville station turned out to be CBF-FM-12, which rebroadcasts former rebroadcaster CBF-FM-10! CBF-FM-10 originates some programming of its own & is a full-fledged F.M. station, yet the Victoriaville station was listed as a different callsign (CBF), & the wikipage went to CBF-FM, not its true parent CBF-FM-10. This is all way too confusing just to save a couple of characters in a template! Let’s do the right thing & list stations by their true callsigns so we don’t get confusing listings & wrong links! The governments have done the hard work for us! Also, maybe we should make the Canadian templates (& other countries as well like Mexico) follow the American markets & list frequencies separately from callsigns.
Stereorock (
talk) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Anyway, I am heading on vacation this morning, so I am going to be infrequent until probably Friday. Have a good week, everyone! Stereorock ( talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
After thinking about it for the last couple days, I’ve come to the conclusion that regional groupings should be used on US templates. There are plenty of benefits to this:
I’d think that this method is more useful for readers than the current separation method (LPFM/translators), but I’m looking for a concensus. And yes, I realize I’ve brought this up before, but I’m definitely seeing some flaws to the current method, so I figured it’d be best to bring this up again. TomG2002 ( talk) 01:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
TomG2002 ( talk · contribs) has nominated 5 markets for deletion. You may read the entry here: [ [1]]. User:Stereorock 13:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
One thing I have noticed over the years is that most, but not all templates have a consistency to them, but which is not set in stone. The features are: Frequencies in order from lowest to highest (meaning A.M. comes before shortwave, which comes before F.M., which comes before weather radio in the U.S. & Canada; L.W.->M.W.->S.W.->F.M.->D.A.B. for Europe, Australia). I would like to solidify this. Also, that shortwave should be listed exclusively in MHz, as what I learned was that once you go into the thousands of a unit, it is customary to change the unit prefix (so 5,000 kHz becomes 5 MHz). A.M./M.W. being exempted because it starts below 1MHz. Thanks! Stereorock ( talk) 13:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Many regional radio templates use Nielsen’s definitions for markets as the basis for determining whether or not a station should be part of a navbox or not, but since WP has been in hot water with Nielsen before for using their copyrighted definitions/terminology, should we really be doing that anymore? How about using the US Census Bureau’s MSA definitions or the FCC’s protected contours for individual stations instead? I would think that both sources are reliable enough to not qualify as WP:NOR, but I am looking for a consensus. TomG2002 ( talk) 18:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It depends on which method we were to use. If we used the US Census one, it would be in the Boston template since Middleborough is part of the Boston NECTA and MSA. If we were to use FCC contours, it’d be in the New Bedford-Fall River Template, since it’s signal is better in New Bedford than in Boston or Providence. On the other hand, stations like WPLM-FM would likely be included in as many as 4 (Boston, Providence, Cape Cod and South Coast) templates under the FCC contour proposal, since it’s protected contour encompasses all 4 areas. TomG2002 ( talk) 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
A user is deleting -FM suffixes from the above page for stations that do have the suffixes as part of their F.C.C.-issued callsigns. I wanted to alert you all to that. Stereorock ( talk) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been adding short descriptions to radio station articles throughout this year. For US stations in particular, where a city of license is often a suburb of a larger metropolitan city, I've been double-barreling the description (e.g. "Radio station in Cheraw–Florence, South Carolina". Vchimpanzee suggests that because the station has no physical presence in Cheraw, the short description should just mention the metropolitan area. Any thoughts on what works better for a short description? Raymie ( t • c) 20:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Should radio stations that are licensed to one state but serve another state (or parts of two states) be included on both templates? And should we include the target city of a station on the template in addition to the city of license? The casual reader likely would recognize WSNE-FM as a Providence, Rhode Island station and not a Taunton, Massachusetts one, WHOM as a Portland, Maine station and not a Mount Washington one, WEEI-FM as a Boston station and not a Lawrence, Massachusetts one, etc. The television templates already include stations that are licensed to one city/state but target another city/state, and this strategy could easily be incorporated onto radio templates as I did on some New England area templates over the summer (some templates still use this method). I’m just looking for a consensus. TomG2002 ( talk) 13:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
List of oldest radio stations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This list has multiple issues. I've noted some on the talk page and will try to clean it up during the next few weeks as I have time. Thoughts on inclusion criteria and structure (which section titles should be included) would be most welcome. -- mikeu talk 20:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Radio Stations since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in an RfC at Talk:WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Was wondering if someone from WPRS might take a look at Nation Radio London and assessing it for notability. No sources are cited so it's not clear whether this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. If it's not notable enough for a stand-alone article, then may redirecting to Nation Radio Wales would be worth consideration as an alternative to deletion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this article. It's been a redirect for awhile, but recently an editor has been rather insistent on creating its own stub. When looking at the FCC license, it says that it merely relays WPTY. This would appear to not make it qualify as per WP:BCAST. However, according to the websites of the two stations, their formats are completely different: Oldies and Pary, respectively. So I don't see how it could possibly simply retransmit, in which case it would qualify for its own article. But I don't do a lot of work on radio articles, so could use some input. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if maybe editors from this project could help me out here.
