Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Market templates

I'd like to initiate a bit of a discussion on what this project's policy should be for "radio stations by market" templates such as {{Toronto AM}} or {{Long Island Radio}}. Namely, should a radio station's article include only the template for the market in which it actually originates, or should it include the templates for all primary markets in which the station can be heard? For example, if the radio station CHWO, which originates in the Greater Toronto Area, can be heard in Buffalo, New York, should its article thus include the Buffalo market template as well as the Toronto one? Or should the Buffalo template be excluded because the station doesn't originate in that market?

For clarity's sake, it should be noted that regardless of which articles they're added to, as things currently stand, the templates themselves only include links to stations originating in the listed market. Even if the Buffalo market template is placed on CHWO's article, CHWO isn't listed within the template, so other stations in the Buffalo market don't link back to CHWO.

I'm personally inclined to the "primary market only" position, but there's been enough of a tug-of-war over this that I think we should have a real discussion about it, and shoot for a real consensus as to which approach we want to take. Bearcat 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea/Proposal

  • Hi... I have a proposal... I believe the primary market should be the only place the radio station is represented as an "In Market" station. If the market can pick up stations from another market, it's probably a good idea to list those in the template, but under a separate header so that the person reading it is aware that the station can be heard in the market, but serves another market. (See Template:Long Island Radio and Template:Middlesex Radio as examples of this).
    • Also, as far as putting the template on the radio station page, I believe it's best to list only one template per radio station because the page gets rather cluttered if you've got 2 or more on there. The exceptions are:
      • (A) If the station is both AM and FM and the market template is split into AM and FM
      • (B) If the station broadcasts on multiple frequencies, one for market A and the other for market B... then there probably should be more than 1

All others, should only have one template on the radio station page. (Any other exceptions others may come up with?) What do you think?

--Jjc104 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT (AM)

I ran across an interesting news article on a radio station that is apparently changing formats. When I looked up the station's call letters, it looks like the Wikipedia doesn't have an article for WHAT (AM). For more info, see Longtime black station shut in Philly By JOANN LOVIGLIO, Associated Press Writer. BlankVerse 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite Radio

Should the stations that are on Worldspace, XM, & Sirius be added to this project?TravKoolBreeze 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • And a related question. Does the existence of these channels merit inclusion in the local AM/FM templates? Vegaswikian 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The individual stations should be handled by this project. As for the inclusion in the templates, satellite ration stations are neither local nor are they AM/FM. --PhantomS 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem including the Traffic & Weather channels as those are local. They may not be AM/FM but they give valuable information, which should outweigh that. As long as there are labeled as SatRad, those channels should be included.TravKoolBreeze 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Adding them would be putting them in the wrong place. What FM stations are is clear. Satellite radio is not FM. Vegaswikian 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That is why the tag is mentioning it as satellite radio. Since the templates are for radio stations based by format, it wouldn't make much sense to say "NYC (AM) (FM) (Satellite Radio T/W)". I figure giving the valuable information with the right tag would outweigh the strict definition. TravKoolBreeze 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If the information is valuable, then it should have a place. That place is not in the FM template. Your point seems to be, 'I have valuable information so let me find a place for it'. Based on the fact the these channels are not local or FM, I'll update the template in question again. Vegaswikian 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well the traffic and weather channels, which are the only ones being talked about, are local to the market area. Yes, my point is pretty much the information is valuable thus find a place. I do not see it wrong to put it within the template if it was mentioned as satellite radio since in general, the template is radio. It is one line of code that wouldn't destroy the integrity of the template or Wikipedia in general. TravKoolBreeze 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the templates themselves should represent the Arbitron markets that the label says they are. This means that the satellite traffic and weather stations qualify in the same way that cable stations show up in TV templates. This is because the Sirius and XM Radio specifically targeted those radio markets with the weather/traffic stations even though they are not AM or FM. What do you think? --Jjc104 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
With TV, the broadcast is intended to be available on a 'standard' TV channel. Cable signals clearly deliver on a TV. With XM radio, it is clearly not intended to be delivered on FM. So including this as an FM station appears to be incorrect. The Arbitron market might be a factor if you included all broadcast types ranked by Arbitron for a market in a template. Vegaswikian 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Cable signals clearly deliver on TV only when the person has a cable subscription. The template include links to AM, which would make it allowable on the template, since it is clearly defined as AM which is not able to be heard on FM. I am willing to poll the members to reach a consensus about this. If it is ruled that it doesn't belong, I would have no problem with it.TravKoolBreeze 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it has links to AM templates. If you want to create a satellite template that could work. Then you are linking to another broadcast medium's template which is logical and proper. Could be the right solution. Vegaswikian 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO, it would be preferable to have a separate template for satellite radio, since it requires an entirely different set of equipment than AM/FM. In addition, at least with my portable XM Radio, it does not pick up AM/FM. --PhantomS 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New question, should a new radio station stub be created for satellite radio pages?TravKoolBreeze 08:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles with call signs

