From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is part of WikiProject Radio Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to radio stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Radio Portal This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Discussion 1.1 Satellite Radio infoboxes 1.2 Old Callsigns Field 1.3 Webstream addition to infobox 1.4 Station class? 1.5 Am I Doing this correctly? 1.6 Expand Infobox - Digital Satellite/Cable/Terrestrial/DAB fields 1.7 Infobox radio vs Infobox Radio 1.8 HD Radio formats 1.9 Widening of Infobox Proposal 1.10 Confusion Over Airdate 1.11 Standard logo caption 1.12 HAAT, Facility ID and Transmitter Coordinates 1.13 kW or watts, FM or MHz 1.14 audience share 1.15 protection 1.16 template in portuguese 1.17 Fact template transclusion 1.18 Additional fields 1.19 share wikilink 1.20 Need to remove ratings from infoboxes

[edit] Discussion

Archives:

• Infobox radio archive
• Archive 1

[edit] Satellite Radio infoboxes

I'm about to embark on a one-man crusade to add articles for all of the Sirius Satellite Radio channels. Given the nature of satellite radio, the regular radio infobox doesn't seem to be quite the right fit. Would there be any objection to me creating a separate satradio infobox? Or should I try to modify the existing infobox with extra optional categories? --Aaron 21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should modify the existing infobox. It takes ages to edit all the pages again.--AntzUK 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are very few satellite radio channels that currently have articles on Wikipedia; if there are even ten, I'd be surprised. I should add that I have no problem at all modifying the existing infobox; I just didn't know if it would be proper to add five or six more optional fields when there will probably only be about 100 articles total that will end up using those fields. Also, there are a couple of mandatory fields (frequency and broadcast area, but maybe more) that don't really quite fit satradio channels. They can be made to work (see the box I just put up for Sirius channel 100), but it just doesn't look quite right to me, IMHO. --Aaron 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the list of xm channels, over half of the channels have pages.TravKoolBreeze 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just made the area and frequency fields optional; this should not cause any problems, since the fields will appear when used anyway. If you need any help adding additional fields to the infobox, let me know. --Marknew 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Callsigns Field

Could we add a "former_callsigns" field? I think that's the same field name used in the Template:Infobox_Broadcast for television stations... —This unsigned comment was added by User6985 (added link and sig->) Thomas B 13:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)contribs) .

I'll add it if there is no objection posted on this talk page within the next 7 days (today is 6th April, so I'll wait until the 13th). --Marknew 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webstream addition to infobox

How can we add "webcast" to the infobox and when??? Please write me back ASAP!!! --WIKISCRIPPS2K6 THU MAY 4 2006 11:46 PM EDT

[edit] Station class?

What does the class field mean? I found A used in one case. But this doesn't really explain what it means, either to fill in the field, nor to read a station's infobox. EncMstr 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article about WLS (AM) has such a class field. It appears that, when "class" appears in the infobox, it links to list of broadcast station classes. I think people are currently expected to look there for the explanation before filling or reading the class field. Tim Ivorson 2006-05-27

[edit] Am I Doing this correctly?

I recently added infoboxes to some Toronto area radio stations. I got all my information from [1] and I was just wondering if I put all the information in correctly. Could someone please check the pages below for any errors then tell me on my talk page if I made a mistake, so I won't do it again, because I plan on added radio infoboxes to many Canadian radio station articles.

