Talk:List of radio stations in Rhode Island

Low power stations

Please stop deleting the -LP stations. They ARE radio stations & fully licensed by the F.C.C. as such. Also, WOON IS Full Service, which MEANS variety, WJHD is an ECLECTIC formatted station not classical! Any changes will be construed as deliberate vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the station formats are as listed in the Arbitron database, as sourced, and as sourced for all of this type of article per the new WP:WPRS standard. Your continued use of original research with no source whatsoever will continue to be reverted to the proper version.

As for the low-power radio stations, it's been discussed elsewhere that in most cases, LP stations are non-notable and are subject to likely/possible deletion. If you'd like to make a separate list, perhaps at List of low-power radio stations in Rhode Island, please be my guest. JPG-GR 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what I'd like to do is have ONE page with ACCURATE information on all licensed radio stations in R.I.! Wikipedia & its users are not the final judge of what a licensed radio station is; that is an F.C.C. function and so this list should reflect that, not try to change the truth! Also, Arbitron does not rate non-comms in R.I. PLUS the 12+ ratings have been embargoed for awhile so stations have changed & any info you may get from Arbitron is likely old & not acceptable. Plus, Arbitron only has certain names for formats. I've seen instances of Arbitron being wrong in that respect. In regards to WOON, I talked to the owner PERSONALLY as I used to work there. I've also worked for WPRO, WHIM, WELH, WPEP, WARL, WRJI, WWBB, WSAR, WHTB and others. I've worked in radio for 12 years and still do! This page will revert to previous & should only see edits of owners as reflected on the F.C.C. database, when a station is added, goes on or off the air, changes format, power or call. As for -LP notability, they most certainly ARE notable. Call Chris DiPaola @ WBLQ-LP/96.7 in Ashaway/Westerly @ (401)322-9091 & tell him his station's not notable. Stereorock 01:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory as you have stated. These lists are merely provided as a way to organize all the other articles related to it. As low-power radio stations are generally non-notable, they are unlikely to ever have articles. Additionally, Arbitron is a trusted source for information, per WP:WPRS, and as they are the only known source for radio formats for nearly all FCC-licensed stations, they are the norm. Your knowledge of any station you've worked for and your desire to add it to Wikipedia is a conflict of interest. Additionally, any attempt to call anyone for information violates the original research guidelines. Please review each of these policies as well as take a look at WP:WPRS before you continue editing in this manner, as it is harmful to Wikipedia in general, and the aims of WP:WPRS in particular. Thank you. JPG-GR 03:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, continuing to edit as both Stereorock as well as under annonymous IP 70.183.166.180 is a violate of WP:SOCK. JPG-GR 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, we're trying to deal with the REAL WORLD, not WikiWorld! Arbitron HAS made mistakes and DOES NOT LIST N.C.E.s (at least in this market!). As for my supposed conflict of interest, listing any station I've worked for is a demonstration of a working knowledge of my industry. Yes, some employees DO change data to reflect their employer's desires (see the WNRI talkpage) but I feel that my data has been impartial. I have strived for impartiality. Besides, I thought you just couldn't do an article on YOURSELF! As for starting another list of just -LP stations, that would just be put up for merger into this article which would put us back at square one. Also, HOW would calling someone for information be bad? In journalism, that's called verifying your sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#JOURNALISM in addition to all the other policies I have already cited. Please read up on these, as your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive and may result in a block. JPG-GR 05:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How many -LP stations can there possibly be licensed to Rhode Island? And while original research is verboten I would say that a station's official website is likely to be more reliable and better updated that the Arbitron listings for station formats. - Dravecky 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dravecky, to answer your question, according to the FCC website (and a narrowed down search for just RI) there are only two FCC listed stations, WBLQ-LP in Ashaway and WXHQ-LP in Newport.

According to, again, the FCC website, WJHD is an Class A "'Full Service' FM station or application", WOON is not even listed in the FCC FMQ database, but is listed in the AM database and there are no LP-AM stations listed at all in the FCC database, because the FCC doesn't have any period.

As for using Arbitron as a source for formats, I would never go with them. They continue to show a couple DC area stations under the wrong format. Personally, I would use 100000watts.com or Radio-Locator.com or just look at the website, but using Arbitron should be used as a last option. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then these stations need to submit new information to Arbitron. We can't use Arbitron as a reliable basis for 300 different regional templates and then say they aren't reliable when describing said stations. JPG-GR 05:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The issues with using a station's website as a source are many:

* not all stations have websites
* not all stations specifically list their format on said website
* there are many different ways to describe very similar formats

The advantage to using the Arbitron database are equally many:

* each station submits their own data
* there's a finite selection of specific format choices available
* citing the source is easy