Template:FCC history cards is marked as deprecated with the explanation of: This template is no longer useful. It currently points to an HTML page that contains JavaScript code with a very limited list of facility IDs. All active radio stations already have links to the FCC, and the FCC has (proper and correct) links to a station's history cards. The only time a direct URL is needed for history cards is if it used in a citation (for active or defunct stations) or as an external link (for defunct stations).
. It is still used on 410 pages. Does this have any replacement? --
Gonnym (
talk) 16:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from WP:WPRS mind taking a look at this article and assessing it per WP:NORG? It has been previously deleted twice before per WP:A7 (once in April 2015 and once in October 2018), but has been created once again. If the opinion is that the station's not quite notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written, then maybe further discussion at WP:AFD would be a good idea. Since I'm unable to see the previous deleted versions, I cannot tell whether this latest version is an improvement. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This template is being discussed for deletion. The original reasoning was that it only had 3 links/1 station, but it has been improved to 19 stations. It is being Relisted. Stereorock ( talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The self-admitted owner of WPNC-FM has attempted at least twice to delete a notation about his station's license being revoked due to non-payment of a debt to the F.C.C., saying that it is inaccurate. The public letter from the F.C.C. to the owner (Durlyn Broadcasting) states otherwise, and the article does note that Durlyn's authority to broadcast was reinstated a month later. I see nothing wrong that we Wikipedians have done, but a definite violation of WP:COI is evident. I left a note on the talk page of the station owner, and while writing it, a different IP reverted my reverting the article to its prior state. I've reverted the article twice in the past 24 hours, as I see it as vandalism, but am going to walk away to not violate the 3RR. Please review the article to make sure it's up to snuff. Thank you. Stereorock ( talk) 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Just need a confirmed second opinion on this; several editors, including the blocked Martini Lewis X, have insisted on maintaining this Denver translator of KBPI as a separate article, even though its five year history is just a number of re-tunes to various Denver market AM/HD2 iHeart stations, and they won't accept a redirect to a paragraph section about the TX history on KBPI, and think that most laymen think K300CP stands alone. I'm also having issues insisting that we don't spotlight HD Radio statuses if there is no HD broadcast (they seem to be a little cross that KBPI or the translator that isn't FCC-allowed to carry HD Radio aren't doing so and want it pointed out), so I need a few more eyes on the situation. Nate • ( chatter) 22:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
When I went through the (defunct) articles, I also found some pages that merited merging into another article as they were about specific periods in the history of a given frequency. I would like thoughts on the merge proposals at Talk:KDLD and Talk:KFRC-FM. There are about 30 pages in total, mostly articles of this type that describe one era in a given frequency's history or about stations/brands that have used multiple frequencies like WGMS (defunct), that I had identified in my initial search for (defunct) pages. Raymie ( t • c) 00:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about how we have labeled defunct radio stations on the talk page at KCTY (defunct). This would force us to label them differently than we do now. Stereorock ( talk) 10:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
On many television templates, there are sections dedicated to “Outlying area stations” (suburban or exurban signals that do not cover the core of a market) and “Adjacent locals” (station’s that have widespread carriage, or in this case, a signal that reaches a sizable portion of a market that it is not home to). Could this concept be used on radio templates as well?
