User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2019/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WKXO

I wrote a new article which had a redirect to WIVR; I'm not sure why. Anyway, I'd appreciate your input! User:Rudy2alan (talk)

Need Some Help

Sorry to pull you in two directions here, but I'm having some trouble. CKBJ-FM is being AfD'd by User:Bearcat (AfD link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CKBJ-FM‎) and he is arguing that the station is not licensed per the CRTC (Canada's version of the FCC). As I'm sure you are aware, REC Networks gets their information from the FCC, CRTC, and other sources.

In this case, the CKBJ-FM license was renewed in January 2018 (scroll down and see the bottom right, ignore the certificate warning, they are aware and working on it). Since the information comes directly from the CRTC, and the CRTC is unsearchable, this is the next best thing.

Now, Bearcat is arguing that there is nothing on the CRTC's website that says the station has a license. That that site is the end all, be all. Even went so far as to call REC Networks (and a Canadian government website) and unreliable source and did not support notability. It's like he can't see the bigger picture, the bigger issue, and more importantly admit he is wrong and as such, end the AfD.

So, I come to you. Knowing that, while you are Canadian, your knowledge of Canadian stations and the CRTC is lacking (per our conversation regarding CFPP-FM in Sherbrooke, Quebec awhile back), as is mine. I think this discussion, though, will show quite easily that knowledge of Canadian stations and the CRTC isn't needed. It's just a good ol' case of "doesn't get it, won't get it, never gonna get it, doesn't want to get it, fingers in the ears and hum really loud". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

