Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why?

Why do we need another guideline? In the definition of purpose Zman says that this is pertinent to organizations in the communications business. Why isn't ORG enough? The recent trend is to downsize the notability infrastructure, this seems counter productive to our recent efforts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I just read some of the discussion at the Pump and there seems to be some ridiculous assertion that the media are exempt from WPN and ORG. Who says? It sounds like the solution is getting better quality participation at AfD rather than having more creep. Maybe we need a special note at ORG calrifying that no organizations are exempt. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I say that WPN and ORG do not apply well, and I also say I am not being ridiculous, thank you. Wikidemo (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The ridiculous assertions are at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRNY (AM). I am not saying that MrZ was being ridiculous, just that he is responding to ridiculous falacies at that AfD. It just seems to be an ILIKEIT for the most part. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:ORG fails because it doesn't address the disadvantage that media has in that they generally do not report newsworthy events of their competition, unless a) those events portray the competition in a negative light, or b) those events are so horrific as to transcend competition, such as the July 2007 crash involving news helicopters from KTVK and KNXV-TV in Phoenix. An example I gave was when last year, Phoenix TV station KPNX became the first in the state to launch a newscast in high-definition, a newsworthy occasion. It was not covered by any other TV or radio station, and why should it have been? One doesn't advertise its competition. Newspaper coverage would not be independent because Gannett owns both KPNX and The Arizona Republic. Plus, one could make a reasonable argument that media outlets are in the business of covering news, not making news. Furthermore, if a media outlet were to report on a subject, that report could be used to build notability for the subject. How can a newspaper or broadcast station potentially provide notability, and yet not be notable itself? Another issue that WP:ORG doesn't address is potential audience. One of the stations targeted for deletion was WRRC (FM), a low-power college radio station. Yet that station has a broadcast radius of 10 miles, with an broadcast area of nearly 315 sq. mi., and potentially reaching about 313,000 people, hardly trivial. This standard, and Mr.Z-man deserves commendation for his efforts, attempts to address the shortcomings of ORG and WPN, as applicable to media. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see offering HD TV as any sign of permanent notability; being first in a local market is a local issue. Covering an area populated by 300k people doesn't give any evidence that anyone is listening. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Nor does having an article written about you mean that anyone is noticing you, except the author of the article. Nor can you guarantee that anyone is reading the article. Our notability guidelines are no more perfect than what I am proposing. Also, I didn't offer HD TV as a sign of permanent notability, but rather as an example of how a media entity can do something notable, yet it not be covered in a manner that satisfies WP:ORG. dhett (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't want to get too far into a discussion of the merits of notability. I'm fairly liberal on inclusion, but very conservative on the amount of rule sets I want to see at WP. Personally I think that CORP and BIO go too far already, and that WP:N is all that is needed, but we need good judgment in determining third party recognition. My concern has been that the more rules we have the more they get out of step with each other and the more confusion we have with half-smart people's interpretations, wiki-lawyering, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with you on the general principle that simpler is better. However, it's not always that clean. Whether we have a separate notability guideline for media, or whether media-specific guidelines are merged into WP:N, neither matter to me. All I'm interested in is an acknowledgment that media is at a disadvantage when a station has to rely on its competition to confer it notability, and to rectify that disadvantage, the criteria for inclusion be a little more liberal. dhett (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Dhett wrote: "How can a newspaper or broadcast station potentially provide notability, and yet not be notable itself?" I see this as a very good question. We see sources all the time where the author is not notable enough for inclusion at WP, yet the writing is compelling evidence. Neither writers or their media seem to attract nearly the notice which they confer, yet it seems important that we offer information on the credibility and background of the sources we recognize. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I would say to a certain extent that that is a form of "notability is not inherited" - a newspaper/radio station/TV station that only serves a town of 250 people would probably be a great source about that town, but is it notable because of that? Mr.Z-man 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
        • A reporter for CNN can confer notability by doing a feature on an entertainer, but that reporter may not be notable, since nothing has been written about her. However, I'm curious about her credentials etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Well that is what CNN's website is for. If they don't even have a bio for the reporter, then there will likely be no verifiable information for us to use for an article. Mr.Z-man 03:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Kevin here, we need less creeping here, not more. Either there's sufficient sourcing for a full, comprehensive article, and we write one, or there's not, and we write a list entry and anchored redirect at most. Saying something is notable in the absence of verification of that (namely, the verification of notability is that reliable and independent sources have actually taken significant note) is just original synthesis based on our own feelings, and that's not what we're here to do. We're here solely to reflect published secondary sources, not to second-guess them or "correct" for perceived or actual biases. If they've taken little note of something, we simply follow suit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

While I would rather see people redirect to a list than create stub articles they don't intend to expand, for the purpose of broadcast media there may be a need to codify ground rules on when an article should be created. I'll start another section here on the talk page to explain the issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
We exclude from reliable sources press releases and coverage by sources related to the subject because of their bias toward the subject. Why then should we not account for biases against the subject? What is being proposed here is common sense: a broadcast station serving hundreds of thousands of people most certainly is notable. Also, I'm not following the need for a "full, comprehensive article". When I read a paper encyclopedia, some articles go on for pages; others are just a few paragraphs. I don't support permastubs, but some articles are more comprehensive in treatment than others. And that's okay. dhett (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree we need a guideline, but question approach

I agree that we need a special guideline for media, because they present unique notability issues that are not part of general notability. The job of many outlets is to be seamless and invisible, and provide news to people rather than make news themselves. Unlike WP:CORP their notability does not come from their size, profits, corporate history, etc., for which articles may be written, but in their function providing content to people. In that sense they are a bit like Wikipedia:Notability (academics), where notability arises from influence.