Establishing a section devoted to outlying and out-of-market stations would help distinguish such stations from full-market signals. For instance, the Boston market has plenty of outlying stations — WXRV, WCRB and WEEI-FM from the Merrimack Valley, WBOQ from the North Shore, WPLM-FM/ AM and WATD-FM/ AM from the South Shore, WSRO, WXLO-FM and WAAF from the MetroWest, and plenty of non-commercial operators as well. This technique is already used on many Canadian templates, but for whatever reason, has not been implemented on USA templates. Would such an idea be feasible on American market templates? TomG2002 ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBCQ (SW)
Providing notice here because of the rarity of shortwave stations in the US to begin with, but also the article definitely needs some help as it's been slimmed down by our guidelines to remove ADVERT and RADIOGUIDE content. Nate • ( chatter) 09:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Many years ago, our old practice of creating "State/Province Radio Market" templates, that would be embedded inside individual radio market templates in order to ensure that they were crosslinking each other, was deprecated and replaced with direct crosslinks in each template rather than by calling a second nested template. Most of the old nesting templates were accordingly deleted, although stragglers have occasionally been found which, even though they're no longer used at all, got missed in the deletion process and still have to get taken to TFD.
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_10#Template:Vermont_Radio_Markets is such a straggler, and should rightly be deleted since the Vermont templates are already crosslinking each other in the contemporary direct-link format. However, some users are actively trying to expand the scope of that discussion beyond the usefulness of that template itself, and are trying to force a new rule barring any form of radio market templates crosslinking to other radio market templates at all — thus not just deleting that template itself, but also mandating the complete and total removal of any reader-facing cross-template links from radio market templates in any form. But, of course, that defeats a critical purpose of the market templates, because the reason we started crosslinking the templates in the first place was to try to stop people from adding adjacent-market stations to the wrong templates and then adding fifteen market navboxes to each article in defiance of WP:TCREEP.
The discussion, in other words, needs some additional input from other participants in this project. Bearcat ( talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A requested move of interest to this project is being discussed at Talk:XHHIT-FM#Requested move 16 July 2019. Raymie ( t • c) 02:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
We've been at a bit of an impasse between several editors, particularly DJSharke and Stereorock, over the styling of lists of FM stations in Canadian market navboxes. Stereorock argues that templates should list -FM suffixes for all FM station callsigns and has edited several templates ({{ Ottawa Radio}}, {{ Cape Breton radio}} and a couple of others) to that effect. DjSharke and Stereorock have reverted several of each other's edits on the Ottawa template, and though I personally lean toward not listing a redundant suffix dozens of times on a list and note that currently most templates do not list the -FM suffix for all FM stations, I think the matter needs to be settled at a wider level to build consensus and not just between editors at loggerheads on a user talk page. Raymie ( t • c) 03:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
Sherbrooke Radio}}
, I discovered a station listed as “CBF 92.7” in Victoriaville. Clicking on the link brought me to CBF-FM, which is in Montreal but not on 92.7! In Canada, a rebroadcaster can become a full-fledged station, unlike in the U.S. where a translator can’t originate programming except for one very-limited circumstance. The rebroadcaster doesn’t even have to give up its old callsign for a full-power one! The Victoriaville station turned out to be CBF-FM-12, which rebroadcasts former rebroadcaster CBF-FM-10! CBF-FM-10 originates some programming of its own & is a full-fledged F.M. station, yet the Victoriaville station was listed as a different callsign (CBF), & the wikipage went to CBF-FM, not its true parent CBF-FM-10. This is all way too confusing just to save a couple of characters in a template! Let’s do the right thing & list stations by their true callsigns so we don’t get confusing listings & wrong links! The governments have done the hard work for us! Also, maybe we should make the Canadian templates (& other countries as well like Mexico) follow the American markets & list frequencies separately from callsigns.