The CRTC site is not and never has been "unsearchable". The CRTC site is easily searchable, and definitive for the matter of whether it has issued a broadcasting license or not. I do not know where you ever got the idea that the CRTC website was "unsearchable" — that is wrong, because it is easily searchable and always has been.
I'm not the one who "doesn't get it" here: I understand how Canadian media works with total, 100 per cent correct clarity. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
"Total, 100 per cent correct clarity" shows what I am up against. As for his assertion that it can't be searched, I took it from his own words. I've collapsed the "conversation" (read: off-the-rails argument) Bearcat and I had and moved on. Still like your help though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:15 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)
"As for his assertion that it can't be searched, I took it from his own words." Obviously not, because I never once said any such thing. The CRTC website is searchable, it always has been, and I have never said otherwise. If you think I did, you misunderstood me, and that's on you. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, you're right - my knowledge on the process side of things with Canadian regulation isn't as deep as it is on the U.S. side (which is awfully weird, when you think about it), but I do know enough that I'd have to back up some of the stuff that Bearcat's been telling you (and would be even if it wasn't Bearcat who's telling it to you):
  • The CRTC is the licensing authority for radio stations in Canada – it's the closest analogue we have to what the FCC does, at least from the perspective that Wikipedia cares about. As such, their records have to be your gold standard. And there's nothing that comes up in a search of their website for the station. Yeah, it's not queryable (is that a word?) in the same way that the FCC's database queries are, but it's definitely searchable
  • Industry Canada deals with radio transmitters, both CRTC-licensed and not. As a result, when you think about Industry Canada's records, you have to keep in mind that the CRTC is only a subset of their complete data set
  • Rec Networks is pretty clear about the fact they pull from Industry Canada's records, which include but are not exclusive to the CRTC's records, and the description you quoted in the AfD reinforces that. That means that you can't rely on them as strongly as you would for a U.S. station, where they're getting everything direct from the licensing authority
  • I'd never advocate using the FCC as a source on Canadian radio station info, however they do tend to include at least a directory entry for licensed Canadian stations. There's nothing for CKBJ-FM
  • I think it was mentioned in the AfD, but just in case, even the Canadian Communications Foundation's entry for CKBJ-FM is pretty clear that it's operating under Industry Canada permission (or at least that it was at launch). Now, the absence of a statement in that article that it's CRTC-licensed doesn't mean that it's not CRTC-licensed, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
I don't see anything anywhere I've looked that proves that the station is licensed, and I see a lot of things that would lead me to believe that it's not. That doesn't mean that it's automatically not notable, but it would mean to me that it falls short of being inherently notable, if you subscribe to that concept.
Sorry, man – I'd say Bearcat's on the right track here. Mlaffs (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing, at the bottom of the REC Networks page for CKBJ it says "Broadcasting Certificate effective date - 01/02/2018" and then says "Application received - 01/11/2018", then "Broadcasting Certificate renewal date or LOA or OATA expiry date - 01/28/2018". Now, admittedly, I have no clue what an "LOA or OATA" is, no clue. BUT...with REC Networks says the "data includes all broadcast stations regulated by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) and technically administrated by Industry Canada".
So, CTRC and Industry Canada data. Even if we want to put CRTC aside, there is still data there that shows a "Broadcasting Certificate" (I'm guessing that's their way of saying license) was renewed on January 28, 2018 after it was received on January 11, 2018. Clearly someone at CKBJ is communicating with the CRTC or Industry Canada in some form or another and "Broadcasting Cerficiate Renewal" is good enough for me. I'm not "the resident expert on" Canadian radio stations, but this is pretty clear evidence that a license renewal did take place.
Whether that is searchable on the CRTC or Industry Canada websites shouldn't be up for debate, what should is whether or not the information on the REC Networks website is correct and from a source we can add as a secondary source from. Clearly the information is gleaned from a reliable source (CRTC or Industry Canada), but what I want to know and clearly we all want to make sure is that is correct (which I believe it to be) and that the "Broadcasting Certificate" means "License" in the terms that we all understand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20 on October 8, 2019 (UTC)
"Broadcasting certificate" does not mean a CRTC license; it refers to Industry Canada's technical certificate that the transmitter meets all of its technical and safety requirements. Industry Canada always has to issue a technical certificate for every radio transmitter, regardless of whether it's a CRTC-licensed conventional radio station or an unlicensed VF operating under the Canadian equivalent of Part 15 rules — so the existence of an IC technical certificate is not proof that a station has a CRTC license. The technical certificate just covers off things like "Industry Canada is satisfied that this transmitter is not going to scramble the air traffic control system at the airport and cause planes to crash", and has to be issued regardless of whether a transmitter is a CRTC-licensed radio station or not. To prove that a station has a CRTC license, you have to find a CRTC decision on the CRTC website, which either grants the initial license or renews it — because a station can never have a CRTC license without the existence of CRTC licensing decisions.
Recnet certainly includes all broadcast stations regulated by the CRTC — but it most certainly does also include unlicensed VF/Part 15s, and unused future station allotments. So inclusion in Recnet is not a priori proof of a CRTC license that overrides the lack of any licensing decisions on the CRTC's website itself. Industry Canada keeps records on all radio transmitters operating in Canada, both licensed radio stations and unlicensed VFs, and Recnet copies all of Industry Canada data. It is impossible for a station to have a CRTC license if the CRTC has never published a decision granting it a license — the decision is how a station gets a license, so a station can never have a CRTC license without any evidence of CRTC decisions being published on the CRTC's website.
And at any rate, your guesses about what "broadcasting certificate" might mean don't carry as much weight as people who are much more familiar with the Canadian broadcasting industry telling you what it does mean. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem, Neutralhomer – you can't put the CRTC aside. They're the only ones who license radio stations, so because the Rec Networks data includes more than just CRTC data for Canada, you can't rely on it in isolation.
As a comparison, have a look at CIMA-FM, which is a CRTC-licensed station in Alliston, Ontario, a town about an hour or so north of Toronto. Here's the Rec Networks information for that station. You can see the history at the bottom right shows the application, the CRTC letter and hearing date, the letter of authorization (LOA) being issued, what date they went on air, and the effective date and renewal date for the broadcasting certificate/LOA/OATA. You can also see that there's an Industry Canada file number (9568) and a CRTC file number (120491). CRTC file numbers work in a format structured with the year (two digits) and the sequential number for that year (one-three digits, generally). In this case, translate "120491" to "12-491" to match that format, and you get the CRTC decision approving the broadcast license for a station in Alliston.
Now look at the Rec Networks information for CKBJ-FM. There's an Industry Canada file number (7707), but the CRTC file number is 10, which makes no sense. In the history, there's none of those entries related to a CRTC letter or hearing date, or an on-air date. If you search for CKBJ-FM - not just on the CRTC's website, but in the entirety of the Government of Canada's website - all you'll find is a series of records relating to a long-dead repeater station in Quebec called CKBJ-FM-2. If you search Industry Canada's website for a broadcast spectrum allocation at 93.9 in Manitoba, you'll find two results, but neither are in Beausejour. I even went through every year of the CRTC's decisions, which go back to the mid-90s, looking at decision number 10 in each of those years just in case the file number got truncated somehow — none of them are related to the licensing of a station in Beausejour, Manitoba. It just doesn't exist, at least not as a CRTC-licensed radio station. Mlaffs (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
And for added bonus, check out Industry Canada's current list of available (i.e. unassigned) call signs. Try searching for "CKBJ" and see what happens — and then remind yourself this is a list of unused call signs, published by the very same organization Recnet gets its data from.
I'm glad I found that, though — it tipped me off to a CIAO→CHLO switch I hadn't heard about and just fixed because it had only been half-finished in our article. But here's another fun game: check CHLO's external link to the Canadian Communications Foundation, which says it flipped from CIAO to CHLO in January 2019 — and then check its Recnet entry, which nine months later is still at CIAO. Still so sure that Recnet's infallible? Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: First, stop with the wall of text, I'm not going to read it. Second, stop with the attitude, it makes me not read your wall of text even more. Third, adding more to your wall of text hours later makes me not read your wall of text even less.