The examples given in the call signs section seem to contrast with the note added by Stickyguy. Could someone please clarify? --PhantomS 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I used WP:NAME#Broadcasting and rewrote the section to make more sense, along with restructuring the rest of the project page. --PhantomS 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Station references with no pages

Reading the history of KLAC AM 570 in Los Angeles and related history of XETRA AM 690 in Mexico, there are references to the format that until recently, occupied both stations. It was referred to as Fabulous 570 when on KLAC and Fabulous 690 when on XETRA. This is a station that attracted over a quarter million listeners and has relocated to the Internet while looking for a new FM or HD2 home. Since the station is referenced and italicized in each article, should a page be created for those searching for the station and it's kind of programming? I'm new to this so I don't know the process. Barfburger 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

From the project page: "If a station radically changes its format: Create a new section within the existing article about the format change. --PhantomS 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HD RADIO

As many of you already know, many FM stations are programming multiple formats taking advantage of HD Radio's multi-casting abilities. For example, KROQ-FM simulcasts their modern rock format on HD1 and airs a classic alternative format on their HD2 signal. This is mentioned in the body of the article but I feel it should be noted on the main infobox templates as with all radio stations that multi-cast in HD.

Perhaps we could add below the format = line something like HD-2 format, HD-3 format, and HD-4 format - or perhaps we could simply list the HD-2 format and reference the body of the article for the third and fourth for the small number of stations that choose to multicast more than two programs.

I was hoping for a discussion on this to see what people's thoughts are on this subject. I know we can't clutter the infobox with too much information as it's meant for only the most important relevant items but I personally feel that this is important - especially in the future when HD Radio's begin to proliferate the market. - Transent 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ya, it needs to be covered. I guess any place that lists the format needs to be updated to list the HD formats as well. Vegaswikian 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • HD radio is going to break a lot of concepts about this topic... while the HD Radio industry group is pushing a year long rollout with FM stations adding an HD2 station (with no commercials and coordination to avoid format overlap), the HD technology supports more than just 2 stations per existing bandwidth allocation. When/if HD gets enough critical mass, if the analog signals are turned off, each licensee (aka CallSign/Frequency) might have 4 HD channels for each FCC license. Essentially a 1-to-1 relationship (FCC License->Signal) is now a one-to-many relationship...StreamingRadioGuide 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Category: Help!

Greetings all: My primary interest is in learning foreign langauges, and having access to web-casting radio stations in other languages is invaluable. I want to create a new family of categories: Webcasting radio stations by language. Basically, I would like to compile lists of all stations broadcasting on the web in Dutch, in German, in English, whatever. Questions are:

  1. Is there already a similar page? I have seen lists of radio stations by country. This, however, does not fulfil my purpose, as a) most do not host their content online, and b) I want to distinguish by language, not by country (Spanish-speaking stations in the US would, for example, be filed under Spanish)
  2. Is the term "radio station" still appropriate, even though quite a number of web-casts are not simulatenously broatcast over radio waves?
  3. I want to limit the category to hosts which broadcast (close to) 24/7, as adding PodCasts, and other media which only appear for an hour or two a week would become cumbersome. Is this a fundamentally logical distinction?
  4. Can anyone think of a more appropriate category name before I start?
  5. Would anyone be willing to help me categorise?