• CFRB (AM)
• CFTR (AM)
• CFMJ (AM)
• CFXJ-FM
• CHFI-FM
• CHIN (AM)
• CHIN-FM
• CHUM (AM)
• CHUM-FM
• CILQ-FM
• CJAQ-FM

TorontoStorm 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the first few—looks good. EncMstr 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand Infobox - Digital Satellite/Cable/Terrestrial/DAB fields

Many of the stations in the UK and Europe are available across a number of platforms, including digital satellite, cable and terrestrial (DTT/DAB) services, take TalkSPORT for example, which broadcasts over a number of platforms. Could someone with the knowledge be able to tweak the box so that these fields can be included, simliar to the way that they can for TV channels in the British TV Channel and TV Networks Template? Sonic 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Any objections? Also, would it be a good idea to add RDS name? --AntzUK 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox radio vs Infobox Radio

There is a redirect from Template:Infobox radio to this page, unfortunately there is also an Template:Infobox Radio page. Is there any need for the redirected page? A little confusion results ;-) --AGoon 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HD Radio formats

In many markets, stations are beginning to broadcast secondary (and in some cases even tertiary) signals in high definition. I'd like to propose adding an HD2 and HD3 field to the infobox to include those additional broadcast signals. --Mhking 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is more complex than that solution can handle - each HD Channel is separate from the others - it may have its own website, branding, format, etc... A fair number of stations are using one of their FM HD channels to broadcast their existing AM programming. The template needs to be thought through on each item - does this item always apply to every HD channel, or could it be different? Those that could be different need to be in a subtemplate or something... the NAB has made rolling out HD a high priority item for its members, so there is no time to waste thinking about how to deal with this. FCC-License<->Station = 1 to 1 relationship Station<->Channel is 1 to many.StreamingRadioGuide 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of different ways this could bucketed: strictly by frequency, stickly by license (aka callsign), or by stream of programming. I like the latter personally. Consider NPR stations that simulcast on dozens of frequencies across a region, a single page which notes those frequencies but treats them a single station is the best approach and redirects can be added for the simulcast frequencies if desired. (see WVTF for an example) However in the case of HD radio, if the content being offered on the HD Channels is notable enough to warrent some coverage in Wikipedia, then it should probably have it's own page. If it's obvious that the station is getting it's feet wet in HD radio with a token effort at alternative programming, then adding a section for each HD radio channel to the parent station's webpage seem sufficient to me. Just my $.02 --Rtphokie 11:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has died a bit, but I think Mhking's proposal is worth considering again. HD Radio is growing but individual stations just aren't all that notable yet. Many broadcasters are treating their HD-1 channel as nothing more than a translator, a way to reach a slightly larger audience with the same content. Far more often than not, the HD-1 station is simply a simulcast the standard def version of the station and have no identity of their own. As such, info about the channel belongs on the standard def station's page. HD-2 and HD-3 stations (where they exist) are often simply loops of local news and weather or automated stations which are a tweak of the format on the HD-1 or standard def stations, neither of these examples have enough of an identity to pass the notability test IMHO. I like the idea of breaking out the HD channels into their own lines in the infobox and at least identifying the format being featured there. For the rare cases where a solid, notable, separate, station exists with it's own identity on an HD channel, by all means it should get it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This could easily be done, if everyone's happy with such an idea. JPG-GR (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Widening of Infobox Proposal

We should consider a slight widening of the infobox to prevent the larger phrases and words from wrapping to the next line. For example, KROQ-FM has this problem. I propose just a few extra spaces as I know we can't make it too wide in respect to the page width. I am curious as to whay other may think of this and would love to hear why this would be good or bad. Transent 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion Over Airdate

Is the Airdate section of the Infobox refer to the date of sign on for the frequency or the date of the last format change. I propose inclusion of some kind of clarification as I see so many discrepencies when I go from article to article and there seems to be no consensus on this issue. Transent 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard logo caption

To get all stations to auto-comply consistently with Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:Captions, I'd like to add a the following...

