Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2021

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

Greatest Hits Radio RfC

Editors supported moving the pages back to their pre-rollup page names and ending their scope prior to the GHR rollup. Sammi Brie (t • c) 23:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For stations that were merged in the Greatest Hits Radio rollup and rebrand of September 1, should their prior station articles cover history past being merged and remain at their present titles, or stop at the merger and be moved back to their original station names, with new articles for the post-rollup GHR stations? Thanks, Sammi Brie (t • c) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Background

In 2019, Bauer Radio, a British owner of radio stations, bought a significant amount of stations from other groups in acquisitions that closed in March 2020.

On September 1, 2020, many prior local stations were rolled up into and rebranded as Greatest Hits Radio, resulting in the establishments of a number of new super-regional replacements merging what had been, at times, five or more prior stations. The articles on the prior local stations, such as Greatest Hits Radio North Derbyshire (formerly Peak FM), were renamed to reflect their status as opt-outs of the new regional stations: in that case, Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire. Some stations had been rebranded right before the rollup.

There was a reverted edit that would have changed Greatest Hits Radio Surrey & East Hampshire back to its pre-GHR title of "Eagle Radio". I (Sammi Brie) had suggested this as a potential solution to the concern that had started the AfD, an assertion that the stations were no longer notable having been merged up. No further Delete vote has surfaced at the AfD, but there has been discussion by several editors over the same page title and scope concerns.

Concerns about the two aforementioned pages resulted in the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits Radio North Derbyshire and Talk:Greatest Hits Radio Surrey & East Hampshire, and in individual edits to pages like Greatest Hits Radio Bucks, Beds and Herts. This RfC was created as to centralize both discussions, get more input from the project, and create consensus.

Right now, the pages are titled and written such that they cover the history of the stations past the rollup, in which they are little more than news, travel news and commercial opt-outs of a regional service that in turn has very little deviation in presenters and programming from a national service (as seen here).

Hits Radio South Coast, among other pages, sets UK precedent for the scope of a station article not including predecessors upon the merge of multiple stations, even if their transmitters remained in use.

Pages to be moved

The following pages would be moved back and reverted back to their pre-rebrand titles:

!votes

  • Support as per nom - IMHO all moved articles should be moved back with content being pre-rebrand and then GHR stations being created as seperate articles, –Davey2010Talk 21:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom - with all moved articles moved back with content being pre-rebrand. I don't think you need articles created for the GHR local areas as there would be no content different to the main article for the national station which already exists - Greatest Hits Radio Tod55 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, for the following reasons:
  • There is precedent in UK radio for this sort of split; for instance, Hits Radio South Coast features blurbs on all of its predecessors, though here it would make less sense for a GHR article to do that. (There are also articles that are unnecessarily split in UK radio, but that's another story.) The guideline should be simple: an article break can and should occur when a local station is merged with others into a regional or national service, but not when a local station is sold and changes names/format (unless a license revocation is involved, like with Radio Victory).
  • The nature of the operations of these stations changed considerably. Many local studios were closed in favor of program delivery from Bauer's existing network centers.
  • There will be fewer confusing article names and fewer redundant pages with the same content. The super-regional areas of Greatest Hits Radio (e.g. Greatest Hits Radio Midlands) should not have articles of their own; their opt-outs can be addressed in the network article, and their constituent pre-rollup stations in their articles.
Note that there are two exceptions. Stations that used the GHR name pre-rollup, such as Greatest Hits Radio South Yorkshire, should not be moved. Stations that post-rollup still operate as individual entities despite being rebranded or franchised, like Greatest Hits Radio South Coast and Greatest Hits Radio South Wales, should not be moved. It is also worth pointing out that the Scottish stations in this network have not adopted GHR branding, and because Ofcom have set limits regarding program sharing between UK nations, the Scottish stations may merit consideration as their own network if the branding is brought to Scotland. Sammi Brie (t • c) 21:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom - I've been in a similar situation myself with the Jazz FM (UK) article which was nominated for deletion. The new station would not have made sense in the 102.2 Jazz FM article being a separate entity to the new station (and its former incarnation, jazzfm.com). Having separate articles for the defunct and new stations sufficed. And the same should happen here. The old stations (with references to validate their notability) should retain their articles whilst the new Greatest Hits Radio network should be mentioned within the Greatest Hits Radio article. --tgheretford (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These pages need to be moved (back, in some cases) to new titles still as of 1 January 2021:

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBQS-LP

Currently before us is an AfD, but it's not your usual AfD. There are a SLEW of hoax edits and it's made it very hard to figure out what end is up in this one. So, please read through it all, consider all the sides and facts, and go from there. It has been relisted (as of today), so we have plenty of time to put our opinions/!votes out on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22 on February 28, 2021 (UTC)

Please re-rate WLAD at Talk:WLAD

During November 2020 and March 2021, I added a huge amount of new material with reliable sources to the entry for WLAD. For the WikiProject Radio Stations, WLAD's talk page still says "This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale." As an independent reader, please re-rate the page so it's no longer rated as "Stub-Class". Also feel free to assign an importance scale rating.172.58.239.42 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You're on a roll...I'd say you're C-Class. I'd like to see a citation for most facts and maybe group some of the shorter paragraphs together to form longer ones. I have Hartford Courant access—perhaps I can add more information on the station, though I do not have a Danbury paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you and we can continue to improve the narrative over time. The News-Times would have a bunch more relevant articles in their earlier archives from before the 1990s but they aren't online, probably only on some old microfilms in the public library. I did find a bunch of relevant articles in citable newspapers like The News-Times, The New York Times, and The Hartford Courant and magazines like Billboard Music Week and Broadcasting, Telecasting but I was limited by what I could find in free search engines and free databases and what I knew from listening to the station. Most of the facts I added are found in those articles but for a couple of exceptions. Some of the WLAD people mentioned in these articles were well-known in our community and won awards.172.58.239.42 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't yet add anything about the awards the station and its personnel received from the Connecticut Associated Press Broadcasters Association and from the Danbury Old Timers. Maybe that would be excessive? Also didn't yet mention that they broadcast University of Connecticut basketball games.172.58.239.42 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The awards would be excessive, yes. A brief mention in programming about being on the UConn basketball network is warranted, though. Have you considered getting an account? That way it's easier for me to ping you when you get new replies. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

K272ED

K272ED redirects to a dab which lists an airport and a redlink for a radio station. It appears in {{Tri-Cities Radio}}. Should we delete the redirect, or can it sensibly be diverted to an article? Certes (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I added it to 93.5 and changed the dab so now there is a valid entry there. MB 13:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@MB: What is the logic in redirecting it to 93.5 FM when the translator broadcasts at 102.3 FM? Just delete the redirect.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The redirect that's been put in place for KWDR (FM) to 93.5 will also need to be deleted; that just obscures a redlink that could be turned into an article. Mlaffs (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Tdl1060, that was a mistake. There is an article now at KWDR (FM), so it should go there. MB 22:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

KWDC-LP and notability

I published an article for KWDC-LP, but it was rejected for lacking nobility (WP:NRADIO). I've posted the draft to Draft:KWDC-LP, and hopefully someone can make recommendations (or edit the draft) and improve it to establish nobility. I thought having an entry in the FCC database was enough, but... --DrChuck68 (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Two possible suggestions. 1) You could merge it with San Joaquin Delta College and create a section in that article on the station. 2) Look for WP:RS articles about the station that can flesh out its history and operations. A good place to start would be the college's newspaper, The Collegian. (This might also be helpful.) Is there anything there that makes the case for notability? Carter (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@DrChuck68: They are, I'm not who said they don't, but they are very incorrect. Gimme a few minutes and let me work on the article. I can dig up some more references. Hang tight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Radio station articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Radio station articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This was a SNOW Keep. :) Move along, nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Radio-Locator is Down

At the present moment, Radio-Locator is down. As most of you know, Radio-Locator links are used across WPRS pages in the US and on Canadian and Mexican border stations. I have emailed the webmaster of the site, but that's the most that can be done on our end. The outage has been ongoing for approximately an hour, that I am aware of. I'll do my best to keep everyone updated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like its back up :) --Tdl1060 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
About to say the same thing. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation: RfC being planned to propose making WP:NMEDIA a guideline

