Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2012

Call sign musical chairs

As the new year begins, there are a few cases of call sign swaps between stations. In San Francisco, three stations have swapped call signs. Two were easily moved, while I requested an administrator move for KNEW (AM). However, in Cedar Rapids, IA, KKSY and WMT-FM have essentially swapped call signs. Aside from the crude method (merely swapping info between the two pages), is there a more delicate way to move the information between the two pages? --Fightingirish (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a deeper issue here. We see this happening all the time, and there's a great deal of confusion about the scope of articles on particular radio stations that have moved callsigns. Such articles frequently get messy.

I think we actually need a (hopefully brief) guideline. Here are some recommendations to consider:

• An article whose title is a callsign which has been used by several different stations should cover all those stations at least briefly, with a section on each. If this would otherwise make the article too long, some or all of these sections can be summaries linking to more detailed articles. In some cases, a disambiguation page may be more appropriate even if only two-way, listing the stations.

• An article on a station that has used more than one callsign over the years should not use one of those callsigns as its title. If any of these callsigns has been used by no other station, then it should be redirected to the article; Otherwise, either a disambiguation page (even if only two way) or a high-level article is preferred.

Comments? The goal is to make it clear whether each article is about a station or about a callsign. If this is kept clear, many problems will be avoided, and fewer moves required. Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally disagree. The article should, as a general rule, describe the entire history of that licence, regardless of callsign. If the programming moves to a different facility, well, that's life. For U.S. stations, the FCC Facility ID number uniquely identifies a licensed facility. In other countries, different regulatory regimes will apply; the treatment should be appropriate for how that nation's regulator looks at it. To give a concrete example, WQXR-FM should follow the history of 105.9, not 96.3, as the station that is now WQXR-FM has no legal connection to the station that used to be WQXR-FM. Similarly, the article WGMS (defunct) should not exist; that history belongs in the article under that license's current callsign. Stations do cease to exist from time to time; the (defunct) treatment would be perfectly legitimate for a station like WZLS (Biltmore Forest, N.C.), which had its construction permit revoked after it had already started operation. Or WBZ-FM, which ceased to exist not once but twice -- and the third incarnation (now WMJX) has nothing to do with the current WBZ-FM. But the general rule: programming comes and goes, and so do callsigns. What endures is the license, and that's what should determine which history gets discussed in which articles. 121a0012 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK... I begin to understand. The problem is that this approach is a mystery to the rest of the English-speaking world. Does this "license" have any unique identifier? That's the problem as I see it. Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally what we do in the case of multiple callsigns on multiple stations, we have a disambig page (like say WTOP) and the page for the actual radio station on a related page (in this case, WTOP-FM, the station's actual callsign). If the station doesn't have a -FM in it's callsign or is an AM station, you will see a (FM) or (AM) in the page name. That is just to differentiate the radio station page from the disambig page. An example for this would be WAJR (AM).

In some cases, when a station is using the callsign of an unrelated station, like WDUQ-LP does (formerly used on a Pittsburgh public radio station), we will put a note in the article text that the calls were used on a different station in the page as well as create a disambig page. This is a secondary way of directing people to other articles, in case they may be on the wrong page, and adding more information to articles.

Having a page about, say, WRKZ, with information about the current WRKZ, plus information about WMDM and KDKA-FM (the last two places the "WRKZ" callsign has been), would just be silly and a major glut to all radio station pages. Even WBZ (AM) in Boston, which you noted above, was once WBZA (the WBZ calls were in Springfield, MA). Think about that article. Bad idea in my opinion and something that isn't needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that having a page about WKRZ with information about other callsigns too would be just be silly. That is not what I'm suggesting at all, in fact it's exactly what I'm trying to address. Far better to have the information in an article on the station, whatever that might mean. The issues then are:

• What does station mean? You indicate that it's linked to the broadcast license, and that makes sense to me. Facility ID is probably not directly helpful so far as article titles go, but it may be a good basis for deciding the article scope.
• How best to name these articles, with a local convention if required to precisely identify the subject (WP:AT of course). Your description above of the practice to date is a good start, thank you.
• How to document the scope of these articles so that all readers can easily find the information they want (the priority), and all contributors can easily identify the article in which their contributions belong (also important).

This is not USA Wikipedia. Think about the rest of the world, we read these articles too. We don't want to have a standard hatnote on each page This is an article on a US radio station. The article title is the callsign by which it is currently most commonly known, and is not necessarily the one it currently uses, it may even be one currently used by someone else. Or alternatively, This is an article on a US radio station. The article title is its current official callsign, and is not necessarily the one by which it is most commonly known, or the one it used last year or will use in a year's time. There must be a better way!