Given the above I disagree that the "primary criterion" is that a media outlet is "the subject of coverage in secondary sources." That goes beyond general notability in the other direction, because general notability says that coverage gives a subject a presumption of notability, not that the coverage is the same as notability. Here we have an important field of Wikipedia where the notable subjects are less likely to be covered in independent sources, not more. Notability might be a matter of potential or actual audience size, longevity, uniqueness, coverage area, influence on and context for other outlets. In addition, within some sub-areas of media, the great majority of outlets are notable so we should go ahead and presume notability based on objective factors (e.g. federal license).

The proposed guideline for newspapers and magazines, and all of the specific areas, are way too restrictive. It would tend to deny coverage to important niche media, ethnic media, neighborhood papers, zines, etc., all of which are an essential to an encyclopedic coverage of the subject of media.

If we can get a good guideline we should consider extending the concept, either in this or others, to cover other media outlets and subjects within media, e.g. news shows, commentators, reporters, columns, etc.

We should also trim unnecessary parts of this guideline. We do not need to repeat policies and guidelines from elsewhere pertaining to advertising and spam.

-- Wikidemo (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the "primary criterion" is that a media outlet is "the subject of coverage in secondary sources." - that's the main notability guideline, which applies to about everything. If a media outlet meets that, it is notable through WP:N. I included it here for consistency with the other guidelines. If you feel it could be improved, please do make specific suggestions or be bold and change things. One of the things I was worried about while writing this was that it would give too much of a bias toward large organizations, however I found it hard to include 'significant niche media without covering almost all minor media. "the great majority of outlets are notable so we should go ahead and presume notability based on objective factors (e.g. federal license)" - the problem with that is that it provides a blanket inclusion for all media of that type. Is a small broadcaster who can reach an area around 10 city blocks notable enough for an article? Some might be, but are all of them? Is there enough verifiable material available about them for more than a short stub? Personally I think it would be better to have a few well-done lists than dozens of stubs with little chance of expansion. "might be a matter of potential or actual audience size, longevity, uniqueness, coverage area" - I tried to include as much of that as possible without resorting to actual numbers, which create arbitrary standards and has a tendency to favor large media outlets in big cities. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
media outlets simply are not really covered significantly in secondary sources the way , say, subject of biographies are. The detailed guideline following it, are however a reasonable approach to this. I agree with Nr.Z in suggesting the most flexible wording. The question about stubs vs lists is a little tricky, because lists of media -- and other things-- seem to get frequently nominated for deletion on the grounds the items are not important because they do not all have WP articles! There is however no reason not to have sections in a comprehensive article--this is an accepted and underused approach at WP.
for magazines, at least academic journals, "Magazines or journals considered by reliable sources to be the authority on a given topic." would seem to be satisfied by being included in the standard selective indexes to academic journals, such as Web of Science or Scopus. This works well except in the humanities, where neither index offers much coverage, and niche items will not be listed. However, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals the distinctions are elaborated much more fully & I think should be respected. DGG (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a guideline will be good, I'll support any article with enough sources avaliable, just not the FCC, and their own website. And yes newspapers and magazines is a good idea for here, I don't know if academic journals are media though and those are better of for the book guidelines. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem with "just the FCC, and their own website", as other factors are being taken into consideration, such as size of potential audience and original programming. "The FCC" is actually the FCC database, which provides information establishing a station's existence, ownership, and broadcast frequency history, plus digitized versions of original documents, such as asset purchase agreements between buying and selling entities, and facility change applications. The database forms the basis for many history sections in TV station articles. Could you elaborate as to why you do not consider the FCC to be a strong enough source? Thanks. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A strong suggestion

