Template talk:Infobox Radio station/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Talk

Name changed to Template:Infobox Radio station to adopt the naming of a number of other infoboxes - Template:Radio station and Template:Radio Station Information continue to work as re-directs. Marknew 10:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggested additional fields: website, callsign, historical callsign, historical frequency

For your consideration (usage listed is, of course, a suggestion to users):

  • field "website" optional
  • field "callsign" required if not part of the title
  • field "historical callsign(s)" required if the callsign has changed
  • field "historical frequency(ies)" required if the frequency has changed

Courtland 13:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Template:Infobox Radio station/Infobox radio

There are currently two infoboxes which are designed to be used for radio station articles: Infobox radio and Template:Infobox Radio station. I believe that the infoboxes could possibly be merged, using templates such as Template:If defined call1 to hide fields such as "callsign" for stations which do not use them (e.g. those based in most of Europe). However, merging the infoboxes appears to be quite a substantial undertaking. Should the infoboxes be merged at all?

Before I attempt to merge the infoboxes, I would like to know the opinion of anyone who is sufficiently interested in this topic. In addition, if anyone would be willing to help me merge the infoboxes, I would be grateful! --Marknew 13:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This would be a good idea, merging the two. My thinking is that the best way forward is to a) create a WikiProject to handle the organization of the effort, b) create a new template that represents the merger of the two, c) unload non-subst'd articles from each individual template through a combination of bot and manual work, d) and when all non-subst'd articles are handled, move to attack the subst'd articles (identified via a bot-based indexing). The WikiProject would be a child of ... hmm, there is no dedicated "WikiProject Radio"; maybe it would be a good opportunity to revise Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio and television to focus on Radio for now (there is an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Television already), which would allow recycling of the existing pages and structure and avoid a trip to the deletion landfill for the inactive WikiProject. (p.s. consider creating a to-do list that is a modification of the a-to-d points above). Courtland 14:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent idea, both merging the two and creating a WikiProject to manage the merge. As the creator of the Infobox radio template, I'd gladly join the WikiProject. I've never headed up a WikiProject before, though, so if someone wants to take the lead, by all means he or she may. If not, any advice on how to lead a WikiProject? -- SwissCelt 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we revise the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio and television (as suggested by Courtland) to co-ordinate work on radio articles. --Marknew 13:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree. See you there? -- SwissCelt 01:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

subst question

I have a tendency (not exercised much with this particular infobox, but more with {{Infobox Journal}} (which I created) and {{Infobox Company}}, to subst infoboxes. My understanding is that the "if defined call1" template is a meta that will work only if the infobox target is not subst'd, is that right? Courtland 14:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The "if defined call1" template appears to work if you use syntax similar to the following when "subst'ing" an infobox:
{{subst:Infobox Radio station |
  image     = |
  name      = BBC Radio 1 |
  airdate   = [[September 30]] [[1967]] |
  frequency = 97 [[megahertz|MHz]] - 99 MHz |
  area      = National |
  style     = Contemporary |
  group     = [[BBC]] |
}}
but it does not work if you use:
{{subst:Infobox Radio station}}
Look at the following for examples of this: User:Marknew/Sandbox (first method - all fields used), User:Marknew/Sandbox 2 (first method - optional fields not used) and User:Marknew/Sandbox 3 (second method - notice that optional rows have been replaced with confusing Wiki-code). --Marknew 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

second subst question

What is your feeling on subst'ing the infobox as opposed to simple inclusion? Courtland 14:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you choose to "subst" the infobox code? --Marknew 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
My understanding of the debate over subst vs. no-subst has to do with the potential for revision of an infobox having a positive (or negative) impact on the pages to which it is applied. I tend to subst infoboxes for two reasons. First, it reduces the impact of changes to the article when template changes occur. For instance, if the name of a field is changed, this might well not semantically match the content of the previous field in all cases (a common problem in data management). If a field is removed from an infobox, as might occur if it is considered that the box should contain only common elements and the scope of application is expanded, then these fields will disappear from the pages where subst is not used (if I'm misinformed here, please help me out). Finally, and this is more a laziness issue, it is sometimes quite unclear how to fill out an infobox properly; even in the present case, the example does not match the current status of the infobox ... in seeing this, I could fix the information, but I've not done so to date (my bad). This is a common documentation problem, and many templates (let alone the most complex ones .. the infoboxes) have no guidelines as to how to fill them; only by subst'ing does one see the definitive field structure. All this being said, I'm not opposed to stopping my subst'ing behavior given infoboxes that overcome some or all of the pitfalls that I've noted here. I also wouldn't cry out for a blanket "thou shalt only subst" recommendation, definitely, despite the misgivings I've noted here. Regards, Courtland 19:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. as an example of what I think should be the level of documentation for an infobox, I tried to lead by example in the creation of the Template:Infobox_Journal where I've put things like explicit field definitions and additional fields considered but not included on the Talk page. User:Ceyockey
When a field was changed on Infobox radio, it appears that all the articles using that template were updated automatically. That, or the Wikipedian who made the change also manually changed all the articles. -- SwissCelt 23:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

