Some FCC location co-ordinates are for NAD27 datum
I came across KCAL (AM) in Google Earth, noticing it was displaced about 100m from the actual apparent antenna location (in an area known to be accurately georeferenced). Investigating further, I found that the co-ordinates matched the FCC's. However, like much of the FCC data, those co-ordinates refer to the NAD27 datum, which differs substantially from the NAD83 (and WGS84) datum that is used by all the major mapping services today, and documented to be the default datum for the coord template. On the FCC site at least, the datum is usually specified in the query results and/or on the query form itself. I expect there are probably other stations that are wrong as well. I fixed this particular one (KCAL (AM)).
I use GeoTrans to transform between datums, projections, co-ordinate systems, etc. It can handle single transforms as well as bulk data files. In North America, NAD27 is called "NAS-B" and NAD83 is called "NAR-C".
(Note that there are two sites for this particular station, the other one being several miles away - I'm referring to the current daytime site at 34 04 8.00 N, 117 12 6.00 W (NAD27)) AlanM1 (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
distribution of the error across the US in metersWhile NAD83 is available in some output from queries (AM and FM) to the FCC database, NAD27 is most prominent and is the only datum available in bulk dumps. I suspect most Wikipedia articles on US based radio stations use the NAD27 data, though some have been updated for more accurate coordinates. The data coming from the FCC database could be perfect but it isn't. The coordinates coming from the FCC database are not going to put you at the base of the tower as you might expect, even with proper datum conversion. While the FCC's database can store very accurate coordinates, the forms (i.e. FCC 854) make no specific requirements about accuracy. The FCC forms and databases can handle up to hundredths of a second in longitude/latitude but I dont think I've ever seen anything but a whole second coming out of that database. A second of longitude or latitude off equals about 100m in error. Also the FCC asks for the "center of the array" which may also explain why the points are in different places that we might expect. The bigger question is, what, if anything, should we do about all these articles that are based on NAD27? I'm thinking the answer is nothing. The amount of error introduced by switching between datums is minimal, less than 40m error for the majority of the affected articles (stations starting with W) and around 80m for the handful of K stations I looked at in California. Also consider the rounding errors and dropped decimals when converting between datums and between minutes/seconds and decimal degrees. Plus, some articles have already been updated to correct for the other sources of error (described above). With all of this in mind, 100m off due to datum differences seems to be well within tolerances here. Any updates to the coordinates should be done on an article by article basis and need to be done anyway to correct existing error beyond the NAD27 vs NAD83 issue.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I use FCCInfo.com to grab (among other things) the NAD83 coordinates, which North American Datum#North American Datum 83 and WGS84 claims to usually be around a meter or so from WGS84 and therefore within than a tenth of a second of arc; and whenever I edit an infobox I make sure that {{coord}} has "NAD83" somewhere in the source: parameter so that other editors can tell it isn't NAD27. I can tell you that the difference is actually visible on satellite images; most of the time the NAD83, at least in the Midwest, does tend to land right at the tower base, but NAD27 will be in the adjacent clearing or another part of the city block, which is how I discovered this issue in the first place, just like User:AlanM1 did — I thought "These all look like they're off by more than ±1 second. Surely not every broadcast engineer is allowing all their filings to be off by almost a city block in locations with a bunch of other competing antennas, even if the FCC might put up with it." (On a related note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#source:S only says a datum can be specified for the source data that was converted; there seem to be no provision for unconverted data to be automatically dealt with, or any way to specify precision other than by implication from the decimal places in the coordinates. Shame on them. In theory, NAD27 can be off from WGS84 by more than 3 seconds in California, which is big enough to make coordinates wander outside the margin of error implied by the number of digits, yet small enough that it's crazy to only specify minutes.) Are there any bots creating new infoboxes for broadcast station articles now, or is that long over with? --Closeapple (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
+1 Just because there are many reasons and opportunities for error in the data, I see no reason to knowingly compound them by using data that you know to be incorrect, particularly when the solution may be fairly simple. It would take me less than an hour to produce a file from the FCC database, containing all station call signs, NAD27 co-ordinates, and WGS84 co-ordinates. If someone has some bot code that could be re-purposed, I think it should, for each station, compare the coordinates in the wiki to the NAD27 coordinates in the file and, if they are identical, change them to the WGS84 coordinates. If they are not the same, spit out an exc--RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)eption to be looked at manually.