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability § Planning for possible RfC to make WP:NMEDIA a guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Planned maintenance on RECNet sites

I know that Canadian stations use RECNet for their CRTC license links and some pages in the US use their links for certain sources. Unfortunately, until Monday (7/5), RECNet websites will be down for planned behind-the-scenes maintenance. This is a known issue and has been planned for a couple weeks, and might be resolved before the 5th. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: It's already back up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I'm still seeing the "Maintenance" page on my end. It might still be populating through the internet, though. Not sure. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
As of 5:15p EDT on 7/4, all RECNet sites and services are back up and running. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of radio dials in articles

I don't want to delete these without any explanation...but I don't understand the spread of 'radio dial' images in articles such as WNCI and KMJM-FM, where someone posts an image of the screen of their HD Radio playing a certain station as 'proof' of a station's existence, as if the article, its text, and links to the station's website aren't enough proof of its existence. Looking at the KMJM example, we have a full picture of a radio, including the editor's hand, as if they're a hostage giving a "proof of life" that they actually received that station.

We can't 'hear' these pictures though. They take up space, are often ugly, and give no information to the reader, who likely will not share that radio tuner. Should they be in articles, or are they pointless decoration that waste precious WP:FAIRUSE slots? Please share your thoughts. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:IRELEV states images "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." I don't see how a radio dial image aids in understanding the article and is anything but "decorative". I would favor removal. MB 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Project tagging

Would there be any objection to me temporarily adding a category to transclusions of {{Infobox radio station}}? This would be used to support tagging pages that contain these templates into this project using Wikipedia:WikiProjectTagger. This would assist in identifying pages that need assistance and also those pages that might be tagged as in WikiProject Radio but not WPRS (I've seen a few). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: So, it would make sure everything was tagged as WPRS and not WP:Radio? Just making sure I'm understanding. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
It'd just add the WPRS tag to it if it didn't have it already. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Support: OK, that's how I understood that. I support this. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Support: That sounds helpful. Thanks! —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing slogan parameter from Infobox radio station and Infobox television station

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was removed. PrimeBOT will be requested. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

When I submitted redesign proposals for the WPRS/TVS infoboxes last year, a comment was made by MB about the |slogan= parameter and the fact that it had been removed from similar boxes as being too promotional (see here for the comment and links to similar discussions in other infoboxes).

IceWelder today removed the |slogan= parameter from {{Infobox television channel}}, citing a similar rationale. Is it time to proceed to do the same for {{Infobox radio station}}/{{Infobox television station}} (and other similar templates)? If consensus leans yes, I can request PrimeBOT to run and remove the field from all of the transclusions automatically; given the number of pages affected, this is going to be a necessity.