Disagree anything I've proposed would be a major glut. I'm not suggesting any duplication of information, just its logical organisation. I'm not suggesting any longer articles, just the opposite.

It may even be that we need to have two naming conventions, one for stations whose callsign has been stable for a number of years, and another for stations whose callsign has recently changed or has frequently changed in the past or for whatever reason is unclear in common usage. It would be nice to avoid that, but it's a possibility, and if the common name of stations whose callsign has changed is hard to determine or varies by locality or both, there may be no choice.

Thanks for the reply. I've been puzzling over US radio station RMs for a while, and you're certainly shedding some light on them. Andrewa (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the practice needs to be appropriately grounded in whatever the regulatory structure each individual country has for broadcasting. What is correct for the U.S. is not going to be correct for many other countries (particularly the majority of countries that do not use call signs to identify their stations). In those countries, a license might be attached to a national franchise, or (at the other extreme) the regulator might consider that when a station changes hands -- even if it uses the same frequencies and has the same "name", it's treated as a completely new license. (The U.S. used to be like this, in the very early days.) So there's no overarching, global principle: every country does it differently, and Wikipedia articles should reflect that. 121a0012 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree to a point. Generally we go with common usage for article titles rather than what the regulatory structure may use, see WP:official names and the relevant policy pages starting of course with WP:AT. But this seems to be a problematical subject area, and it may be helpful to defer to the authority and let redirects handle the common usage, and that's where local naming conventions come in. Also agree that what works for the USA may not be best for the rest of the world; Again, that means having local conventions. They are a bit of work to write and maintain (keep them short if you can!) but save everyone's time in the long run. Andrewa (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Since branding of US radio stations shifts frequently and without solid referencing in most cases, and because we'd likely wind up with 30+ articles called "Lite 103.7" or "Mix 102.9", the use of current legal call sign is the sanest solution for US radio stations. It's reliable, verifiable, easily tracked, and radio stations are legally obligated to identify themselves with this call sign (and their city of license) at the top of every hour. - Dravecky (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that having an article for every branding of a radio station is not the way to go. That's one extreme, and I'm not suggesting it. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with 121a0012. As a general rule of thumb, the article should go with the license/facility ID, rather than the call sign. For call signs with a history on different frequencies, at least a brief mention should me made, as well as disambiguation links at the top of the page if necessary. No need for going into too much redundant detail. For example, the new KTWN-FM in Minneapolis has no connection whatsoever to the station that held that call sign back in the early 80s. No mention should be made whatsoever, aside from a link to the current incarnation of the station, KQQL.

I've no argument with the general rule of thumb that the article should go with the license/facility ID, rather than the call sign. My problem is, what do you then call the article? If it's to be a call sign even in the case that the call sign is ambiguous, then please document this and its rationale as a local naming convention.

I was able to reassign article titles for the KNEW (AM) and KKSF rather seamlessly. However, the two Iowa stations, WMT-FM and KKSY, merely traded call signs. Was thinking of bending the rules a bit and doing a 'dirty edit'. Seems to be the only way it will work. --Fightingirish (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the swap but it seems that the FCC has yet to formally make the call sign assignments and I won't move an article until the FCC makes it official. In any case, the swap is simple and clean: Move WMT-FM to KKSY (FM) temporarily, move KKSY to WMT-FM over the redirect, then move KKSY (FM) to KKSY permanently. No muss, no fuss, and the only 'extra' redirect is both useful and harmless. - Dravecky (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good.

But I'm still nervous about the resulting article structure. Wikipedia is supposed to be optimised for readers rather than for editors. Is it really appropriate to have the information about a station that has had a different callsign up until a few days ago in an article whose title is the current callsign, still only a few days old? I'm skeptical. At best, surely such moves are premature. At worst, perhaps they reflect a quick and dirty approach of adopting the current official name, which may be convenient for the editors of the WikiProject but doesn't reflect the overall Wikpedia policy. Is there a better way? Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No. 121a0012 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's easily solved with a hat note like For the Alabama radio station known as WVOV from 1985 to 2012, see WTAK. You need not create every possible scenario nor would a hat note be needed for a station known by a call sign for only a short time, only those few cases where a reader would be confused unduly. For some call signs, a paragraph on "call sign history" (The WTAK call sign was most recently assigned to...) in the article might be appropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The hatnotes and callsign history are both really good ideas. In some parts of the world, callsigns are rarely reused, and certainly not immediately reissued. We tend to assume that nobody does it. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not all that difficult to swap article titles while preserving edit histories, and if there's consensus on that action then I'm happy to do it. Please don't do a cut-and-paste swap if that's what you mean by dirty edit, it's not necessary and will probably mean someone later doing a lot more work to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Broadcast license#Global view also seems relevant to this discussion (discussion dormant on the talk page since 2007, although the corresponding tag was only recently added to the article [1]). Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested content for introduction