NOW that I got that out of the way, I want you to focus on ONE THING and answer TWO QUESTIONS without a wall of text: If REC Networks gets it's information from Industry Canada (as both you and Mlaffs have conceded), and they show CKBJ-FM submitting an "Application" that was "received [on] 01/11/2018" and a "Broadcasting Certificate renewal date [on] 01/28/2018", does that mean that CKBJ-FM is licensed under Industry Canada? If so, what the hell are we going back and forth about? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17 on October 8, 2019 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I'll try it one last time. I don't know how many different ways either of us can explain it. The answer to your question is no - CKBJ-FM is not licensed under Industry Canada, because Industry Canada doesn't license radio stations. That's the CRTC's job.Mlaffs (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll accept that. Then explain this from the person who runs REC Networks: "Information in the database comes from Industry Canada. From my understanding of the Canadian broadcast law, a potential broadcaster goes to the CRTC to obtain a certificate which certifies them as a qualified broadcaster and then they go to IC for the technical allocation. The data I get from IC does include a CRTC certificate number." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33 on October 8, 2019 (UTC)
A broadcaster who does have a CRTC license does indeed have to go to IC for technical authorization. But a radio transmitter that doesn't need a CRTC license, such as a low-power broadcaster operating under the Canadian equivalent of Part 15 rules, also has to go to IC for technical authorization too. IC always has to grant technical authorization to every radio transmitter whether it has a CRTC license or not, so it does not constitute proof of a CRTC license in the absence of a directly locatable CRTC license. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not post any walls of text; not a single comment I have posted in this discussion is any longer than comments you have posted. And I love how you think I'm giving you attitude, but are completely oblivious to the fact that you're spraying a lot more attitude than I've even considered.
As for your questions, Industry Canada is not the broadcast regulator, and its technical certificates are not broadcast licenses. Industry Canada certifies that a radio transmitter is safe, that it's not going to interfere with the airport communication systems and make planes crash or give people RF-related illnesses because it's leaking excess radiation. Industry Canada has to certify the safety of every radio transmitter whether it's a licensed radio station or not — but so does the FCC, so this does not mean that Canadian unlicensed radio transmitters are somehow more notable than American Part 15s. For the purposes of getting a radio station over BCAST, what needs to be shown is a CRTC license, not an Industry Canada technical certificate.
Industry Canada handles the technical aspects of what the FCC does in the United States, while the CRTC handles the regulatory aspects of what the FCC does. They are two different bodies, that obviously cooperate when needed but do two distinct jobs. It is the CRTC, not Industry Canada, that determines whether a radio station meets the "licensed" part of our notability criteria or not. Even in the United States, a station is notable if it has an FCC license (i.e. the CRTC stuff), not just because the FCC has certified the compliance of its transmitter with safety criteria. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Still a wall of text I didn't read. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33 on October 8, 2019 (UTC)
Three short paragraphs, that would still be a stub if it were in articlespace, is not a wall of text. What you're really telling me is that any response at all from me would be too long, not that my responses are actually too long. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't want to know what I'm really telling you. :) In this case, though, you win. I have a 6 day migraine and I'm tired of fighting with someone who can't answer straight questions with straight answers and not walls of texts. So I have reverted my changes, struck my keep, and un-watchlist'ed the page. You win. One more page down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02 on October 8, 2019 (UTC)
You've gotten nothing but straight answers from me. You just weren't getting the answers you had already decided you were looking for, which is not the same thing as the answers themselves having been anything less than straight. 6-day migraine, you say? Well, now I actually know what this was actually all about from the start. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, you don't. 6-day migraine is a part of a long-term migraine (lasts about 2 to 3 months) from a mid-level Grade I/II concussion 2 1/2 years ago. Bet you are gonna tell me you're a neurologist now too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:33 on October 8, 2019 (UTC)