Thanks much, samwaltz 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All AM and FM radio stations are supposed to have the Template:Infobox Radio station. You will notice that it includes a webcast line where you can add a link. There is an existing category for List of Internet stations but it really needs some work. My proposal is a modification of the list of the FM and AM adapted to Internet Radio. I am working on something and once I have the basic categories and templates laid out, I will let you know and would appreciate your feedback - positive or negative. Transent 08:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will! I've got a few questions I'll add on the template discussion. Oh, btw, do you know that Internet Radio is an empty self-redirect? What should it be pointing to? samwaltz 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed that — it should have been pointing to Internet radio with the second word not capitalized. For what it's worth, according to the edit history that is what it pointed to until a grand total of three hours before you posted this comment (and four hours after Transent posted the comment you were replying to); at that time, somebody changed it to redirect back to itself for no immediately apparent reason. So thanks for catching that! Bearcat 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Internet Radio page is quite a mess. I came up with something that you just "might" like. Go to: List of webcasters in Europe and you will notice that the main template is webcasters by continent. What I think you will like is that I added a category where you can list webcasters by language (See: List of webcasters in Europe by language. I would appreciate any feedback. Transent 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My own input: it is a good idea, but Transent is also right that as things currently stand, the Internet radio articles are pretty messy and need a lot of cleanup and improvement. So it's worth doing, but might be better implemented as part of a more comprehensive cleanup project than on its own. For what it's worth, "radio station" isn't ideal terminology, but since people do use it we can as well, as long as we don't use it as the primary term for webcasts. And now, I'm going to wander off and start adding content to List of webcasters in Canada. Bearcat 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What takes precedence - FCC license or frequency?

Hi there. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the article KLIF (AM), and by extension, KFXR (AM). I have found references which state that the following happened in 1990:

KLIF, originally 1170 AM, bought the 570 frequency from KLDD, which (as best I can tell) went out of business. KLIF, with its license, continued to broadcast on 570 up to today.

KXFR, a new station, signed on about a week later, and has kept the 1170 frequency to this day.

The question is this: which approach is right?

1. Making call letters the 'central focus' of an article, which would mean that KLIF (AM)'s history section should have a 1947 founding date at 1170, and mention a move to 570 in 1990

2. Making frequency the 'central focus' of an article, which would mean that KLIF (AM)'s history focuses on the 570 frequency in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and mentions the former KLDD, then KLIF, as though one continuous station

It is my belief that number (1) is the correct approach. This means that an article follows the FCC license of a station, whether or not it changes frequencies. It seems really odd to me that KLIF (one of the most famous top 40 stations of all time) should have most of its history content in the article KFXR, when KFXR was just 'some station that happened to occupy frequency 1170 after 1990'.