I'd strongly suggest, if we do decide to go through with this guideline, is that it should follow the preexisting consensus among editors of the radio and television projects here on Wikipedia. There's already been discussion about what makes a broadcast station notable, whether or not sister stations should be merged to one article, whether digital TV subchannels should have separate articles, et cetera. Believe me, people have not been creating broadcast-related articles willy-nilly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • That seems a good idea, maybe integrate the ideas into this page alongside what we have here. I certainly think there needs to be be a consideration of weight of "trivial" sources. I'd also point out that we only need a consensus of Wikipedians to assume the sources exist. Hiding Talk 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure. Certain types of articles are more likely to have lots of trivial coverage in sources than others. Is there a federal database for magazines? Not that I know of, they are not as regulated as radio. Does a lack of government regulation make them less notable? I certainly hope not. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • ISSN numbers must be managed by some central authority, so there probably is some database of magazines, journals, etc. Also don't forget inclusion in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, LEXIS-NEXIS, Google News, etc. As far as guidelines on what makes a broadcast station notable, I'll try to come up with some guidelines. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Based on the idea that all licensed radio/TV stations are notable, would that mean that any publication with an ISSN should be inherently notable? Most businesses are listed in one or more phone books and on websites like Yahoo Local and Google Maps. I have 4 Google hits for my actual name (7 if you count someone in Germany with the same name), even a minor mention in the American Numismatic Society magazine archives, but I'm far from notable. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
          • No, we probably don't want people creating stubs for everything with an ISSN number. Back to the original topic, even though a lot of people interested in broadcasting said "inherent notability", most people who work on those articles don't literally want an article for everything under the sun with an FCC callsign. It's pretty well established that "translator" stations don't merit their own articles, and editors regularly merge "sister" stations together and use regional tables rather than creating stubs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I think it's best if the people actively working in the area have a good deal of input into the page. Hiding Talk 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
              • As do I. Unfortunately, some have pretty much given up on this effort, having convinced themselves that regardless of what happens here, the final outcome will be mass AfDs of radio and television station articles on notability grounds. Some are exploring the possibility of creating a separate wiki. Myself, as a member of WikiProject Television Stations, I'm participating to ensure that our interests and needs are included in the final guideline. dhett (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
                • I don't know about other people, but I have no plans for a mass AFD. This whole thing started when I came across 2 articles about radio stations that made almost no assertion of notability and had no significant sources. Like I would for any other company, I nominated them for deletion. Had there been a sensible notability guideline (such as something like this proposal) instead of "license = inherently notable" and the strange idea that WP:OUTCOMES is some sort of pseudo-policy, that would have been the end of the story. Instead of the usual policy related discussion, the AFDs were flooded with comments suggesting that if articles on 2 minor radio stations are deleted that all radio stations will somehow become non-notable and that the BBC World Service will be fair game for deletion. Finding such reasons silly (putting it lightly), I decided to get more opinions on how this "inherent notability rule" came to be, and suggested it be changed on the Village Pump. That discussion there eventually resulted in many of the reasons for and concepts in this proposal. Mr.Z-man 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • I for one am relieved to hear this after you had disputed a whole section of WT:N ("Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines") when your first efforts at having these radio station articles were challenged. As you have recanted that dispute, I'll happily once again assume good faith and support your current efforts. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't endorse the proposal yet

The first part of the proposal seems to be nothing more than existing WP:CORP. The additions made in the last part appear to give the necessary leeway that media needs, but I want to be sure that I am reading it correctly. Unfortunately, I cannot spend the necessary time with it right now, but I will try to do so this week. I guess for me, a good litmus test is how WRNY (AM) and WRRC (FM) fare against the proposed guideline. The articles should not have met the standard for deletion, in my estimation, even though they were not what I would call good articles (especially WRRC). I want to be sure that after all of this discussion, we're not right back to where we started. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The first part is the same thing as the first part as WP:CORP, which is the same thing as the main criteria in Wikipedia:Notability, which can apply to all articles (and I believe is included in all other notability guidelines). WRNY would probably be notable. It serves all of Rome, New York and mush of Syracuse. WRRC (FM) serves most of Trenton, but the article needs to be cleaned up to remove some of the trivial details about the station's history (There was a main studio, an auxiliary production studio and record library and two offices...) and more about its importance to the area. Mr.Z-man 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting closer; Squidfryerchef's contribution to the Broadcasters section was excellent. I'm trying to nail down what I think is a gray area: low-power radio and television stations. I've solicited comment from the projects, but haven't heard much yet. I think that's due to the holiday. I have my own idea for low-power TV stations. All full-service TV stations and any low-power station originating content locally are required by the FCC to ID their call letters and city of license over the air near the top of every hour. Translators and satellite-fed stations are allowed to ID by Morse Code, which is neither seen nor heard by the viewer. To me, a station IDing over the air is in effect asserting its own notability, and since enough non-trivial FCC info can usually be found to write a basic article (more than a stub), such a station should be presumed notable if it is also serving a significant population; the rest will be presumed non-notable. I cannot speak for radio, however. dhett (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue that keeps coming up in this debate

I think the big issue here is that some editors equate having an article about a radio station to having an article about a gas station, that it's something primarily of local interest. Other editors here equate having an article about a radio station to having an article about a professional sports team, that while it may be locally based, there is a very high bar to getting one established and people outside the area often need to know about it. I am in the second camp.

My problem with the first camp is that they may be unfamiliar with the broadcast industry and just what the bar is to getting a station established. Hopefully this guideline can explain a little bit about the industry and reassure people that we are not endorsing "inherent notability" for every satellite audio feed or public-access cable channel. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided you're not endorsing "inherent notability" of any type for anything, it's just fine. Nothing is inherently notable, there's enough material out there for an article beyond a permastub or there isn't. Really, any other consideration is irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with List of radio stations in somewhere with appropriate redirects, of course, but the only ones with full articles should be the ones with full sourcing. But inherent notability doesn't exist, either something has been noted in a significant and reliable way, or it has not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend the broadcast editors stop short of "inherent notability" and go with "presumed notability". Something like what we have at WP:SCH/AG, where high schools are usually notable but elementary schools usually are not. But I do dispute that "inherent notability" doesn't exist on Wikipedia; I definitely remember something about Census-designated place names, and there was robo-creation of tens of thousands of articles about small towns. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, places such as towns or cities of a certain size are normally seen as inherently notable, but that's a whole other can of.. do worms actually come in cans? -- Ned Scott 06:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I could have sworn there was a policy that deemed towns inherently notable, but I couldn't find it. There is some precedent at WP:OUTCOMES but I could have sworn there was a policy about towns and that it was settled years ago. Its possible there might have been one but it was changed or toned down; many policies have become more "deletionist" in the past year and a half. Anyway there was a proposed Wikipedia:Inherent notability very recently which failed to achieve consensus. This is apparently why there is so much controversy whenever someone claims "inherent notability" in a discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any reason for the guideline on print media?