As a note, usage of |slogan= was in 40% of transclusions of Infobox television channel, 47.6% of transclusions of Infobox television station, and 58% of transclusions of Infobox radio station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Support About 20% of my reverts on the cable network pages were about the slogans (fake slogans, old slogans, 20 slogans packed onto the template), so yes...ready for them all to go. It's a hassle to keep up with them, and in many cases, TV stations either have so many slogans down to court show blocks, it's absurd, or they just don't have one and the field is a waste of bytes. And for radio, the same, or it's just so generic that it doesn't matter. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
We're still throwing around that Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge" (see WP:PRIME and WP:6M, just to scratch the surface). "...old slogans, 20 slogans packed onto the template" suggests our intention is to only feature what the current owner is currently pushing. Not only is this promotional in nature, it's incompatible with "the sum of all human knowledge". From what I see, our coverage of magazines, newspapers, radio stations and television stations is already far too heavily weighed towards resembling social media fodder for whoever happens to own that outlet today. There are numerous editors dedicated to pushing our content in that direction and refusing to discuss any objections to their work, even when those discussions wind up at ANI (mostly limited to television station articles, but it's subtly crept into these articles as well). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Still Support. In the past year, I removed if from a couple more minor templates (law firm, bus operator if I recall) with no complaints. MB 01:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment The issue is that these slogans are never printed in the neutral press. They're always found through advertisements and airchecks that do not meet our sourcing guidelines, and are often of interest to only a slight few. And in the intervening years (despite their absolutely non-existent COPYVIO policies), Wikia/Fandom has taken up the slack in writing about everything regarding TV/radio stations, leaving us to do the basics. Being the 'sum of human knowledge' is a worthy goal...but I doubt even the librarians of Alexandria would need us to know that "WGN-TV had a different jingle and slogan to promote their summer schedule every years in the 80s, and Laverne & Shirley aired in 12 different timeslots through 1994". Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment, per WP:PRIMARYCARE, something like a slogan that's sourced to a station website would be acceptable for citing what a business says about itself. It's not acceptable for notability, but it still can meet sourcing guidelines. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Support, as per the reasons given above. The station's |branding= (or name) is less subject to frequent changes. WHTZ has had the branding Z-100 for decades. --DrChuck68 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Weak Oppose, I understand the concern and for TV stations I agree with the removal, but for radio I'll admit a fondness for seeing slogans, which don't seem to change too often (except along with other changes in branding and even callsigns). Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. {{Infobox company}} deprecated the parameter years ago because the use of slogans is solely promotional. In no way does listing slogans help the reader. Logos are already used for identification. IceWelder [✉] 10:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd push back a little at the idea that logos are more recognizable than slogans. Yes, digital radio and the Web make it more likely that people will see a station logo now than a few decades ago where you'd most frequently see them on bumperstickers or billboards, but radio's still an audio medium and slogans are a big part of start of a station's identity. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcr25 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Support. The field is superfluous and usually clogged with lots of slogans (especially on the TV side, where some articles will list three or four because editors just add them all in) that it doesn't not sound purely advertorial at times. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 06:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopen: For radio stations

Apologizes for reopening this, I was on vacation, so I was unaware of this discussion. Anyway, we have plenty of slogan fields over in WP:WPRS (radio stations) that are currently being used. I can't speak for the TV side of things, but radio stations only have one slogan like "The Hit Music Station" or "Today's Hot New Country". Rarely, if ever, do they have two. I've looked at the discussion and it seems like it's kinda lopsided in TV's favor, but not really radio's.