Also, FWIW, some of the data in RadioFan's argument is incorrect.
At 40 degrees latitude, a second of longitude is about 24 meters and a second of latitude is about 31 meters (not 100 meters).
In my two-way radio site experience (pre-GPS), license data was almost always correct within the typical specified precision of 1 arc-second. I see no reason to think broadcast engineers would be any less accurate. In my mapping of a few stations in the LA area, I believe they have been fairly accurate. Certainly, any filings in recent years can be expected to be the result of measurements taken with GPS to within a few meters, if for no other reason than it's easier than the alternatives.
At 34°N118°W / 34°N 118°W / 34; -118, the error between the two datums is 82 meters (3.2 arc-secs) longitude, which I believe is inaccurate enough to be worth correcting. Since it's unreasonable to do it manually, I don't see that it matters whether you correct just those where the error is this large, or all of them, regardless of the percentages. AlanM1 (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If you would like to go through thousands are articles on radio stations and verify that coordinate information is up to date, and is expressed in the WGS84 datum used by {{coord}} template, that would be great. Thanks. You might find some volunteers here to help. The rest of those that frequent this project can use this as a caution to select the NAD84 data output by the FCC database. Also you might want to double check data coming from fccinfo.com, I'm not sure how often they update their data and I've seen problems with missing data there. You can never go wrong (at least from a reliable source point of view) using the tools and data provided by the FCC (assuming the right datum is picked of course).--RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The FCC frequently makes incompatible changes to the format of their public CDBS dumps without telling anyone, and the data doesn't even obey the schema they have published, so sites like fccinfo.com are always playing catchup. 121a0012 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The times I've seen seemingly missing info on FCCInfo, it's always been when clicking on a link from a full-power station to a low-power/translator station; I think it's a bug in the linking, because if you go back to the beginning and search for the translator callsign directly, it comes up with no problems. I don't know what causes it, and it's not for all translators, just some of them. The FCC database dates are at the bottom of every FCCInfo page. For mass FCC data, I do it the easy way: I just do the "Text file (pipe delimited)" (list=4) query to the FCC amq/fmq/tvq URL: it gives me a single file with one line per entry, and they don't change the order of existing fields. I have a Perl script that imports that table (and fixes up certain names); but I don't have anything that does the actual bot work on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, AMQ unfiltered is 8.4MB, and FMQ is 16MB. (In the "while you're at it" department: If someone is going to write a bot to do that, they may want to add Facility IDs at the same time. Also, it may have to deal with articles that have multiple items for each field because of rebroadcasters, or multiple infoboxes.) --Closeapple (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If this logo is used by the local stations, then it's appropriate to use in those articles as well. These articles could be improved with the (slightly) customized ABC logo for each local station.--RadioFan (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the point - I looked at a selection of the stations, and for the ones I could find a logo for, they don't use the standard logo, they use their own version. Black Kite (t)(c)00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The article was recently reduced in length by about a third. Normally, such large scale removal of text sets an alarm bell ringing with me. I have viewed the diff, and am of the opinion that the editing is in good faith. Radio stations are outside my comfort zone, so I thought I'd ask members of this WP to cast their eyes over these edits, and make any necessary changes. I will inform the editor in question of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have restored some information and corrected a few errors, both in facts, and caused by the "chopping" of whole segments.