A debate on the notability of broadcast media brought this page into existence, but is there any reason to cover print media? Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Print media has the same issues when it comes to determining notability as broadcast notability. Mr.Z-man 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In one of the conversations, either the deletion review or the village pump, someone brought up that newspapers meet the WP:CORP guidelines, so broadcast stations should also. I was skeptical, so I reviewed the articles for the top 20 U.S. newspapers in terms of circulation. Newspapers in New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Boston, Philly and Cleveland had a significant number of independent sources, although I found a lot of trivial coverage and self-published material. Newspapers in Washington, Phoenix, Dallas, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Detroit were lacking. Three of the top ten papers didn't meet WP:CORP, and nine of the top twenty failed. Newspapers face the same disadvantages that broadcast media do. (Although in Phoenix, The Arizona Republic does get coverage, because they screw up so often!) dhett (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There is something unique about broadcast media, in that the FCC license isn't just a license to do business, but grants entry into an oligopoly of sorts. Each station gets a decidated circuit into every household in the metro area. The only equivalent this could have in the print media would be if the postal authorities put up 2 or 3 dozen boxes in front of every house and decreed that there could only be X number of newspapers, each delivered to its own box every morning. So there is a need for very different guidelines for broadcasters that might be more based on concepts unique to the broadcast industry. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:CORP is too tight a standard for print publications so it would help if we had a separate one that made it simpler and easier to include articles about them. Even some very important, notable (using the definition of notability as opposed to the specific test for notability) periodicals get relatively little coverage unless they do something very wrong. For example, it would be very hard (but probably possible, with a lot of effort) to establish notability for the admittedly terrible Where Magazine, even though it's clearly notable. What coverage there is, is usually a mention by another publication that something appeared there, or that someone works or used to work there, which is not considered significant coverage. It's rare that anyone would bother writing an article about what kind of articles Where publishes, how they operate, etc., and even rarer that anyone would want to read that. Yet it's the world's largest travel magazine, a big operation in 66 markets with a circulation of several million (see http://www.wheremagazine.com, not a reliable source). One issue is that it's not the corporate aspect of the magazine or media outlet we're interested in, nor is it the talk about what it is. What's most notable about any media outlet is the content and audience, not the organization, history, operation, etc. Meanwhile we have the Pokemon and fancruft problem, where even the most minor of pop culture figures gets a few articles so notability is established. If we don't do something that creates an awful coverage bias here. Wikidemo (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:CORP is certainly definitive when it comes to the companies that publish newspapers, but it presents problems when used as the primary guideline for the individual publications. Similarly, it's useful for radio and television broadcasting companies, not so much for the individual radio and television stations owned and operated by those companies. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opnion there should not be a notability guideline on print media, since if one print medium's scale is large enough (city,county or larger), it would be notable.Print media whose scale is smaller than city or county should not have their own articles, unless large-scale media once put great focus on them or greatly discussed on the Internet forums which are of great scale.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable potential

Something I mentioned on the village pump thread, it's important to remember reasonable potential. Often our inclusion criteria (which we normally just call "notability") will include things simply because it's so likely to find the sources (that allow it to pass the general notability guidelines). This is basically the general idea behind the current inclusion of radio and TV stations. These are cases where articles are made, not because of inherent notability, but because it's just so likely that they have sources that you can blindly make such an article (with a given criteria) and end up with a successful article. These situations are rare, but they to exist, and it's not always a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite and cable radio

Satellite radio stations can be independently notable under certain conditions. CBC Radio 3, for instance, is absolutely notable enough for its own article, if not for its existence then for the fact that it's produced by a national public broadcasting agency, evolved directly out of programming on that agency's terrestrial radio networks, continued to simulcast on one of those terrestrial networks for the first year and a quarter of its existence on satellite radio, and has numerous personalities associated with it (e.g. Buck 65, Grant Lawrence) who would still be notable enough for articles even if the network didn't exist. Sirius OutQ is notable enough for its own article, as the first verifiable LGBT-specific radio service in North America. Area 33, not so much. So that section should clarify that while individual satellite radio stations aren't necessarily notable, they're not inherently non-notable, either — it depends on the individual station and what can be verifiably written about it.

And while cable radio channels are virtually never notable on their own, the companies that provide the service usually are. Max Trax and Galaxie, for instance, merit their own articles even though their individual channels don't. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct, but having read the author's previous comments, I'm sure he's referring to a presumption of notability, not notability itself. Any subject with sufficient significant independent references meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. This section of the proposal is intended to establish conditions under which satellite and cable radio stations not fully meeting those guidelines could be conferred notability based on alternative criteria. I have added language to specify that we're talking about a presumption of notability. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sister stations

I don't know if individual discretion is the best guideline for this section. This is what I'd suggest instead: stations which share their branding but each produce their own independent programming schedules (e.g. the Bob FM stations in Canada) should have individual articles. Stations which air a common schedule should have separate articles if they have independent histories and were merged into a common entity later (e.g. CTV Northern Ontario), but should have a single merged article if they've always existed solely as individual transmitters within the common entity (e.g. Alabama Public Television).

