Talk:WWTC

Sourcing an external link

I understand that attaching a source to an external link is not the norm, but here's the rationale for this situation: a precise date of the referenced photo cannot be determined by the image itself or its associated meta data. However, the source being referenced narrows the date of the document, therefore offering support for the stated date. Wikipedia likes sourced material so attaching the source meets that standard. 69.235.20.13 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IP editor demanded rewrite

You have falsely claimed in reversing my edits:

• 06:34, 16 June 2016‎ "Instead of wiping, please reformulate text and data to meet style guidelines"
• 23:27, 16 June 2016: "Strike a balance by rewriting."
• 18:24, 17 June 2016: "Best practice is to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater. Selectively edit or rewrite to attain desired result."

Per WP:REQUIRED, you may not may requirement of others: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." I have also been following guidelines in removing self-published sourcing which is following WP:SELFPUBLISH (WP (NBC, J. Lieks' Lieks.com, members.aol.com, geocities, oldradio.com - Barry Mishkind's website). And you are removing reliable sources (The Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal) placed inline (as preferred) from the article. Per Wikipedia:External links: "Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." So, I only trimmed down the external links when most of them should go. Spshu (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Fansites are not appropriate sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The insistence of keeping them as loose (non-inline) references is not there for appropriate. Nor are they appropriate as external links. Spshu (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to your edit summaries, @Stereorock:, they are not all scans at the fan sites ("Department Of Commerce station listings from June 30, 1927. Oldradio.com. Retrieved November 22, 2008"). Even if they were that would make them primary sources which are not recommended. If they are scans then you need to cite the scanned source with "via=radiotapes.com" to signal such.

Additional, we do not nor are we required to follow FCC rules as far as -AM tagging as they are used commonly. Spshu (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Right now, I am trying to change a few of these over to direct sources, such as the Department of Commerce Radio Service Bulletins over the Barry Mishkind pages. Some "fan" sites are worthy, tho, such as American Radio History, which contains scans of Broadcasting Yearbooks (also B&C Yearbooks et al) so we can gather that information. I don't think wiping sources is the right way to go about this. What should be done instead is to find better sources if they're available. For radio history, there are the DOC/FRC Radio Service Bulletins; the FCC history cards; & those are 2 off the top of my head. Also, to differentiate an A.M. station from a sister -FM, -TV, etc., the best thing to use, I think, is (AM); WTCN/1280 would be referred to as WTCN (AM). It's what the FCC uses when not issuing the callsign itself (you can't have the legal callsign for an A.M. station be anything more than the base callsign, same goes for shortwave) & what we use here on Wikipedia for station article titles.Stereorock (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No "fan" sites are "worthy" or reliable. Again, we don't have to follow the FCC, this is not a FCC website. WP does not force you to use your legal name. In the article body, we are not governed by the station article titles nor again the FCC. You know a thing call free speech. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, they are reliable sources, aren't they? The Reliable Sources page points to a source having been published. The sites used, when not something like the FCC, are merely archives, which is acceptable. The Broadcasting Yearbook for a given year was published & is now merely archived. A broadcast is "published" when it hits the air & an audio recording is an archive of that. These websites have been up for about 20 years (I remember seeing Jeff560's pages in about 1997 & it is stated what the source material is). The source material has been published. David Gleason's American Radio History, same thing. He is a known broadcast consultant & former owner of some 50+ years who has archived these Yearbooks from about 1931 or so to the present. Yes, those are reliable archives which the Reliable Sources policy allows. I agree that we don't want somebody making stuff up & then Wikipedia uses that as a source. Of course, a publication in the past has intentionally published false information so they would know who was copying their data & trying to pass it off as their own (this was circa 1927 & the fake station was on 710kc., listed in North Dakota or Minnesota I believe. It had some K-call but it was a fake (the call was derived from some word spelled backwards, like bunk becoming KNUB or something like that). So, these aren't all "fan" websites full of flimsy information; they are archives. Onto the callsign issue: what are you talking about free speech for, or our legal names? The point is to have consistent high quality. Why not stay consistent with what the FCC & our own site do to disambiguate callsigns?! Why go with something so ugly as -AM?! Now, I will say I will use it on occasion, but that occasion is when it's grouped with more than one station that shares that base call, such as WTCN-AM-FM-TV.Then we're not talking about just one station's legal callsign. In the article "The WCCO stations" could be changed to WCCO-AM-FM-TV & I think it would be better as well as listing all of the stations involved; but not to put WCCO (AM) as WCCO-AM. The legal call is WCCO. Same for WTCN: WTCN-AM-FM-TV would be fine as would WTCN-AM-FM when talking about the split from the TV side.Stereorock (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WWTC. 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/20151107032813/http://image.hclib.org/mplsphotos/Jpegs/M4428.jpg to http://image.hclib.org/mplsphotos/Jpegs/M4428.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425063357/http://www.studioz-7.com/fiasco.shtml to http://www.studioz-7.com/fiasco.shtml

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) 14:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)