Moreover, I would argue that if the user prefers "eclectic" over "classical" for a format, list that at the station's own article, where it can be expanded upon what that actually means. JPG-GR 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the -LP stations, it has often come up at WP:WPRS as well as at more than on article for deletion that in general, these stations are non-notable. If we list these LP stations in these articles, why not the construction permits, of which there are hundreds at a time. If User:Stereorock is so passionate about these LP stations, I have already invited him to create a separate article for them. He argues it would end up being merged -- I argue it would end up being deleted. JPG-GR 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a clear line between an active -LP station broadcasting to a community and a CP that's usually little more than a letter from the FCC and a dream. I won't argue that every -LP station is inherently notable but neither can I believe that no -LP station is ever notable. In the case of a state like RI, a "list" of two -LP stations is bordering on the ridiculous and if the -LP stations are notable then they belong in the greater list of RI radio stations. - Dravecky 05:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I have an account with 100000watts.com, I made some minor format changes and some ownership updates (there were some blank)...also, I added WKFD-AM 1370 which is located in Charlestown, RI. Currently the station is silent/new, but with call letters (and not just a CP number), I think it is worth noting. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit for now. We need to finish this discussion before we put this list in limbo, especially with the page half-sourced here and half-sourced there. Meanwhile, I have put on hold the project to create the rest of the lists. JPG-GR 06:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I question the usefulness of a site that requires you to pay to use. While some may argue that means it might be more reliable, I argue it's more difficult to verify data in the future. JPG-GR 06:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that you are doing a little WP:OWNing. You can't knock out changes just because you don't like the site or it requires you to pay. I don't think this page should be "put on hold" while you work on something else. Fix this first, then work on the next state. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood - I meant that I'm not gonna crank out any more states until we determine what format we are gonna use here, no sense in doing 49/50 and then re-doing everything, no? I'm also fairly certain that there's some policy about the pay-to-use sources, but I could be remembering wrong. JPG-GR 06:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if there is, then there are some 200+ pages and probably more by other users, that might be in "trouble". I think if the website is accurate (and it is) and people like it (and they do) then there is no reason to knock the information, especially when it is more accurate than Arbitron. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I readded the WRJI owner (source: FCC website). - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've yet to see this site cited anywhere on WP. That doesn't mean it isn't, and that doesn't mean I haven't missed it, but that's pretty crazy. I still argue Arbitron is the best option at the moment, for all the reasons I mentioned above. JPG-GR 06:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree especially when Arbitron lists a CHR station as "Pop CHR" and News/Talk as "News Talk Information"...these are not correct formats and are not listed on any pages other than this one. Arbitron is a bad source and sometimes incorrect. I would use 100000watts.com or Radio-Locator.com (the latter being free) for formats.....or let me know and I will add them via 100000watts.com information and you can crosscheck it with Radio-Locator and Arbitron if you like. Remember, we gotta assume good faith here, sometimes in doing that is trusting a user who gives information, even if that information is via a website you don't subscribe to. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I realized two things after a good night's sleep:

1. The argument that Arbitron's database is unreliable may or may not be true, but it's increasingly laughable. We use their market list as a basis for our regional templates AND we use their ratings data. Once again, as station information is submitted to Arbitron, any mistakes are the responsibility of the station.
2. The argument about "correct formats" is ridiculous. There's no such things as a "correct" format. Moreover, since Arbitron is the company that handles the ratings for these stations, to call their formats "incorrect" is just silly.

JPG-GR 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Wrong: there IS a such thing as a correct format! We IN THE INDUSTRY have certain names for each format (e.g.: news/talk), not made up terminology like "news talk information." Using the wrong terminology creates confusion amongst people coming here for accurate information as well as makes this list laughable (along with not listing -LPs, boosters & translators) especially since on the pages of certain stations (e.g. WOON) the format is listed differently from this page!!! Arbitron most certainly DOES make mistakes. But the question I have is what list are you using to determine formats? The embargoed Arbitron 12+ ratings that only list COMMERCIAL stations from last October? Go to http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=205&RY=2006&RQ=3&MP=0&OTHER=2&MN=Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket&MS=RI&MR=38&12P=1404000&UP=10/18/2006%2012:00:00%20AM&SU=CM&BPER=&HPER=7.0&OPER=&NSD=1/12/2007%2012:00:00%20AM&CE=0 (or go to www.radioandrecords.com, look under ratings & type in Providence) which are the last published 12+ ratings for this market and you will see "News/Talk" not "News talk information." Mind you, THESE ARE ARBITRON RATINGS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

JPG-GR is you want to have incorrect formats and messed up terminology from Arbitron, then so be it. It will be corrected by others who use more reliable websites (ie: 100000watts.com).

Second, there is no such format as "News Talk Information"....never has, never will. It is "News/Talk", you are using the wrong terminology which will, again, have to be corrected.