I would also provide the caution that this guideline, as currently written, may potentially conflict in certain circumstances with the naming convention that radio and television stations in North America are to be titled with their call signs rather than their on-air brand names. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the guideline presents potential problems in countries, such as Canada and Australia, where television network O&Os don't have individual branding but are branded solely with the network ID. As currently written, it could potentially be interpreted to mean that every single station in Canada's Global Television Network, for instance, should be merged into the network article rather than written as separate articles. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your proposed modification to this standard, but station groups with separate histories, but with little information can and should still be merged. The non-primary stations' histories can be covered in a separate paragraph in the history section. See KMOH-TV and WNGS for examples. Also, the potential conflict in naming doesn't exist. Although WP:NC#Broadcasting sets forth naming conventions, actual practice is slightly different. Articles for television stations sharing common programming and a common identity are titled by common identity when applicable, or otherwise by the primary station in the group, but each individual station's callsign is a redirect to the common identity. See KBBJ, KBME-TV, KRMA-TV and WAIQ for examples. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcarriers

Again, I'd agree that standalone subcarrier stations aren't independently notable. However, this section should also clarify that a national network which airs on the subcarriers of a lot of digital stations, such as NBC Weather Plus or The AccuWeather Channel, can be independently notable, but should obviously get a single article for the network rather than a separate article for each individual subcarrier station which airs it. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It can be specified in the standard that while the outlet for the service, being a subcarrier, is not independently notable, the service itself generally is. However, as with the broadcast networks, WP:CORP serves these networks well. It is only for individual stations that we're proposing modified guidelines. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. The main reason I wanted to clarify this is that I've seen far too many cases where somebody misunderstood the intent of a policy and tried to delete something notable because the letter of the policy wasn't explicit enough when it came to the "what we're talking about and what we're not talking about" part of the criteria. I'm becoming quite a fan these days of trying to anticipate potential misunderstandings, and clarifying them in policy, in advance of their actual occurence. We get that this doesn't preclude an article on a national digital subcarrier network like WX+ or Format Lab — but somebody else who isn't involved in this discussion might waste AFD's time in the future trying to delete WX+ because they misunderstand what this criterion is saying. That's all I mean. Bearcat (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio

For the record, the notion that we could potentially end up with notable radio stations and non-notable radio stations coexisting in the same radio market gives me the dry heaves. Not a good idea. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Notable/non-notable in the same market works just fine with every other type of company. Mr.Z-man 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mr.Z-man. A translator station, i.e., one that rebroadcasts another stations' programming and does not originate content, is non-notable, regardless of market, unless otherwise significantly covered by multiple independent sources. One can still access the primary station through the translator's callsign, as redirects are provided. Any market that has original content providers and translators already has coexisting notable and non-notable stations. Merely possessing a valid government license doesn't automatically confer notability. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
But the market's radio template will be linking to the originating program provider, which means there won't be any unlinked or redlinked gaps where we offer no information at all — but there will be under the new criterion as written. Bearcat (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not following. I would think that standards in the radio market template should not change. Are translator stations included in the radio template? In television, they are not, unless the station is branded by the translator (see KMOH-TV, PHX TV). dhett (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about situations where an originating station and its translators would be covered in the same market template — that's not done, because it would obviously just be overkill. What I'm talking about is situations like {{Fairbanks Radio}} or {{Timmins Radio}}, where some translators are listed because the originating station is in a different market template. The translators don't have their own articles, of course; they just link to their originating station. But they do link somewhere. What we shouldn't be doing is leaving redlinked or unlinked stations in templates because the station can't have an article — not every radio call sign needs its own article, certainly, but every radio call sign should be a link to something (company, network, "radio stations in city" list, etc.) rather than being a redlink or a nolink. Bearcat (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
These proposed guidelines are for media articles, not for templates. There would be no change to the templates. Using the Fairbanks example, station K203CT in the template seems to link to article K203CT, but there really is no article, just a redirect to K-LOVE. In my opinion, the entry in the template should link directly to K-Love anyway, and not to a redirect, K203CT. But nothing will change: any station not notable enough for its own article would instead have a redirect pointing to the primary broadcaster. dhett (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Where would it link if the primary broadcaster was being deemed non-notable? Where would it link if the originating station was being deemed non-notable? That was my original question. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that if the primary station is non-notable, it should still have a redirect to the network or service it broadcasts, no? If the primary is independent, more likely in TV than in radio, it's probably notable. Just my opinion. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's easier to have the template point to a redirect so when the programming of that one station changes an editor will only need to update one article instead of dozens of articles and templates. The redirect will exist anyway, we may as well use it for its intended purpose. - Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Print media