The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Introduction section suggests writing that the station is Licensed to the suburb of Smallville, USA. This seems very misleading as the license for a radio station is rarely held by a locality. A station is licensed to provide service to a particular locality, but in most cases the license is issued to another entity. I've no particular interest in radio station articles, but this seems like sloppy use of English prepositions. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like perfectly standard use of English prepositions to me. 121a0012 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also the most common use in stand conversation on the topic. No reason to change from it that I can see. JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the correct term (per the FCC) is "licensed to cover [the community of] Smallville, XX, USA". I don't understand the two different towns in the subject section, nor why we shouldn't just use the correct terminology. AlanM1 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been writing "an American radio station licensed to serve the [[community of license|community]] of Smallville, Kansas" which eliminates some awkward construction and provides a handy link to the community of license article. I also leave the format out of the lede since it's subject to frequent change without much notice, unlike the legal fixed points of frequency, call sign, and community of license. - Dravecky (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

TMCR 95.3 deletion nomination by ex-employee

An ex-employee of a station in Thorne, Yorkshire, England has nominated the article of the station they used to work for (and maintained edits here) for deletion. Station is still on the air, but the employee explains they don't want to maintain it any longer because they think it'll go out of date, but I have reminded him about CC3-GFDL which releases the text under those guidelines and other Yorkies in the area will make sure it's not out of date. Just making sure I did hit the right points in my rationale and asking for other assistance, even if we don't have many English radio editors here.Nate • (chatter) 10:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD has been closed early (per my request under COI) as a Keep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WVOX/WVIP problems/proposal

I would propose three changes to the entry for WVOX 1460 AM.

The wikipedia entry for WVOX 1460 AM says the station can be heard "mainly in suburban Westchester County, the Bronx, Queens, the North Shore of Long Island, southern Connecticut and northern New Jersey." What is the source for this claim that the station is heard in Connecticut and New Jersey? The terrestrial broadcast signal is weak. The station is located in the South End of New Rochelle and cannot be heard, during the day at maximum ERP, in the North End of New Rochelle. It is hard to imagine the station has the reached stated in this entry. Regardless, if there is no source, this information should be removed.

The same entry states "Together with its former counterpart, WRTN 93.5 FM (now WVIP), it claimed more than five million live listeners as of 2005." I have seen the literature at the station regarding the 5 million figure. Granted, Mr. O'Shaugnessy is notoriously prone to exaggeration boarding on megalomania but even he does not claim 5 million listeners. He claims that there are 5 million people living and working in the area where the AM and FM signal can be heard. By this standard the broadcast TV networks could claim 350 million viewers for all of their shows. Further, the entry is about WVOX 1460 AM so why even mention a second FM station and then combine claimed listeners for a second station within the WVOX entry? Does any one believe that this tiny 500-watt radio station (122 watts night time) has 5 million listeners? This information on WVIP and 5 million listeners should be removed.

It is true that William O'Shaughnessy was "one of the first 25 people to be inducted into the new New York State Broadcasters Hall of Fame by the New York State Broadcasters Association" and that he was "honored for his long record as a champion of free speech under the First Amendment". and that "A history of the broadcasters' association published in 2005 described O'Shaughnessy as 'happily turn[ing] over the airwaves to their rightful owners, the residents of the influential community he serves.'" What is not mentioned in the article is policy at the station introduced by William O'Shaughnessy in 2011 under which station employees would be fired for allowing callers, guests or host to make a "verbal attack" on "anyone or anything". The term verbal attack was never defined but "anyone or anything" is stated to include any "person, company or entity." Unwilling to sign such a vague agreement that might be used to terminate engineers and other paid staff at the station, three "community hosts" (i.e. unpaid, volunteer hosts) refused to sign the agreement (including me) and their shows were taken off the air and they were banned from being on air at the station in any capacity including host, guest or caller for their refusal to sign the agreement.

A copy of the agreement can be seen here: Whitney Media ProposedAgreement

The nature of this agreement and the subsequent banning of those who did not sign the agreement casts William O'Shaughnessy's commitment to free speech and turning over the airwaves to their rightful owners in a more full context. If the entry is going to so glowingly portray William O'Shaughnessy as a staunch defender of free speech then that same entry ought to make some mention of the current station policy as described in the above linked agreement. Rcox1963 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, from what I can see, WVOX's "Grade B" signal makes it across all of Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, Yonkers, parts of Long Island, into New Jersey and clipping a teeny bit of southern Connecticut. So, that is not overstated.

