Talk:DI.FM

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digitally Imported. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227032410/http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1345107&spid=24698 to http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1345107&spid=24698
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.publish.com/c/a/Web-Design/Digitally-Imported-Radio-Increased-bandwidth-no-expensive-infrastructure/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Defunct Channels

I have just removed Future Beats as DI undertook some maintenance at the weekend (20-21 January 2017) and it vanished. There are now 91 channels (can anyone recall when Future Bass appeared? It's still listed under "new' in the iOS app's 'styles' lists so presumably it's quite recent).

Funny thing, I counted up the channels in the current article list, and it came to 90 with the omission of Future Beats, but including Future Bass (as it was already listed). I've counted several times, and it's definitely 90, yet I can't see the missing channel on DI's website. Could someone else please contrast and compare, because it's doing me nut in now! There are 91 on DI's website). I'd like to have a go at sorting the table so it matches the website, but my parents are back from Tenerife tomorrow and I'll have to return the MBP.

Can anyone spot the difference (or is it that I can't count...?).

I'm trying to remember when the dedicated Sankey's channel disappeared, it was forever ago really, wasn't it (I've had a subscription for so long, I really can't remember!).

--Margo (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

All looks good. 91 channels at http://www.di.fm/channels and 91 listed here. I diffed the lists and saw 2 minor typo differences only. Wire723 (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Sister" networks

Hi there,

While going through this page, I noticed that the networks RadioTunes, JAZZRADIO, ROCKRADIO, and ClassicalRadio were referred to as "Sister networks" of Digitally Imported. After looking into it to find a source for this information (other listed sources are simply the websites for each of the networks but don't actually back up the claim), I do not believe that this is correct, and I've listed the evidence of this below.

1) Each site's TOS page (example [[1]]) states, "Please be advised that Radio Now, LLC is the legal owner of this website, the brand JAZZRADIO.com, and its related mobile apps, but that Digitally Imported, Inc is the data controller of all data collected to operate the Platform."

2) Last year, DI had a crowdfunding campaign. As part of this campaign, they had to file disclosures with the SEC, and you can see the disclosures at [[2]]. In the filing, there is no mention of these networks being part of DI in any way. In fact, I've listed two relevant snippets below which suggest that the relationship is more one of service provider than sister networks:

Snippet #1: "The company is a party to a master services agreement...between the company... and Radio Now, LLC, under which the company will provide: services to Radio Now, LLC, such as developing, maintaining and operating a subscription membership system on the basis of SaaS..." This starts a full list of services which the company provides for Radio Now, LLC.

Snippet #2: "The company also recognizes platform revenue, by which it provides IT infrastructure, streaming media, membership services, advertising integration, software development and other assorted administrative services to other online webcasting companies, Radio Now, LLC and Radio World, LLC."

3) Finally, a brief read on "sister companies" suggests that to qualify, the companies must be owned by a common parent company. In this case, the SEC filing suggests that DI is almost exclusively owned by a Gregory Ari Shohat while Radio Now, LLC has a different owner.

Given the above, I am going to change the phrasing in the paragraph about the "sister networks" to better reflect available sources.

Please let me know if you see any issues! Roth3nyk (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Roth3nyk: They are all apart of the AudioAddict publishing network/billing provider. So while it appears they have separate ownership, they are still connected. However, do we really need to list the channels of the other networks here? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Thanks for the feedback! Agree with removing the list of other channels. I will go do that now. In the meantime, I'm interested in what you had in mind for adjusting the phrasing regarding the relationship between DI.FM and the other sites? The current phrasing acknowledges that there is a relationship, and the "sister networks" phrasing isn't technically correct, so I'm open to any ideas that you may have. EDIT: Whoops - that was me. Somehow got logged out! Roth3nyk (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Roth3nyk: Just saying that they are apart of the AudioAddict network works, I think. Also, I think we should move the page title to just DI.FM for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Dissident93:≈ Thanks for the very necessary page move. I looked up AudioAddict, and the same SEC filing referenced above mentions specifically that "The company (My note: referring to DI.FM, but not Radio Now and the others) merged with AudioAddict, Inc. on or about December 2, 2016." Given that, I think that the current phrasing covers this relationship and the services described at https://www.audioaddict.com/. I don't see any other notable mentions of AudioAddict which suggest it is worth mentioning separately here. I had two separate questions though: 1) Would it make sense to upload the new DI.FM logo in place of the old logo in the infobox? I can try that myself, but I'm not as familiar with the image upload protocols as I should be. 2) The only edit you made which I was curious about was the deletion of awards. Those seemed like a big enough deal to be mentioned, and I found some sources as well if the lack of sources was the issue. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140812213221/http://www.wintermusicconference.com/events/idmas/index.php?wmcyear=2010#idmanominees (dropdown allows you to see the other years' winners as well) and https://rainnews.com/rain-awards-semifinalists-best-overall-online-radio-service/ and https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/09/prweb12152659.htm Roth3nyk (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Roth3nyk: I'll add the updated logo. As for the awards, they can return if they are sourced. I only removed them because they weren't. However, it's still preferred to use secondary sources for them, per WP:N. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
          • @Dissident93: Gotcha. Just to clarify though, when you say "preferred", is that literal? Meaning, do the primary sources work if I can't find secondary sources? Or should the awards simply not be added back in the absence of the secondary sources? Thanks for all your help! Roth3nyk (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
            • @Roth3nyk: Primary sources work for verifying objective info, such as a foundation date or who the CEO is. However, they fail to establish notability because they are self-published. In other words, anybody can give an award to DI.FM, but that doesn't make it notable unless it was covered by another publication. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
              • @Dissident93: Would the following magazine article qualify? https://crossfadr.com/2014/12/02/digitally-imported-eyes-lofty-expansion-plan/ It states, "Three, it’s regularly recognized by the electronic dance music as a place for quality music. It received Best Global Radio Station at the 2010 International Dance Music Awards, and won “Best Overall Online Radio Service” at the Fifth Annual RAIN Awards this past September." Roth3nyk (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roth3nyk: I don't know how reliable CrossFadr is, but it should count. As for the logo, I can't seem to find a clean version of it. If you do, link to it here and I'll replace it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Sorry for the delay. I added the sourced awards and attempted to add a decent (but still quite small) copy of the logo as well. Please let me know if this was done incorrectly - the image upload criteria were a bit confusing to me so I very well may have erred somewhere or left something important out. Thanks for any help you can provide! Roth3nyk (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Roth3nyk: The image was uploaded correctly, I don't see any issues with it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)