"Substantial circulation" is a subjective measure which two people could interpret very differently from each other. One person might think 10,000 is substantial enough for an article, while another might insist that 100,000 is the bare minimum. Policies should be based on easily quantifiable criteria which don't leave that much room for individual interpretation. Should we set a specific minimum circulation as a bar for inclusion, or find another way to express this? Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • 10,000 with enough Reliable sourcing to go around is enough for me. 100,000 is way too high This is a Secret account 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I left it intentionally vague. Specific numbers lead to people arguing over silly things ("it says 10,000 but they only have 9,200 so is isn't notable"). I would expect a major newspaper in London to have far more than 10,000 circulation, but maybe not for a major newspaper in Alaska. Mr.Z-man 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but I still foresee the current wording leading to circular debates about how many copies a paper has to distribute for its circulation to count as substantial. Bearcat (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Any publication with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources always meets WP:N guidelines, so it is notable, regardless of circulation. For those that serve the community in anonymity, reporting news instead of making it, perhaps publishing frequency should be a criterion for notability. One thing I've observed about newspapers is that most notable newspapers are published daily, while non-notable papers tend to be published weekly, or at other intervals. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Larger market weeklies can be notable, especially those in the alternative weekly realm. But for community weeklies of the type where "Seniors' Luncheon Association Bake Sale Tomorrow" could actually be the lead story on Page 1, you're absolutely right. Although they might be published by a notable company such as Canstar or Metroland, and can be redirected to that company's article if so. Bearcat (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but your alternative newspapers generally are more about creating news than they are about just reporting news. They tend to be focused on younger audiences and so it is necessary to generate buzz, as word of mouth is more important to the young. These publications generally have a high profile and engage in significant self-promotion, and that gets them covered in a manner consistent with WP:N.
I'm talking about a presumption of notability, which, in my opinion, weeklies should not have. But again, with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, any subject is notable. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cable public access

Agreed that cable public access channels are generally non-notable, with a few exceptions. However, I would note that at least in Canada, most cable companies brand all of their individual channels the same way: for instance, if you're a subscriber to Rogers Cable, then your community channel will be called Rogers Television no matter where in the country you live. In this case, I think an omnibus article about the brand in general, which might provide relatively brief information about the local channels in different markets, is acceptable — I don't, however, particularly care for the emerging practice of spinning out separate articles for each individual Rogers Television station in each individual cable market, since most of them will never be much more than boilerplate permastubs. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additional criterion

Student media: College radio stations, student newspapers, etc., are not to be presumed as uniquely non-notable just because they serve a student audience, but are judged by the same standards as any other media outlet covered by this policy. A student media outlet which is not sufficiently notable for its own article, however, should always be redirected to the college or university it serves, rather than being deleted outright.

- Bearcat (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as college radio and television are concerned, the presumption of non-notability was only for systems not requiring a license, such as carrier-current systems. Otherwise, campus media are judged by the same standards as any other media. dhett (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of people argue in AFDs that even a large campus radio station in a major city was deletable on the grounds that it was only a college radio station. That's why I wanted to address the matter specifically. Bearcat 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that's just a bad/uninformed argument on their part. If anything you could make a case for a college radio station of equivalent wattage/listening audience being more notable because it would likely be creating more content than, say, a commercial pop music station. Anyway I'm considering, instead of non-notable media, having a section about the preferred practice of using state/provincial lists first before creating separate articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, college media that doesn't claim notabilty other than having a licence should be merged and redircted. Secret account 22:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal fizzled out - mark as rejected

It looks like this proposal for a new guideline has not gained much support from the community and has fizzled out. My feeling is that the exigencies of several AfD debates drove the proposal, but in the end no suitable guideline could be produced here. I think that the community should evaluate the progress and decide whether this is now a failed project and should be marked as rejected. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "fizzled out"? I'd say it's quiet here because we've more of less come to an agreement. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A few people might have an agreement, but there is not enough particiapation to demonstrate a broad consensus. A couple of people can't impose a guideline on the entire community. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There have been more than "a couple" of us participating. I'd say Squidfryerchef has it right--we've reached something most of us can live with so we've stopped arguing about it. - Dravecky (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case, then you should seek some broader based support for acceptance. So far this has not attracted either broad based paticipation or support. The trend has been to reduce instruction creep rather than increase it. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I support acceptance for this proposal as well. Secret account 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fizzled out? I thought consensus had been reached and it was pretty much agreed upon. Consider this support --Rtphokie (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start trotting it out in deletion reviews. Then we'd have participation (or disruption) galore. But I strongly suggest keeping it as a consolidation of precedents we've been following. Avoiding "instruction creep" is one thing, but since the vast majority of Wikipedians don't know enough about broadcasting to make informed decisions on what's notable, it ought to stay. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I also support this proposal as currently written. What is the next step? Do we need to bring it to RFC or the Village Pump for wider acceptance, or should we just be bold and mark it as a guideline? DHowell (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You’ve got 5 people advocating acceptance and two who have expressed opposition to having a guideline at all. There are several others including the original proponent who discussed options, but have been silent on acceptance. Additionally there has been an active trend to consolidating notability sub-guidelines into either BIO or ORG. I think that without a clearer mandate, this can not be adopted as a guideline yet, if at all. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right here it's 5 to 1, but several others hasn't give in their opinion as well, maybe mention this to them. Thanks Secret account 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not about the vote of those present in any short period of time. It is about demonstrating that the proposal represents the concensus of Wikipedians either through discussion or demonstrated actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Surely two dissenting voices also fails to represent consensus that this proposal has "fizzled out." With the holidays upon us, many people who are passionate about this subject are also away from their computers or busy with real life concerns. Waiting a few more weeks into the new year for a true consensus to build won't hurt anything. - Dravecky (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I do stand corrected that the project has not fizzled-out. Clearly there is significant ongoing interest. However, there is not sufficient demonstration for acceptance. I think that your suggestion to hold on is good. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is not failed and should not be marked as rejected. Maybe not enough people particularly care about arguing policy to argue policy? I support these suggestions as they are. But it seems that of the people involved in the discussion recently, consensus seems to be approving. Also, it is important to remember that we're talking about a guideline here, something that is flexible and open for future discussion. Articles that fall in the scope of these suggestions should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and I am fairly confident that they will be. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to support the proposal — I would welcome a bit more input before we finalize anything, if anybody has other ideas for where we might solicit further comments, but I certainly find this pretty reasonable and pretty close to finished. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As original proposer I support this as well. Perhaps a message on the Village Pump asking for more opinions would help bring in a wider audience. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a wider audience would be good. I've seen too many garbage articles as the result of subguidelines for notability to be anything but skeptical about adding more. Just like anything else, notability is verifiable. In this case, verification consists of significant, in-depth coverage by independent and reliable sources. It is not our job to say "These sources aren't right." If reliable sources have decided a subject is not notable (by failing to provide comprehensive coverage of it), we follow those sources, just like we always follow sources rather than second-guessing them and going by our own interpretation instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