Stereorock (
talk) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Anyway, I am heading on vacation this morning, so I am going to be infrequent until probably Friday. Have a good week, everyone! Stereorock ( talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
After thinking about it for the last couple days, I’ve come to the conclusion that regional groupings should be used on US templates. There are plenty of benefits to this:
I’d think that this method is more useful for readers than the current separation method (LPFM/translators), but I’m looking for a concensus. And yes, I realize I’ve brought this up before, but I’m definitely seeing some flaws to the current method, so I figured it’d be best to bring this up again. TomG2002 ( talk) 01:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
TomG2002 ( talk · contribs) has nominated 5 markets for deletion. You may read the entry here: [ [1]]. User:Stereorock 13:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
One thing I have noticed over the years is that most, but not all templates have a consistency to them, but which is not set in stone. The features are: Frequencies in order from lowest to highest (meaning A.M. comes before shortwave, which comes before F.M., which comes before weather radio in the U.S. & Canada; L.W.->M.W.->S.W.->F.M.->D.A.B. for Europe, Australia). I would like to solidify this. Also, that shortwave should be listed exclusively in MHz, as what I learned was that once you go into the thousands of a unit, it is customary to change the unit prefix (so 5,000 kHz becomes 5 MHz). A.M./M.W. being exempted because it starts below 1MHz. Thanks! Stereorock ( talk) 13:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Many regional radio templates use Nielsen’s definitions for markets as the basis for determining whether or not a station should be part of a navbox or not, but since WP has been in hot water with Nielsen before for using their copyrighted definitions/terminology, should we really be doing that anymore? How about using the US Census Bureau’s MSA definitions or the FCC’s protected contours for individual stations instead? I would think that both sources are reliable enough to not qualify as WP:NOR, but I am looking for a consensus. TomG2002 ( talk) 18:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It depends on which method we were to use. If we used the US Census one, it would be in the Boston template since Middleborough is part of the Boston NECTA and MSA. If we were to use FCC contours, it’d be in the New Bedford-Fall River Template, since it’s signal is better in New Bedford than in Boston or Providence. On the other hand, stations like WPLM-FM would likely be included in as many as 4 (Boston, Providence, Cape Cod and South Coast) templates under the FCC contour proposal, since it’s protected contour encompasses all 4 areas. TomG2002 ( talk) 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
A user is deleting -FM suffixes from the above page for stations that do have the suffixes as part of their F.C.C.-issued callsigns. I wanted to alert you all to that. Stereorock ( talk) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been adding short descriptions to radio station articles throughout this year. For US stations in particular, where a city of license is often a suburb of a larger metropolitan city, I've been double-barreling the description (e.g. "Radio station in Cheraw–Florence, South Carolina". Vchimpanzee suggests that because the station has no physical presence in Cheraw, the short description should just mention the metropolitan area. Any thoughts on what works better for a short description? Raymie ( t • c) 20:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Should radio stations that are licensed to one state but serve another state (or parts of two states) be included on both templates? And should we include the target city of a station on the template in addition to the city of license? The casual reader likely would recognize WSNE-FM as a Providence, Rhode Island station and not a Taunton, Massachusetts one, WHOM as a Portland, Maine station and not a Mount Washington one, WEEI-FM as a Boston station and not a Lawrence, Massachusetts one, etc. The television templates already include stations that are licensed to one city/state but target another city/state, and this strategy could easily be incorporated onto radio templates as I did on some New England area templates over the summer (some templates still use this method). I’m just looking for a consensus. TomG2002 ( talk) 13:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
List of oldest radio stations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This list has multiple issues. I've noted some on the talk page and will try to clean it up during the next few weeks as I have time. Thoughts on inclusion criteria and structure (which section titles should be included) would be most welcome. -- mikeu talk 20:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Radio Stations since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in an RfC at Talk:WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)