Station [[Logo]]

...under each logo image.--In1984 04:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A good idea, providing two things: (a) the font is of at least a slightly smaller size and (b) how about {{PAGENAME}} [[Logo]] ("Station Logo" is kinda bland). But, that's just my opinion. JPG-GR 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, (a)'s already been done? Anyone else have an opinion on (b)? JPG-GR 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(b) is a fine idea as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HAAT, Facility ID and Transmitter Coordinates

I think these three items would make great additions to the radio station infobox, as they are also on the television station infobox.New World Man 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Facility ID and Transmitter Coordinates can be obtained from the FCC database, so I have no issue with them. On the other hand, I have no idea what "HAAT" means. JPG-GR 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

HAAT refers to height above average terrain. New World Man 11:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kW or watts, FM or MHz

Should power be expressed in kW or watts? It's a mixed bag across all the articles. Some editors are changing Kw to watts, some are changing watts to kW.

Also, what is the standard for expressing the frequency? Sometimes it's 99.1, sometimes 99.1 FM, sometimes it's 99.1 FM sometimes it's 99.1 MHz, sometimes is 99.1 MHz.

--Rtphokie 11:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Watts is the standard for the Power field, kW is the standard for the ERP field. As for the FM vs. MHz, they're the same thing (granted, so are watts and kW, but whatever). JPG-GR 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a stylistic issue for which I don't think any consensus has really formed. I would say that 99.1 MHz is more correct, as FM is a modulation method, not a measure of frequency. But when using "FM" with a frequency number, I actually prefer to say "FM 99.1" rather than "99.1 FM". Also, I'd prefer "watts" to "kW" for ERPs less than 1000 watts (e.g. "20 watts" vs. "0.02 kW"); but above that I have no preference either way. DHowell —Preceding comment was added at 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] audience share

I'm adding an audience share thing like Template:Infobox TV Channel, mainly for UK stations, but am having trouble getting it on. Look at Core (radio station) where I have added it but something on the top of the page is showing up. Help me! Pafcool2 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! In UK use RAJAR as source, in USA use Arbitron. Pafcool2 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a little more consensus on this one before we move forward. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to be bold and make improvements wherever and whenever they see fit. Whilst discussion is always a good thing, there doesn't need to be a consensus for each and every change to a page. If there are objections to a change then fair enough, it might be time to determine whether consensus supports the change but simply removing a change because there hasn't been a discussion is not reasonable. For this reason, and also because Pafcool2 has started using this field in articles, I feel appropriate to revert your removal until such time as some reasoning for not including the field is discussed. Adambro (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but the ordering needs to be adjusted - that info belongs further down in the infobox. JPG-GR (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done the rearranging, fixed the documentation, and added the code so that if a share is unsourced, it's tagged with {{fact}}. JPG-GR (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) If adopted for US articles, we will probably want to use a different parameter. While "audience share" might be appropriate in the UK, I've rarely heard it referred to as such in the US. But, at this point, that's not an issue. JPG-GR (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this information really needed in this infobox? It going to get out of date very quickly. Are we going to have any copyright issues? At least in the U.S., audience share, or rating information is provided by Arbitron and could be considered IP. Some editors worry that listings of the stations in a given market could violate Arbitron's copyright, certainly publishing the very data that they sell to their customers would pose a problem.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protection

Why is this template protected?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a "highly transcluded template, tempting target for vandalism" JPG-GR (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] template in portuguese

pt:Template:Infobox Emissora de rádio. Rafamaxpires (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact template transclusion

I've removed this, since it creates a level of complexity that is hard to deal with unless was go for a different implementation. If it's really needed contact me and I'll sort it out. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31 30 March 2008 (GMT).

I was completely against the inclusion of the ratings info in the infobox for this very reason, but with numerous infoboxes already using it, the sources have gotta be kept. JPG-GR (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional fields

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I'd like to suggest additional optional fields:

• Key people (where the station manager could be named, for example, as in other Wikipedia company-type infoboxes)

• free_label1 (where additional info. not fitting anywhere else could be included, such as translators, etc.)
• free_text1