As for WVIP, their 60dbu signal covers all of Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, parts of Long Island, parts of New Jersey, good chunk of Westchester County, as a teeny bit of southern Connecticut, so that is not overstated. I would estimate, that the 5,000,000 people number is probably actually "carefully low", I would say it was more like 6 or 7 million. Cause remember, radio stations are heard far beyond their FCC 60dbu and "Grade B" signals (via the maps from the FCC).

As for all the other stuff you posted, that can't be sourced and shouldn't as it is in violation of BLP. So, it's out regardless. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead photo

Umm...the lead photo of the project page is of a television transmitting tower (I don't have time at the moment to search Commons for a suitable photo of a radio-transmitting antenna :-)). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How about File:KBRC_AM_radio_antenna_tower.JPG (better sized http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/KBRC_AM_radio_antenna_tower.JPG/186px-KBRC_AM_radio_antenna_tower.JPG, however that is supposed to be linked)? —AlanM1 (talk)— 16:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and thanks for finding it (although I'm not bold enough to switch it myself :-)). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for WOGR (AM) and WOGR-FM

• I'm trying to clean out the merger proposals from 2009. One editor proposed merging WOGR-FM into WOGR-AM because the FM station is only a repeater for the AM station. Can anyone who is experienced on this project give their opinion? Thanks. Gsingh (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Article for adoption

Hi there,

I am wondering whether your project would be interested in the West Austin Antenna Farm article. --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Template style proposal

This was discussed years ago but for some reason is not on the list of official style standards. For templates, which band comes first? What I remember being decided years ago was that A.M. stations come before F.M. stations. Most templates were changed a few years ago after this decision & in most cases, F.M. stations are listed first. I propose a uniform plan in which all stations are listed by band in terms of ascending frequency. For example, in ITU Region 2, A.M. stations by frequency would be on top. The next tier would be shortwave (where applicable, as some shortwave stations ARE aimed at a domestic audience, but not in the U.S.) stations listed by frequency IN MEGAHERTZ. The next tier would be F.M. stations by frequency. The next tier would be the 162MHz weather stations. The 5th tier would be D.A.B. stations, where applicable. Following that would be the callsign rollcall (stations' calls in alphabetical order) and finally, defunct stations in the market, following this pattern, A.M. stations would precede F.M. stations, etc.. In ITU Region 1, Longwave stations by frequency would be the first tier, followed by mediumwave, then shortwave, F.M., then D.A.B., then the name list & finally defunct. Any tier may be taken out where applicable. As someone in ITU Region 2, I do find it imperative that A.M.s precede S.W. which precedes F.M. because we are going not only by frequency but introduction of each broadcast band. The only argument I can see to the contrary is that F.M. is more popular but to that I ask what do we do if F.M. is supplanted in popularity by some other band in the future. After all, A.M. station owners thought (the majority it seems from reading history) that their stations would ALWAYS be the more popular & F.M. would never succeed. An additional argument is that in countries that use callsigns, the A.M. stations are almost always the one with just base callsigns. I.E., no -AM suffix. F.M.s & T.V. stations which came later have to amend their callsigns with the appropriate suffixes if they share the callsign with a sister A.M. station. Mexico, I realize, is an exception to this. Canada has ALL of their F.M. stations with -FM suffixes. I think the same is true about T.V. stations & am not sure about the DAB stations. Another place where this style is reflected is advertising the radios themselves. More times they are still called "AM/FM radio(s)" rather than the other way around. Finally, if we look to our own page, more often than not A.M. comes above F.M. (only once did I see it the other way around). This following Navbox is a sample of what I propose (except I can't get the weather band to show itself, natch!) and would be willing to change every market navbox that I come across to reflect this.

I hope you'll all reaffirm this as was voted on several years ago.Stereorock (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Content of list of stations by state pages

There's a discussion underway at Talk:List of radio stations in Vermont#History section about the propriety of including defunct stations in a history section at the bottom of the page. Even better, it's a civil discussion with valid points being made by both parties (he says modestly, being one of the parties). I think the page should stay in its current form for now, but I would certainly welcome some more participation in the discussion! Mlaffs (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Irish pirate radio

Perhaps some of you more specialised editors could help this quite detailed and long but unsourced article which generally is only edited by anonIPs. It has been around since 2006. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Announcer List