New infobox design

I have started work on a new infobox which contains elements of both {{Infobox Radio station}} and {{Infobox radio}}. It can be found at Template:Infobox Radio station/temp. Comments are welcome; please also feel free to modify the infobox as you see fit. --Marknew 09:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Temporarily removed "class" field

I have temporarily commented out the "class" field; it is used by very few pages at present and looks out of place on these pages. I hope to restore the field once I have merged Infobox radio and Template:Infobox Radio station. Marknew 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk moved from old "Template:Infobox Radio Station" (as of 14 December 2005)

I suggest changing "Founded" to "First Air Date." While "Founded" is being used in the Broadcast (i.e., TV station) infobox, I object to it since the "founding" of a broadcasting operation does not have a definite meaning. I think that "Founded" was adopted from the company infobox, and in the context of the organization of a company or corporation or other such organization, "founded" has some meaning. In general, I think most authors have used the first air date as the "founded" date anyway. --Hillrhpc 18:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks for making the change! -- SwissCelt 23:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with this, so made the change yesterday (7 Aug). --Marknew 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
When radio stations go through several format, owner, and even frequency changes, sometimes "First Air Date" can be ambiguous. For example, is it the date a station on its frequency first went on the air? Is it the date the station in in its current format, or with its current owners, first went on the air? If a station changed frequencies, is it the first air date of the station on the new frequency or on the old frequency? KKBT in Los Angeles is a good example of a radio station that could have many different "first air dates" depending on how it is defined--as it is there are currently two years listed there with no explanation. DHowell 19:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree because your statement about "when values are entered for the relevant parameters, the fields will automatically appear" does not occur because you update the information for the Infobox for WVEE Atlanta and it remained hidden. I appreciate you adding fields like class to the infobox. However, when you can't see the information added to the page such as ERP, class, and website then it makes the infobox useless. I will be reverting your changes to the WVEE page until you fix the infobox, so that the information will be visible. And you need to make the box capable for everyone to see all the information that is typed in the infobox. Leonard23 10:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Examples

Examples of this infobox in use can be found at User:Marknew/Sandbox. --Marknew 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Optional fields: how to hide?

Options:

  • Keep all fields visible.
    • Certain fields will look out of place (call sign fields on European station articles, etc.).
  • Separate infoboxes (callsign-using stations/others)
    • Difficulty ensuring a common design?
  • Use of "if defined call1" etc.
    • Makes using "subst" difficult for those who prefer to use that method.
    • Multiple template calls - inefficient?
  • Multiple templates (as used by WikiProject Beer - "Brewbox").
    • Multiple template calls - inefficient?
  • Any other options?

We need to decide how to solve this problem. Comments are welcome! --Marknew 14:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have found a solution to this problem; take a look at the source code of the infobox to see how. Examples of the infobox in use can be found at User:Marknew/Sandbox. --Marknew 07:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Infobox Movie. It is an infobox in which all of the fields are hidden if they are not filled in. It seems that this code should work.

 {{if defined 
   |test={{{slogan|}}}
   |call=Infobox Radio Station/row5
   |1=1='''Slogan'''
   |2=2={{{slogan}}}
 }}

May I suggest that Template:Radio Station and Template:Radio station can be merged if such code is inserted into the fields that will be optional. --Hillrhpc 20:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I finally did it. Feel free to revert my changes if this breaks anything. DHowell 04:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it works (I've tested it in Firefox 1.5, Internet Explorer 6 and Opera 8.5). Hopefully we can now start the process of merging the plethora of different infoboxes (none of which have the same style) into one common design. --Marknew 11:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

ERP not appropriate for AM stations

I know of no part of the world in which AM broadcast statons (MW and LW for those of you in Yurp) are regulated on the basis of ERP. Most commonly, transmitter power output (TPO) or some variation thereof (such as nominal power in the U.S.) is used. (This must be particularly the case in places where inefficient antenna systems are still very common.) 121a0012 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I added an optional power field for specifying nominal power. Perhaps a tpo field could be added if this template is to be used for radio stations in countries which define power by transmitter power output. DHowell 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

City of License

In the US, the FCC requires all broadcast stations (radio and television) to have a city of license or community of licensed (COL). It requires the broadcast station to that an at-grade class signal to be broadcasted in that city or community. I would recommend that it would be added to the infobox. 12:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I added an optional city field for specifying city of license. Perhaps there might be some way to make area optional only if city is specified, but I'll leave that to some other time. DHowell 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Radio_station_Archive_1_e32b.html"