Any thoughts on this? I am currently in edits back and forth with anonymous posters who are putting content into KFXR and KLIF essentially on idea (2) (see Talk:KLIF (AM)), where their preference is stated as 'A history of what AM 570 has been in Dallas/Ft. Worth'. A consensus here would help keep the articles consistent. Skybunny 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From the "article formatting" section of the project page, it looks like the call sign takes precedence. --PhantomS 10:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an area that often causes confusion. WP:NC and other places suggest that pages should give the entire history of the license, not the call sign, and not the frequency. With some transactions, it becomes difficult to verify what actually happened, particularly since reports in the popular media, and even in some trade publications like Broadcasting & Cable, often describe them inaccurately. The FCC's public records include the complete details, but digging through them to find details like this -- particularly for something that happened long before these records were published on the Internet -- probably counts as original research. (I think you mean 1190, not 1170, by the way.) If I were at home, I have some reference books that would answer definitively what happened in this particular case, but I don't have access to them right now. In any event, I think your description of what happened is wrong, for a very simple reason: changing the ownership of a license is easy and takes the FCC a few months at most to process; changing call signs can be done on a whim with the payment of a $65 fee; changing frequency is extremely expensive, takes a great deal of time, and is open to competitive applications. It is highly unlikely that KLIF "changed frequency to 570" as you describe; what is much more likely is that the owners of KLIF-1190 bought KLDD-570 and moved their programming and callsign to 570 (which, you will recall, is the old WFAA) then sold the 1190 license to someone else. The FCC's records for (the current) KFXR and KLIF both indicate histories for those licenses going back to the beginning of electronic recordkeeping at the Commission around 1980. Based on the dates shown in CDBS (570 changes hands in early 1990, but the sale of 1190 isn't granted until early 1991) it seems likely that the owners of 1190 operated 570 under a Local Marketing Agreement prior to consummation of the deal. (Department of useless trivia: KFXR is the ninth call sign 1190 has had since 1990.)
These details sometimes even confuse the licensees themselves, which is part of why the FCC now assigns a Facility ID Number (FIN) to every license. It is my considered belief that station histories should folllow the facility, as the FCC defines it, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. 121a0012 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and not by trying to appeal to a one-size-fits-all rule about whether to follow the call-sign, frequency, or FCC license or facility ID. In this case I think there is a compelling reason to not use the FCC facility ID to determine where the history of KLIF 1190 should go. That the call sign at 570 kHz is currently KLIF is indeed a compelling reason for the pre-1990 history of KLIF to be there, but this reason alone might not be sufficient (or even necessary), as I think it would be equally compelling to say that the FCC license to broadcast on 1190 kHz in Dallas now belongs to KFXR, and so the pre-1990 history of 1190 kHz belongs there. However, the most compelling reason, and what I think tips the balances, is that there is a clear link between the historical KLIF on 1190 and the current KLIF on 570. Whatever the details of the 1990 transaction, it is clear that it was the intent of the Susquehanna Radio Corporation to purchase the license to broadcast at 570 kHz in Dallas, in order to move their radio station KLIF to that frequency, and that for a week in late 1990, the same programming was broadcast on both frequencies in order to facilitate the public acceptance of that move. Therefore, detailed information about the history of KLIF before 1990 rightly belongs on the KLIF article. This is also where I think someone who wanted to research the history of KLIF before 1990 would expect to find it.
Nevertheless, it is also clear that the histories of the two stations KLIF and KFXR are related, and it is reasonable to expect that each article should contain a mention and link to the other article in its respective history section. For example, the KFXR article should say that the frequency (or FCC license to broadcast on that frequency) once belonged to KLIF, and the KLIF article should say that the 1190 frequency (or license) was sold and is now the home of KFXR.
What's missing from this discussion is where the pre-1990 history of 570 kHz should go. I think it could also be in the KLIF article, although I am inclined to think that, as 570 kHz was WFAA for over 60 years (see this Dallas-Fort Worth AM Station History), a new article WFAA (AM) should be created to cover 570 kHz in Dallas for the period from 1922-1990. DHowell 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, as is clear, I disagree, but I won't insist on the principle, particularly for a market far from my home. 121a0012 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Dallas is far from my home, too, but closer to my home is a couple of stations I edited a while back, KFRC and KEAR in San Francisco, which I think represent the ideal of what I am arguing for. If we were to insist on using the FCC license ID or frequency to determine where historical information should be presented, KFRC's eight-decade history as an AM station would be under KEAR, and KEAR's 55-year history would be splattered among 4 different pages, KEAR, KIFR, KLLC, and KYCY. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Another example: KMET in Los Angeles has been off the air for over twenty years, and yet it is still more notable by far than the Inland Empire station currently using those call letters. An FCC ID or frequency rule would insist that this information be placed under KTWV, but really, KMET is well-known (at least around here among people old enough to know) for being the legendary rock-and-roller "the Mighty MET", and not just "some station that used to broadcast on 94.7 where KTWV is now." Now you might argue that this violates the rules I suggested above, because an ownership link can be established between KMET and KTWV, whereas there is no such link between the former KMET and the current KMET. But that's why I said first that these things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I think the notability and fame of the former KMET overrides any other consideration. DHowell 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes for this project?

I'd love to add a userbox for this project to my talkpage. has anyone made one?Lisapollison 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found one:
This user is a member of WikiProject Radio.


- Lisapollison 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which is preferred?

I've come across both Template:Fminfo and Template:FMQ. Is either the preferred information template? JPG-GR 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise -- Template:Aminfo vs. Template:AMQ? JPG-GR 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I feel kinda "duh!" Thanks for the info, though. JPG-GR 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should actually switch overt to Template:Fminfo as it gives more info than Template:FMQ. Same for AMTravKoolBreeze 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree to some extent. Radio-locator is useful, but what the hell is Yes.com anyway? JPG-GR 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes.com seems to be a log of what the station has played. Doesn't help for news/talk FM stations so I edited out. We can always edit the template again. I say we swtich over to the info templates for radio pages, since it has elements of Template:FMQ, Template:FML and Template:fmsignal. Same for AM.TravKoolBreeze 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Template:FMQ is in just about every article and appears to be the 'standard', it would be a lot smarter to change that template to include any additional links the project determines are needed. There is no reason to update every article to a new template and there is no reason for 3 or more templates. Vegaswikian 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. What links should be kept for Template:FMQ and Template:AMQ from the other templates?TravKoolBreeze 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Whereas I'm a fan of Radio-Locator and I've been utilizing it in the Michigan-related radio articles (but not to a point where adding it to the template would hurt), I'd almost say I'm happy with how Template:FMQ and Template:AMQ are now. *shrug* JPG-GR 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> I would only consider keeping 1. Information page for {{{1}}}-FM from RecNet.com and 2. Radio Locator Information on {{{1}}}. The third item includes a popup window so I would exclude that and the last one is already in fmq. If you make those changes, the final step would be to switch the articles using fminfo to use the new fmq and redirect fminfo to fmq. Vegaswikian 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
On further analysis, the addition of "Radio Locator Information on {{{1}}}" would be a good addition to the template (IMO). Still not familiar enough with RecNet.com for an opinion. JPG-GR 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution of {{RadioStationsProject}} or not?