there is no magic solution,Seraphimblade. This would just move the argument to what counts as "substantial mention" and "reliable sources". For example, I'm quite prepared to argue that sources that give incorrect information aren't reliable. You define "substantial" as significant in-deph coverage"--significant isn't an improvement over "substantial", and i would define "in-depth" as meaning in sufficient depth to support the article, and we're no further. This is why ATT failed. The vaguer a single criterion, the more erratic the interpretation will be. 10:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I, too, support this proposal. Due to unique circumstances that media outlets encounter, I believe that media-specific guidelines are necessary. However, there is a movement to merge this into the parent notability guideline, with which I have no issue, either, as long as the contents of this proposal are retained. dhett (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is to happen with this essay?

There has been a recent movement away from multiple notability sub-pages. The trend has been for consolidation. Consensus is that we already have too many sub-pages, and we are not looking for more. One such discussion can be found here. This essay may be marked {{essay-project-note}} and placed in Category:WikiProject notability essays; it may be marked as {{rejected}}; it may have useful and helpful aspects merged into existing guidelines; or it may be used as the base for a multiple merge of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction); Wikipedia:Notability (books); Wikipedia:Notability (films); and Wikipedia:Notability (music) - as they are aspects of media. I note that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is currently under dispute as to its status as a guideline.

I'm not in favour of marking essays as rejected because they then get pushed away and forgotten. Indeed, because that would be the likely result for this essay if it were to be put forward as a guideline I would suggest an immediate replacing of {{proposal}} with {{essay-project-note}} while people consider the best way forward.

I would be in favour of a merge of the media notability guidelines mentioned above (books, fiction, films and music) into this one all embracing guideline. Maybe include Wikipedia:Notability (web) as well. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. I would prefer to rely on WP:N exclusively, but as a practical compromise, grouping some of these permutations together could be a good solution. Most of these overlap and the majority of the text is redundant restatement which gobble-up users' time when trying to understand our rules. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind marking this as an essay rather than a proposed guideline. I can't speak for everyone here, but I suspect most of us who were working on the broadcasting part of it simply wanted to codify some ground rules within our own projects, and aren't pushing for official acceptance anytime soon. However, I definitely can't see this as the basis of merging guidelines for music, comics, etc. into one; if anything I'd like to split newspapers/magazines and broadcasting into separate essays. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involving Projects

It might be worth seeking input from Projects that relate to the content of this essay. Such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism. I'll put a note on the Journalism project page. There will be others. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability criteria for newspapers from the Journalism project

User:Wiki Wistah/Newspaper articles SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's insecure criteria, though there is some evidence of consultation in the development of the essay. I'm not sure how useful it may be. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot is written on this page about consulting the individual projects (e.g. WP:Journalism), but I've got the talk page at WP:JOURN watchlisted and haven't seen an invitation yet didn't see any invitation before SilkTork's last month, when I was on vacation. Thanks, SilkTork, for at least posting on my (our -- it has been a collaborative effort by WP:JOURN members) essay's talk page.
That said, not surprisingly, I believe newspapers need a separate guideline from WP:N -- either standing alone, or as part of the overall Notability (media) guideline this essay suggests. I'm not sure what you mean by the WP:NART guidelines being "insecure", but I'd love to see more discussion to make them "more secure". ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 23:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size

This line: "have a substantial regional, national, or international circulation." reads like an example of WP:BIG, and contradicts the opening paragraph of WP:N which explains that notability is distinct from popularity (though it can correlate). Size, either large or small, is usually considered not to be an important assessment in notability discussions, though it is often mentioned! By default a newspaper with a substantial circulation will usually meet other notability criteria, and if it doesn't, then circulation alone shouldn't be a rationale for notability. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not size per se, but also market share. Typically in a major metro area there's a very limited number of full-service newspapers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comics