JGHowes ^talk - 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks to free-for-all fields for sure, as that's just asking for chaos. As for key people, I'd also argue that that's irrelevant to the encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing key station management is "unencyclopedic"?? I refer you to {{Infobox Newspaper}}, {{Infobox Network}}, {{Infobox Company}}, {{Infobox_Airline}}, {{Infobox School}}, {{Infobox church}}, and so forth. And adding content to an Infobox isn't "asking for chaos" any more than adding content to the main body — an inappropriate edit can be reverted the same in both instances, after all. As it is, there's no place to list translators except "Sister stations", which technically isn't accurate. JGHowes ^talk - 06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any additional info that warrants being included in the infobox should have it's own field, not a random placeholder. As for translator stations, there are already separate templates for those to organize all the appropriate information. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Translators dont belong in the infobox. There can be way too many of them. As for key people, station management may make sense for other media but not for radio. Changes are far too frequent (town to town, up and down the dial) and there are too many of them, the info would not get updated frequently enough to be useful. The average market has 1 maybe 2 newspapers and dozens radio stations with few if any management being worth mentioning. There aren't many notable radio PDs or GMs anyway and those that are can be mentioned in the article with proper references. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] share wikilink

I'd like to see the audienc share field label linked to something that describes the field. Perhaps Nielsen Ratings#Ratings/share and total viewers unless there is a better page which describes the concept.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings have nothing to do with radio. JPG-GR (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is correct but it's also the only article that I've found that defines the concept of a share. Did you have a better suggestion? Should similar info be added to the Arbitron article?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Either that or don't link it at all. Linking to Nielsen would be confusing to the average reader. JPG-GR (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need to remove ratings from infoboxes

{{editprotected}}

The following fields need to be removed/hidden from the infobox (as originally pointed out by User:StreamingRadioGuide) due to copyright infringement of US radio stations: "share", "share as of", and "share source". From [2]:

Remember that misuse of Arbitron or Scarborough data is considered to be copyright infringement. This includes use of data by non-subscribers."

and

Ratings profiles are Copyright © 2008 Arbitron Ratings Company. May not be quoted or reproduced without the prior written permission of Arbitron.

- JPG-GR (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While more specific data is protected by Arbitron and available only to subscribers, 12+ share data is published for for both traditional journal type ratings as well as the new people meter in Radio and Records, and is routinely referenced in press releases from stations (i.e. Arbitron subscribers) as well as in print publications (i.e. newspaper articles on stations ratings). Let's comment out these fields while concerns with the share fields are discussed but I see no need for the template to be protected or these fields removed.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The template was protected months ago because it is a high use template (11,000+ transclusions). I'm removing the editprotected tag for now as there doesn't seem to be consensus that deleting the fields from the infobox is the way to go. As a side note, I'd like to point out that Arbitron and Scarborough only serve the US (as far as I know), but there appear to be other sources that can be used for non-US stations. -CapitalR (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response there. I'll comment out those fields while the discussion continues as soon as tag is removed. Can you point to those other sources? WP:WPRS has been looking for some candidates and cant even find solid ones for Canadian markets.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the fact that non-US stations may have ratings info they can reference without copyright violation, but as this template is used for ALL radio stations, I figure it would be better safe than sorry. JPG-GR (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources I came across were for the BBC ratings and other UK ratings from rajar. Not sure if they're allowed to be quoted legally or not, but they appear in a whole lot of infoboxes (BBC Radio 1 for example). I don't really care either way on this issue, I just wanted to see a little more discussion before deleting infobox fields from such a high use template. If no one objects within a day or two put the tag back up and I'll be happy to fulfill it. --CapitalR (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Radio and Records FAQ on quoting Arbitron and Scarborough data:

Arbitron provides the press with access to Persons 12+ AQH Shares for diary markets, Persons 6+ for PPM markets (Scarborough is Persons 18+).

. If there are articles that quote ratings data outside of the 12+ diary data or 6+ people meter data, that information should tagged for copyright concerns. Are there other concerns with other countries?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the press. According to that, any WP article that quotes ratings data would have to quote the press quoting the data. JPG-GR (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)