Talk:WABC (AM)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Radio Stations This article 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 article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] AOL Broadcast Fan's contributions

Some person but in quotes about the time this station plays, music and provided some useful information, but has sentences that may be informal for wikipedia, such as WABC was King ect.

I tried to clean it up as best as I could, as it was a whole lot worse before. The same user (I'm assuming this, because it was in a similar style even though he's using different IP addresses) also did similar edits for WFAN (when it was WNBC), WBBR (when it was WNEW) and WKTU. They all should be cleaned up, and I shouldn't be surprised if other New York City radio stations get the same treatment sooner or later. ErikNY 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this person is an AOL anon whose contributions have two characteristics:

  1. Total recall of every format change, minor format tweak, and tangled ownership switch that every NYC radio station has gone through in the past 40 years.
  2. Total disregard for structure, self-editing, wikification, and proofreading.

For some stations I've just isolated his/her contributions in a separate section, pending further treatment. Wasted Time R 21:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, this person's contributions throw articles out of balance. WABC has been a NYC radio powerhouse for 40 years now, first as the dominant music station, later as the dominant talk station, yet about 80% of the current article focuses on the one late 70s-early 80s stretch where they struggled. That's not right. On the other hand I hate to throw out this person's narratives — in some cases they are amusing, especially for stations that are always in programming turmoil. Wasted Time R 23:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I've also noticed similar edits for various TV stations. If you look at the new pages just created at this moment, the user is using a similar format for Kansas City television stations. The same can be said for TV stations in other markets. Something should be done to alert other users who could be helpful in cleaning up this mess. ErikNY 02:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a radio industry veteran who made a first attempt at cleaning up the "disco" section this afternoon. I am loath to delete some of these observations, as the demise of WABC as a Top 40 station was a seminal and sad event for many people, but I did clean up the sentence/paragraph structure, took out the words and phrases that were either too colloquial or didn't make sense, and in general, tried to make this section flow more clearly. I hope the result is an improvement, but it could use another pass or two. Comments welcome. 205.188.116.67 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone with the same IP as mine (at that time, anyway, as AOL IPs are not static due to the proxy servers) vandalized the WABC page six hours after I had made major revisions to the article. Because of the one line of vandalism, and the later reversion, four hours of my work was lost. Please revert to the version posted at 00:23 on 26 July as I believe it was a significant improvement to the original. I cannot revert the article, as I'm obviously an AOL anon user without an account - yet. Thanks. 64.12.116.197 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. ErikNY 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After what seems like a hundred passes, I have taken down the "cleanup" tag on the "Disco/End of Musicradio" section, as it now seems to be conformable to standards. If anyone disagrees, or has a material problem with either the style or content, put the tag back up and state your specific concerns here so that I or someone else can work at fixing them. Thanks. 205.188.116.67 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characterisation of talk show hosts

I changed the lumping of Gambling and Batchelor in with the others between them. Gambling is more moderate, while Batchelor is idiosyncratic. The four in between them, however, are indeed ideological clones. Wasted Time R 02:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Simone

I don't think this edit was helpful. [1] The comment is "tone down the Simone rah-rah". I don't see "rah-rah". This previous information was accurate and relevant and should be reverted. patsw 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The removed material included bio info about Mark Simone that's already in his article, material about the announcement of the show that's outdated since the show has now begun, and the statement that the show "is an overwhelmingly success", which is not supported by ratings data (yet). As for the rah-rah, there's contributors that are spamming Mark Simone into various radio articles, I suspect this was at play here too. Wasted Time R 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
They're still keeping up the spamming, under the guise of many anonymous IDs. Trying to cram as much PR as they can into the article. The "super-sub" nonsense is the latest bit of spam. I wonder if all this is coming from Simone himself, bucking for a promotion. Eleemosynary 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam. It is replacing information which you keep removing. You also should not be editing this article, since you are clearly not a listener. Any WABC listener knows that they call Simone "Supersub". If you didn't even know that, you are not qualified to be editing this article. -- 68.161.117.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)}

Wrong on all counts. Eleemosynary 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMCA pov

some anon WMCA lover has ruined both this and the 'MCA article with hopeless POV. PMA (not logged in)

I have not read the WMCA article, but I agree that this article takes a pro-WMCA bias in the "Rivalry with WMCA" subsection. I would change it, but I don't really know how to accurately point out their battle over listeners and ratings. The user seemed to contribute some valid arguments, but does not have statistical data to back up those points. If the section were less opinionated, it could be salvaged into a more coherent section. D2001dstanley 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, really, what's up with THAT?

The article reads like it's about WMCA.

It doesn't tell the story of WABC, especially it's influence, significance, etc. at all.

Bad wiki. User:70.111.88.166 06:24, 9 June 2006

Youse two are SOOOO right. The WMCA propoganda has been NUKED. 64.12.116.197 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its About Time You Have The WJZ Info

The WJZ Article Was A Stub Since Wikipedia Opened, And Now Thank To You PPL, The Article Is (Nearly) Complete! THANK YOU WIKIPEDIAN HISTORIANS

Frank0115932 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars involving the wording of Supersub

A valid link to an independent news article from a reliable source was cited and removed by another editor. Prior to my reverting this deletion, my independent Yahoo search indicated that Mark Simone is called Supersub. Unfortunately, none of my sources came from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The single-source link does not support the article text that Simone is "billed" as a "supersub." The anon editor placed it on the page in order to push more pro-Simone POV PR, as he or she has done on several other pages under several anon sockpuppet IDs. The info is hardly verified, non-encyclopedic, and should be removed. And please sign your posts. Eleemosynary 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. The title of the article has supersub in it. It was properly introduced and cited. Ronbo76 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The headline of a single-source article does not translate to official WABC policy. The citation does not back up the article claim. Eleemosynary 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias regarding current programming

In reading the article on WABC as it relates to current programming, the language someone used in describing their morning shows and some of the late-evening programming had a very distinct slant that sounded more like a promotional tool and less like an "honest" description of the current programming ("honest" is in quotes because that word pops up numerous times in the description of the morning show itself). Additionally, discussion of evening lineup changes also was off-kilter and irrelevancies included. Therefore, the current programming section was slightly revised to neutral language; references to Air America, the "gratingly-voiced" Lynn Samuels and the "Springeresque Richard Bey" were eliminated, but the bulk of the generalities were maintained. 24.117.250.51 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)