"WLWD-LD" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WLWD-LD. Since you had some involvement with the WLWD-LD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 14:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WPXU-LD

Notice

The article WPXU-LD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LPTV station does not meet notability of WP:BROADCAST.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 14:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

KSHN-FM Liberty Texas and KETX-FM Livingston Texas

Hello Mlaffs,

Would you please change the headers on these two radio stations in Texas, to reflect their new call sign assignments? I simply can not figure out how to do it myself, and am unsure if I even possess the ability to do so. If you'd also advise me on how to make such changes on my own, I'd be most appreciative. Thanks! Joe Polichino Joe Polichino (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about WPXB-LD

Hello, Mlaffs

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, WPXB-LD, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPXB-LD.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 11:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mlaffs, sorry for the template, but you created the redirect originally, so the notification went out automatically. Would have deleted it, but didn't want to be presumptuous. Onel5969 TT me 11:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries! Mlaffs (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WAMM

Could you fix an issue involving the WAMM and WSVG pages? WAMM (790 AM) (previously WSVG) needs to be renamed simply WAMM and WAMM (1230 AM) needs to be renamed WSVG. The two stations flipped callsigns leaving 1230 as WSVG and 790 as WAMM prior to 1230's license expiration on October 1. Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:04 on October 5, 2019 (UTC)

Here is some info regarding WSVG and WAMM via REC Networks, a reliable source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:05 on October 5, 2019 (UTC)
I hate swaps so, so much... I'll give it a look tomorrow. Mlaffs (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I know and I hate giving them to you. Sorry. :( Here is a little more information to help (as REC is showing both stations deleted, only 1230 is, 790 remains on-air). Look for the 3rd paragraph under "Deletions". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:38 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering if you were going to be able to get around to swapping these pages? If not, I can find another admin. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:26 on October 27, 2019 (UTC)
Blerg – I went out of town on vacation and forgot all about it! I'll get it taken care of tonight – one more thing I can knock off the giant list. Mlaffs (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Done – I left/put disambiguation pages in place for both, given the lengthy history each had at the previous call signs, and put each of the two articles at XXXX (AM). WAMM had other entries at the disambiguation page that had already been created, and there was also a World Series of Video Games redirect that needed to get dealt with for WSVG. Mlaffs (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, life happens, brain farts happen too. :) I'm cool with the disambig pages. Personally, with the switch at the end there, I welcome them. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:42 on October 28, 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:KEPD logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KEPD logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2019/October&oldid=928438185"