As I have stated, the slogan field is currently being used in almost all radio station pages. Calling it "deprecated" and "superfluous" (on the radio side) seems a bit wrong. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying it is not used in a lot of radio station articles. It has been removed from many other templates because of its promotional nature. Something said by a station about itself to be memorable and attract listeners should not be given a prominent place in the infobox. MB 23:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@MB: Same could be said about it's branding as well. That too could be considered "promotional", should we remove that? But we are specifically saying that it's "deprecated" and "superfluous" (mostly on the TV side) when it's not on the radio side. I ask that we look specifically at the radio side, where it is used quite often, if not across the board, and reconsider...on the radio side only. I believe the decision was/has been made on the TV side already and I can't speak for that as I don't participate in TVS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Whether to remove it is not based on the number of uses. The consensus was that it should be removed from all media articles just like it has already been removed from many other infoboxes. No one has proposed removing branding at this time, but that is not an argument to keep slogan. MB 23:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@MB: I think you missed my point on the branding. :) The discussion was lopsided, almost all about TV. Everyone saying it was "deprecated" and "superfluous", this is not true. It's an incorrect (and false) reason. Just because it's not used on other infoboxes, doesn't mean it's not used here. To use the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This ain't broke. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You keep going back to the fact that it is used here frequently. That is not in dispute. As I already said, that is irrelevant. The reason it is being removed throughout the encyclopedia is due to its promotional nature. It's no longer used in other infoboxes and it shouldn't be used in this one either, for the same reasons. MB 00:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
"Promotional" is a pretty slippery slope here; the same could be said of logos, branding, and other elements that identify a station and are encyclopedic. Neutralhomer is right that the complaints in the above discussion about slogans seemed to be focused mostly (only?) on television stations. There was no engagement on points about radio stations' slogans. And it's not accurate to say that such things aren't used in other infoboxes. Look at the motto field in {{Infobox newspaper}}. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mean slogan/motto isn't used in ANY other infoboxes - I was talking about the ones where it has been removed, especially the commonly used ones like {{infobox company}} and {{organization}} (which together are used in around 100k articles).— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)
@MB: Yeah, it's no longer used, because the entire field was removed from the infobox. That's the only reason it's "no longer used". On thousands of radio station pages, the field remains ready and waiting to be used.
The irrelevancy of something is one's personal opinion. One's personal opinion is meaningless when it comes to Wikipedia as a whole. I've seen one discussion...one. One very lopsided discussion. As Carter said above, there was zero engagement on anything radio in that discussion. To call that discussion an encyclopedia-wide disccusion is a little crazy. That discussion wouldn't have consensus across the entire community. I'm not going to change my opinion on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
There have been many discussions about removing slogans from infoboxes and the consensus is always that they are promotional. Is anyone going to give any reasons why slogans belong in radio station infoboxes and why the arguments used elsewhere don't apply to radio stations. MB 01:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking over the prior discussions about removing slogans, it seems the consensus was more silence than actual discussion. The only arguments I'm seeing are that they are "promotional" and "why are we letting a marketing department have space in an infobox" (paraphrasing), as well as "they change too often" (again paraphrasing). Yes, radio slogans are promotional in the sense that they are designed to help people remember the station, not just so that they tune in to a specific dial position when they want a specific type of programming but also so that when they are filling out an Arbitron listening diary the station gets credit for the quarter hour. This last one is the reason radio station slogans have tended to be pretty static, usually changing only when there's a major format change. Also, as I noted above as an audio-based medium a station's slogan may well be more recognizable to the listener than a station logo or other visual branding. Digital radio and the web have changed that some (as have the way ratings are compiled), but that doesn't mean station slogans aren't valuable information that should be included. It's part of a station's identity, history, and presence ... all of which are things that a reader reasonably would expect to find on a page or in an infobox. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Should I have PrimeBOT hold on removing the data from the radio station pages, @MB/@Tcr25/@Neutralhomer? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: At least across my watchlist, PrimeBot has already populated the change. Unless you are meaning the removal of the field from all pages, then yes, I would hold. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
That is what I mean. I've told Primefac to hold and I'll advise once we work through this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I read that in two ways. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
No harm in waiting for a bit to see if there is enough to change the outcome. MB 02:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@MB: I agree. Give it time, talk it out, go from there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sammi Brie: Well, there has been no action on this since the 18th. I appreciate you giving this a chance, but as I expected it didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere. Anyway, let the bot do it's thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It's a shame that, once again, failure to engage on the question is seen as support for removal of radio station slogans. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Tcr25:Yup, basically. I expected this. Total crickets. It doesn't surprise me, it disappoints me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How does changing a projects quality scale work?

Hi there, I'm someone who is pretty new to the project and doesn't understand all of the meta surrounding it. Some projects on here have relatively low ratings but are long and in my opinion, relatively well-scaled out articles. From what I can tell, the ratings were set back when the articles were just small, but not a complete stub. Do you just change it yourself, or there a process to it. Fadedmax (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You often can, Fadedmax! You should read WP:QUALITY to learn the standard quality scale and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic to learn about importance. User:Evad37/rater is very helpful in this realm. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Templates nominated for deletion

There are several format templates being slated for deletion. They can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_18 Stereorock (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

{{K-LOVE}} etc.

I was noting how big the K-Love, {{Air 1}} and {{American Family Radio}} navboxes are. I was wondering whether it'd be worth it/useful to split the templates up by region (even by just having groups in the same navbox) or possibly send them to TfD and wanted to float the idea to the project first. It's worth noting that there is also a list and a category for each of the three navboxes I've highlighted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Most of the station links are redirects (and some of the one's that aren't probably should be) limiting the usefulness of these navboxes. I don't see a real benefit in keeping them around.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations/Archive_2021&oldid=1150595996"