I don't see a notability essay for comics on WP - it may be worthwhile including a section for comics within this essay. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • At the comics wikiproject we've been quite happy to stick with WP:FICT and WP:N, along with WP:V and WP:PLOT. Hiding T 22:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you be happy for Fiction to be merged into this essay/guideline? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Whole different ball game. No, I don't think I would simply because of what's happening around all the fiction guidance at the minute. Have you seen the RFCs at WP:WAF, WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE? Best to let that settle before opening a fourth front. Like I say, with comics we are quite happy to let afd settle contentious issues through debating the merits of the articles in line with policies and guidance. I think we'd all be a lot better off it we all took that approach. Hiding T 16:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Comics/fiction articles have too many issues of their own that aren't germane to mass media. Issues with "in-universe" writing, fancruft, "In Popular Culture" lists, even whole other wikis dedicated to fictional worlds. But the most important one is, that with broadcasting and to some extent newspapers, we are arguing that certain qualities ( e.g. oligopoly ) make a TV channel, newspaper, etc. likely to be found notable or not notable. We're not going so far as the controversial "inherent notability" concept, but we're trying to enumerate some ground rules for when it is a good idea to start work on a media-related article. Works of fiction, on the other hand, are pretty much the polar opposite in this regard, and we pretty much assume nothing is notable until we see copious sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compared to WP:N

Does this essay provide exceptions to WP:N or seek to limit it? WP:N says notability refers to article topics, it does not limit article content. The nutshell on this page says "Notability criteria also must be met for a media topic to be included in a list or general article", so it appears to me this essay seeks to limit what can be included in articles. I don't see how that is beneficial. Also, are there other ways of establishing notability besides coverage in secondary sources? --Pixelface (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this essay does deal with subjects that are well-covered by primary and tertiary sources, especially official sources like government documents. We're not trying to limit or expand the scope of WP:N, just to lay down some best practices so we don't need to go through "counting the angels on the head of a pin" every time we debate an article. This essay does deal with article topics, not content, and some of these topics are not covered at length by secondary sources unless there is a scandal or something. It's here to help debate humanities-oriented editors who believe strongly in secondary sources, but I feel that that's more necessary to articles about ideas than articles about the physical world. Basically the idea is that media outlets are akin to towns or schools. The precedent has long been that cities and towns are presumed notable, but that streets and neighborhoods aren't. We also tend to keep articles on high schools and colleges, but not middle schools or elementary schools. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cable TV channel lineups?

OK, back to business. How about some ground rules for cable TV channel lineups in the Broadcasting section?

My feeling is that an article listing the cable channels in one town is not notable. Unlike the world of broadcast TV, cable channel assignments only exist in the universe of the cable company and often vary from town to town.

On the other hand, if the channel lineup is for an entire country or a large regional area, I would say to keep it. This applies to most digital cable systems, because they use "virtual" channel numbers and tend to number all non-local channels the same, even in different metro areas. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. For digital cable or direct broadcast satellite services which offer essentially the same channel lineup nationwide, a list of their channel assignments is passable content — but we simply don't need a list of every individual cable provider's analog lineup in every individual cable market. Bearcat (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite radio stations?

I was surprised that we have articles about pretty much every channel on subscription satellite radio. Aside from a few that host unique talk shows, I would have a very difficult time defending them in a deletion review. I'd expect very little to be written about them unless someone published a critique of the playlist. Comments? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some caution is needed here — for example, of the 22 articles in Category:Satellite radio stations in Canada, nine (41 per cent) of them are cases where there isn't an independent article on the satellite radio broadcast in isolation, but instead it's merely one additional category on a topic that already merits an article for its non-satellite operations. This is also going to be the case for many American satellite radio stations which are simply straight rebroadcasts of television, AM or FM services (e.g. CNN, WBBR.) I haven't done a thorough headcount on the American categories, but somewhere between 25 and 50 per cent of all satellite radio "stations" are simply rebroadcasts of TV or terrestrial radio services. And that's before you even apply the notability filter which would result in some satellite-exclusive radio stations being kept anyway.
Additionally, we don't have articles, as far as I know, on any satellite-exclusive radio station that airs on WorldSpace, so every channel is a bit of a stretch.
I'd suggest that a reasonable solution might be to merge the less-notable channels into list articles rather than deleting them outright, however. We could quite easily merge SIRIUS Hits 1, Starlite, The Bridge, SIRIUS Love, Movin' Easy, SIRIUS Gold, '60s Vibrations, Totally '70s, Big '80s, The Pulse, E Street Radio, Sirius Super Shuffle and Elvis Radio into a single Pop music channels on Sirius Satellite Radio article, although BBC Radio 1 certainly qualifies as independently notable.) Similarly, a lot of the rock stations could be merged down to a single Rock music channels on Sirius Satellite Radio article, although Underground Garage, Radio Margaritaville, CBC Radio 3 and Iceberg Radio clear the bar for independent articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say delete, some of the articles just need to be expanded. Mr mark taylor (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was referring mainly to music channels on subscription satellite lineups, definitely not terrestrial radio sations that happen to be carried on satellite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to the terrestrial stations/TV simulcasts (most of those articles are quite in depth), I was refering to the in-house programmed music channels on XM and Sirius, those are the ones that need to be expanded. Mr mark taylor (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what would we expand them to? Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)