It troubles me that you are not allowing others to make changes to this page (probably others) because the information used it not the information used by you. I use 100000watts.com, but you have already said that you "question the usefulness of a site that requires you to pay to use". Well, that is your problem, not mine. 100000watts.com's information in constantly updated, daily, unlike Arbitron which is updated when the ratings cycle comes around. So, are we to have WXXX-AM sitting around with a "Country" format because Arbitron says even though it's own website and other search websites say it is "CHR"? I think you need to rethink this position. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

www.100000watts.com is edited by Scott Fybush who also publishes www.fybush.com, a highly-regarded site pertaining to broadcast news. I have found in my experience that it is a VERY reliable source. Neutral Homer is right on using this site. It has much industry credibility, even if it isn't free!Stereorock 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

StereoRock is right....Fybush does update the 100000watts.com daily with continuous information from Radio & Records, M Street, Inside Radio, and yes, the FCC database. 100000watts.com is updated daily as opposed to Arbitron, which is updated when the next ratings cycle comes around. I think the choice is clear here. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One other thing: there's a construction permit for a new station in Greenville: 1140kc. 27kW day/1.2kW night. It's owned by Alex Langer but he hasn't acquired calls for it yet. It's still listed as "NEW".Stereorock 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of the repeated deletion of the -LPs by User:JPG-GR. More so on the talk page of said user I asked a few days ago why he insists on deleting these stations & if he has a personal bias or not. These stations don't air programming from a national feed like some L.P.F.M.s. They're both local. As I said on his talk page, which I still haven't gotten an answer to, this is a LIST of ALL broadcast radio stations in Rhode Island. He keeps on deleting the -LPs but leaving the part of the text that says "a list of all stations in Rhode Island", which is FALSE! Now, I'M accused of vandalism? I'm ADDING to the page to make it accurate! When he deletes the -LPs the page then becomes false (by title & even more so if that bit of text is left on the page). Again I ask, what is YOUR bias against -LPs? You don't like local community radio? Are you a shill for the N.A.B. or just a snob? In your world, do the A.M. stations go next?Stereorock (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, both -LPs have been kept despite your push for AfD! Therefore, they've been deemed notable for their own pages, they have to stay here too!Stereorock (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that all 50 list do not include LPFM stations. In the event that a user, such as yourself, would like to start adding LPFM stations to the lists, be my guests. However, until that time, there is absolutely no reason for these two stations to be added to this list while LPFM stations remain not listed on the rest. JPG-GR (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sterorock has a valid point. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stereorock's "valid point" is repeating over and over again that these two stations need to be present in this list yet expresses no interest in the inclusion of LPFM stations in other lists. He has shown no interest in discussing this at WP:WPRS, where this format was decided upon months ago. At this point, I must conclude that he is somehow associated with one of the LPFM stations in Rhode Island, leading to a clear WP:COI. There is no reason I can see why he would be so adamant about the LPFM stations in RI yet seems not to care at all about the rest across the country. JPG-GR (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you and feel that your logic is faulty. Maybe we ARE in the process of adding LPFM to all 50 states, we just happened to pick Rhode Island first. How about giving us a little leeway? Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the process" implies noticeable strides have been made. At this point, no LPFM stations exist in any of the other 49 lists and no attempt to add them has been noticed in the past few months. As they say, talk is cheap. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to add them when you keep deleting them! Personally I'd love to see -LPs added but you keep deleting our work! Apparently you did not read my last statement where I said that the R.I. -LPs have been deemed notable/keepable by other users. So why then do you insist on deleting them? Yes, this is the 1st of 50 because it's an easy list to finish! There are only 2 stations & they both originate programming, not serve as satellite regurgitators! The other states will be added as time allows!Stereorock (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll declare a temporary moratorium on the subject. Now, when a month passes and there's been absolutely no attempts to add LPFM stations to the other lists (which I believe will be the case, because talk talk talk), they're gonna get removed for the same valid reason again. JPG-GR (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC comment: I just looked at the opening sentence of the list. It states that this list is for all FCC licensed radio stations in Rhode Island. I take that to literally mean any radio station with a FCC license. So, no matter how much or little power the transmissions have, all the FCC licensed radio stations belong on this list. I would suggest that there be a supplemental article on the smaller radio stations of Rhode Island called something like Radio stations of Rhode Island. I do not suggest that the smaller radio stations get articles on their own. - LA @ 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason the opening sentence matches the scope and includes the LPFM stations is that every time User:Stereorock added them, he changed the introductory line/scope. Either way, I agree that LPFM stations are, with rare exception, non-notable. JPG-GR (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability should be an issue in article creation, not for the addition to a list. As long as it is understood that this is an all inclusive list of radio stations, of which a few might be notable for articles, then list them all. - LA @ 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of radio stations in Rhode Island. 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/20090825071957/http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/FMq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825063614/http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825071957/http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)