Should the project template be subst: or not? I had a discussion with before at User_talk:Bearcat#Talk:France_Inter, User_talk:SlaveToTheWage#France_Inter and needed a more broader opinion on it. Thanks, STTW (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If the template was static and would never change again I would say yes but since the template is intended to maintain consistency across all pages and could very well change in the future I would say leave it the way it is (edited to say, now that I look at it, I agree that RadioStationsProject could very well never change. subst is a better alternative. sorry about the previous response) Cmhdave73 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: UK Radio stations task force

Looking at the number of people who are participants in this project from the UK and specificially dealing with UK articles, as well as the different style of writing and prose required for UK radio stations, I am proposing to start a UK radio stations task force, which still as part of the main radio stations WikiProject, would be able to more effectively work on UK radio stations articles where the radio station broadcasting model is different from the US model, but still be able to share and collabriate with the main radio stations WikiProject, which would be more difficult to do if this was a separate child WikiProject.

For example, most of the guidance on the main project page is geared towards the US radio station broadcasting model and wouldn't necesarily be applicable to the UK radio station broadcasting model.

I can set-up a task force or another proposed idea (if anyone suggests anything else) if anyone is interested. --tgheretford (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "US radio stations by state" lists

As things currently stand, the generally-applied practice has been for each state in the United States to have six separate radio station lists: one organized by call sign, one by city, one by format, one by Arbitron market, one by frequency and one by network. A user has recently proposed redirecting List of radio stations in Michigan by market area to another list, but I'd like to raise a discussion about this.

Wikipedia now has the capability to create sortable tables, in which a single table can be rearranged to sort items by any column within the table. Thus, it would now be possible to have, instead of six separate lists, a single radio stations list from which the user can choose which sort order they want to view: by call sign, by city, by frequency, etc. Accordingly, I'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia practice for US radio station lists, under which all six separate lists for each US state would be merged into a single list, which would be arranged as a sortable table. Here's a few radio stations arranged as an example; note how you can click on the little arrow boxes next to each column header to make any column act as the sortation key, meaning that this one table can simultaneously serve as six different lists:

Call sign Frequency Branding Format City of license Arbitron market
WAAM 1600 AM "TalkRadio 1600" talk radio Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Detroit
WABJ 1490 AM "NewsTalk 1490" news Adrian Detroit
WAGN 1340 AM "The Bay Area's News Source" news Menominee/Marinette Central Upper Peninsula

Any discussion? Bearcat 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Basically no objection to using a sortable table. The only issue I have, are any additional fields needed? I'm thinking about transmitter power, owner and a notes heading for other items of significance. I'd drop branding and Arbitron market. Better to discuss this up front rather than update all of the tables later. Vegaswikian 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good ideas all. I'm not wedded to the branding column; I just included it because that information was present on the list I copied these stations from. The Arbitron market question was raised in the discussion in which I originally proposed this; some people do find that information useful and important, but it is worth discussing whether we really need it or not. Perhaps we could just put the market number (e.g. "10" for Detroit) instead of the name? As for your other columns, transmitter power and owner are good ideas; I think "other items of significance" would probably be better discussed on the stations' actual articles, but I'm open to discussion on this too. Bearcat 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the "callsign", "frequency", and "city of license" columns are necessary. However, the other ones (esp. "branding) may be more clutter than use. Branding's change often. Formats often overlap, leaving the sorting option practically useless. Whereas power, owner, etc. are all very interesting data, I'd say those are best left for individual stations' infoboxes. JPG-GR 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Radio_Stations_40c6.html"