Wikipedia

Talk:KAPY-LP (Port Angeles, Washington)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Learn more about this page

KAPY-LP not defunct

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to the FCC's websie, KAPY is back in business. The station is listed with a "Status Date" of 01/12/2017. I'm not sure what that means, other than its license was probably reinstated on that date and is set to expire on 02/01/2022 per https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/sta_det.pl?Facility_id=196829. The station also has an active website: http://valley1049.org/. I don't have time to track down much more at the moment and have no idea how to remove "defunct" from the Wikipedia title. I'll see if a Radio Project of some kind can tend to this. Allreet (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apparently ownership was transferred to Valley Community Broadcasting. According to a letter on the FCC site, a voluntary transfer was rejected in 2014. A letter then indicates the LP was commencing testing in January 2017. I'm posting a comment on the WikiProject Radio Stations talk page. Allreet (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's a completely different license. The station currently holding the call sign KAPY-LP (FCC facID 196829) was originally assigned the call sign KRDI-LP when its construction permit was issued, and then later changed its call sign to KAPY-LP in 2016. It should be its own article at KAPY-LP, but nobody's created that article yet. The defunct station that previously held the call sign KAPY-LP (FCC facID 135744) had different owners and a different community of license, and so needs to remain a separate article. Mlaffs (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Defunct radio station disambiguator changes

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: This discussion, contrary to the RfC, does not find a consensus to move these articles. Therefore will refer this back to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting) for further discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

– This RM follows from a recently concluded RfC. It proposes 70 page moves to change (defunct) disambiguators to more specific ones for radio station articles in the United States. In some cases, a disambiguator is being removed with the article reverting to the default (AM) disambiguator used when a station needs to be distinguished from a similarly-called FM or TV. In others, the disambiguator is the state, or if there is currently another station operating with the callsign in the state, the city and state. In a few cases, it is a city disambiguator. Separate RMs are planned to cover defunct stations where I have determined the best disambiguator is a year period or a frequency. In some cases, articles aren't listed because they are instead planned to be merged into other pages. A defunct station with a different disambiguator, WRCR (radio station), is also included as it is inadequate to differentiate from other radio stations with the callsign. Raymie (t • c) 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • WCFJ (defunct) should be moved to WCFJ (AM), as the only other station with that call sign is on the FM band.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • @Tdl1060: Halfway through, I kind of realized some of those cases. I have another tranche I need to do which is stations whose disambiguators will be a frequency or a date. There are also some that won't have any disambiguator, including an (AM). Other articles won't be moved but instead merged, or in a handful of cases, deleted outright. There are also a couple of cases that will merit individual RMs. My personal list of what I intended to discuss is at User:Raymie/Defunct station renames to give you an idea. Raymie (t • c) 05:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. In the case of WHIM, its history is of its intellectual property, which is over 3 stations, not just WPMZ. In the case of WSM-FM, it should remain by itself because the current WSM-FM just carries the same callsign, but was not started by WSM, nor is the same license as the original WSM-FM.Stereorock (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • This appears to be in a state of flux, so I assume that you are planning to prepare an updated list based on you comments above. However, a couple thoughts:
  • Strongly Oppose: Having these pages with current-like callsigns makes the reader thing the station is still active. The word "defunct" clearly states the station is no longer on the air. If there are two stations with the same callsign and each is defunct, then the callsign and city and state can come into play. But when it's just one callsign it's silly and a bad idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose per above & the TV station articles too.Stereorock (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - First, I think it's probably best to disambiguate only when necessary -- I'm not strictly against adding "(defunct)" to a defunct station title automatically, but I also think it makes things simpler to add it only when needed. Second, active call signs are unique by definition, so it seems there are only three situations that call for additional disambiguation (beyond established guidelines):
    (1) Active station shares call sign with single defunct station. In this case, simply disambiguate by adding "(defunct)" to defunct station title -- as is already the case.
    Example: Active station KXXX shares exact same call sign as defunct station KXXX (no suffix like "-FM", "-TV", "-LP", etc.).
    (i) Disambiguate defunct station KXXX → KXXX (defunct).
    (2) Active station shares call sign with two or more defunct stations. In this case, disambiguate defunct stations further by adding state. If state is also shared, disambiguate further by adding community of license (COL). If COL is also shared, disambiguate further still by adding frequency (radio) and/or channel (TV). I find it exceedingly unlikely that two or more defunct stations will share the same exact call sign, and state, and COL, *and* frequency/channel.
    Example: Active station KXXX shares exact same call sign as defunct station #1 KXXX (no suffix like "-FM", "-TV", "-LP", etc.), as well as defunct station #2 KXXX (again, no suffix).
    (i) Initial disambiguation::
    Defunct station #1 KXXX → KXXX (defunct, [State-1])
    Defunct station #2 KXXX → KXXX (defunct, [State-2])
    (ii) If further disambiguation needed:
    Defunct #1 KXXX → KXXX (defunct, [COL-1], [State-1])
    Defunct #2 KXXX → KXXX (defunct, [COL-2], [State-2])
    (iii) If further disambiguation still needed:
    Defunct #1 KXXX → KXXX (defunct [Freq./Ch. 1], [COL-1], [State-1])
    Defunct #2 KXXX → KXXX (defunct [Freq./Ch. 2], [COL-2], [State-2])
    (3) No active station; two or more defunct stations. As in (2) above, disambiguate further by state, then COL, then frequency and/or channel.
Levdr1lp / talk 22:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per my comments at Talk:KCTY (defunct). The current method of disambiguation works fine. Defunct is a useful disambiguator for TV and radio stations. Whether is is useful for other kinds of articles is irrelevant. This discussion is being carried out on four different talk pages with different proposed alternative disambiguation methods. A consensus should be reached on one page on whether the pages should be renamed at all and on what if any alternative method should be used. However, there are specific problems with some of the current and proposed titles, and nominating so many pages to be moved all at once has resulted in those problems being overlooked in these discussions. A general consensus should be reached first. Then, if that consensus is in favor of renaming, a consensus should be reached for each station individually.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per previous consensus discussion. The above opposes are sorely confused, in ways covered in detail at the concurrent Talk:KCTY (defunct)#Defunct television station disambiguator changes. WP does not indicate in article titles whether something is current, new, extinct, obsolete, dead, active, retired, a lost work, or any other such temporal notion. Ever. However, the existence of a WP:TALKFORK of this into two RMs means both should probably be shut down and re-RMed as one, or we'll likely end up with conflicting closes, since this one's already been vote-stacked by a wikiproject (a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and WP:CONLEVEL problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Kudos: SMcCandlish, you might be the only editor (outside of Raymie) that actually noticed my edit about the two threads and "hey, let's turn this into one or this could be an issue". So, good on you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:32 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)
      • @SMcCandlish and Neutralhomer: How should I go about consolidating the RMs? I think that needs to be done. Raymie (t • c) 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • Raymie: I would close both (as you have done) and start another at WP:RM? List all the pages to affected from this discussion and the ones on the TV side as you have on the new RM and alert all participates in the discussions on both sides of the move and new location. Would you do anything different, SMcCandlish? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:36 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:KCLA (defunct) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KAPY-LP_(Port_Angeles,_Washington)&oldid=1200395897"