While we are unable to publish schedules, are we allowed to publish a list fo announcers from a station? Caleb Bond (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to include a list of notable station staff. A list that includes unknown part-time overnight jocks or vacation-fill-in talk hosts from three months ago is unlikely to pass muster. This doesn't mean that these people must have their own articles, but it does mean that such additions must be highly likely to pass the standards of WP:V, WP:COI, and WP:BLP (so they could potentially have articles about them some day if they don't now). There are plenty of other Web sites, like 440: Satisfaction, which exist to record non-notable radio personalities' employment histories, so it's not like Wikipedia is the only possible home for this information. 121a0012 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm having a problem at Metro Radio with an editor who insists on keeping a list of past presenters. Ah, looking at his edits, similar problems at other articles, eg TFM Radio. I'd try to discuss it with him but discussion doesn't seem to be something he does. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried doing this with notable figures who appeared on television stations here. Many times, these lists are blown way out of proportion, or names are deleted on claims of non-notability simply by virtue of a lack of an article on the person. Many editors either pride themselves on not knowing any better about the subject they're working on, or are actively trying to audition to become one of the three monkeys, which creates the sort of contextual disconnects that Wikipedia has become famous for. As a result, many individuals who are either notable for long-term associations with a station, or independently notable with no article, are deemed non-notable, whereas OTOH there is a tendency instead to list someone who was at the station long enough for a cup of coffee and later became famous in another field. Last I checked, notability guidelines state that you can mention someone who is notable within the context of the article in question. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

KRAW/KWMD

I have been attempting some cleanup on Alaska radio station articles, which in most cases are little more than database entries. These two articles appear to confuse the two stations, which for all I know could broadcast the same signal. I'm not in the listening area and the AERS [website hasn't been accessible] in quite some time. Furthermore, I haven't had much luck obtaining information through other means. They have been planning a station in my market which I may be interested in supporting, but there are no local contacts that I'm aware of, and other attempts have led to dead ends. Any hints on how to figure this out? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The FCC license system can usually provide some info of value, though operators (particularly small non-profits) don't always update them as quickly as they should. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

At some point not long ago, someone edited both articles to where it appears that the KRAW article actually refers to KWMD and vice versa. When I last lived in Anchorage in 2007, I listened to their translator station as regularly as possible, even though at 10 watts the signal didn't carry very far. The station I listened to was IDed as KWMD, but the article offers the impression that I was actually listening to KRAW. Therein lies the root of my confusion. The contact address listed by the FCC is actually that of KYES-TV. When I paid them a visit, I was told that no one there knew anything about AERS, and the person who may know something (Jeremy Lansman, the owner of KYES) was out of the country at the time. I suppose I've had enough to do to where I haven't been vigilant enough about trying to contact him otherwise. In the meantime, I tagged both articles with {{Out of date}} until I'm able to straighten it out, since it appears that it's in need of an update anyway. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Review

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to do it, but I would like to submit KRBZ for review Blitzvergnugen (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen to Buy Arbitron for $1.26 Billion

Wanted to update you all on this: The New York Times (and other sources) are reporting this morning that Nielsen has bought Arbitron for $1.26 billion. If you remember back to 2008, when Nielsen sent Wikipedia a DCMA takedown notice and we lost all the "TV market" templates and several pages. That could happen with the radio templates and pages if OTRS ticket #2008091610055854 is carried over with the sale. I am checking on that. I wanted to make everyone aware of what is going on in case we have to do a mass removal of everything Arbitron like we had to do with everything Nielsen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments: When a broadcast TV station is co-owned with a Radio station

Are there Wikipedia guidelines with respect to RF and Virtual TV channels when referenced in a radio station entry when the TV station is co-owned with the radio station?

The specific entry this involves is found here: WFME (FM) in the first paragraph. Another user deleted the RF channel (the one the TV station broadcasts on as assigned by the FCC) and stated: "RF channels don't matter, and it's not needed for a radio station article" Is that WP's policy?

Technically, in the event a TV station's PSIP fails, the only way to access the channel is through direct-entry of the RF channel number. 70.111.128.88 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is perfectly appropriate in the TV station's article. However, nobody but nobody is ever going to try to figure out how to tune in the TV channel by consulting the radio station's article instead — rather, the radio station's article should just link to the TV station's article and doesn't need to directly contain either the RF or PSIP channel numbers for the TV station. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Bearcat, for providing what is the fairest and most logical solution here. Going forward, this is good and sound policy that I will dutifully follow 70.111.128.88 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

DWRT-FM and list of DJ's

I removed extensive lists of DJ's from the DWRT-FM article. It was unreffed and excessive (IMHO). My edit was reverted. Can I get a second opinion on it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a violation of WP:NOTDIR if it includes the airtimes.