The article no longer reads as well, but contains the facts. What I might have said in 20 words, is now said perfunctarily in 10. --Keith15:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The station never reached the airwaves, which is where our consensus for notability begins. The station is just "on paper" and it not notable. The late FCC document for this station was in 1992, 19 years ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a friend who used to work there. It's very possible this Dodge guy never bothered to tell the F.C.C. he was operating. Which begs the question, how do we prove it's operating?Stereorock (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The station has certainly been on the air for a long time (not sure if it is currently broadcasting). Brian Dodge has, ummm, a history of not being entirely in compliance with FCC rules. The station has apparently been off the air since the middle of last year, according to NorthEast Radio Watch. The station's application for a license to cover, BL-19890626AD, has been pending since 1989 without action by the FCC; as a class-C station, I presume that it's entitled to operate under Program Test Authority until the FCC takes action on the license app. 121a0012 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't receive any of them in my apartment. I can receive 97.3 in my car. I will check on 95.7 and 106.1(KIKO's former frequency) tomorrow, and let you know if I can hear them, and what their call signs are. Is the Call Sign/Letters the main indicator of station identity, or the frequency. Because it is more that just a change of format (Adult Contemporary to Modern Variety) Let me know what the best way of indicating the changes, and I will make changes needed, if you want. (Though would appreciate help from more experienced radio editors. VikÞor | Talk05:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Neither. The "main indicator of station identity" is the FCC Facility ID Number (FIN). Match up the records in the FCC database to the FINs in the articles and you can tell what happened to what. (That is a market in which facilities have moved around in the past, but usually what happens is just the owner changing its marketing focus.) BTW, what do you mean by "Modern Variety"? That's not a format I've ever heard of before. 121a0012 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, looks like the FCC Facility ID Numbers stayed the same for all of them. Modern Adult Contemporary may be the format… They have the tagline above, "The Variety you've been looking for" and "Variety 97.3". (I've heard Howard Jones, Train, and Pink.) KIKO is the only one of the ones mentioned above that I can receive. VikÞor | Talk21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to contact the person who maintains the http://utprosim.com/cgi-bin/station.cgi script used to generate US radio station stubs. I have a couple improvements to suggest. Does anyone here have contact information for the script's creator? From the website, I infer I might be seeking Tony Rice of Utprosim.com. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
HD-2 stations
Unless I missed something, how are we to treat HD-2 stations that are rebroadcast on translators? For example, I know of one situation (because I will be the PD) that will take place this summer where the HD-2 of one station is going to be rebroadcast on a translator and will be branded using the frequency of that translator. What would the article for that station be created under? It would seem to me that this would be a situation where we might have to revert to titling the article by the brand name of the station, rather than the calls. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an example already in place: if you look up 99X it will give several redirects. Look at the first batch. You will see something that says something like "WWWQ-FM HD2". That is the master article. The translator's frequency is the main on-air branding "99X now at 97.9FM" but the actual W250BC article redirects to WWWQ-FM HD2 (or whatever it's called). I guess what would happen in your case is ABCD-HD2/ABCD-FM HD2 (whatever your call would be) would be the main article and the translator would be the redirect (N000ZZ would redirect to that page). I hope this helps!Stereorock (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
By FCC rules radio translators can't originate their own programming (TV can) so the main article should be for the HD2 feeds. If it's just an HD2 feed however it shouldn't have it's own article unless it's got some history to it or local programming. The translator re-directing to the main article should also go for the crop of AM to FM translators that's been popping up across the US. --MrRadioGuy PTCE09:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If no other station has picked up those calls, I see no reason to make this move, at this time. The article states that was a station, which satisfies the "defunct" that you are requesting. StrikerforceTalkReview me!23:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be until another station picks up the call letters.--MrRadioGuy PTCE09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Rimshot stations in templates
Which is a better way of marking rimshot FM stations in a template, separating in-market and out-of-market stations or representing the rimshot stations using a <small> tag? Wanted to double check first --Schala★21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I know using Arbitron markets is a touchy subject but if it doesn't reach/focus on the main city of a market or the counties the market consist of (another Arbitron grey area there) then it should be left out of any market templates, unless it's in an area where there are a significant number of stations outside of an Arbitron market area. 2 areas that aren't in any market areas (as defined by the ratings companies) I created templates for that are close to me geographically: Northern and Downeast Maine Radio and Northeast Kingdom and Northern New Hampshire Radio. Some stations just aren't in an area that need templates, some are and they have templates created--MrRadioGuy PTCE09:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Radio logos in radio categories
Hey, it's come to my attention that there are a number of logo files that have been categorised in article categories on logos. To give an example, File:KAAP logo.jpg appears in Category:Radio stations in Washington (state). This presents a number of problems. Firstly, non-free images cannot be displayed in the category space, as per the non-free content criteria- that's pretty much non-negotiable, but can be gotten around through use of on the category pages. This means that, instead of appearing in a gallery, the images file names are displayed along with the articles in the main category list. This serves to accentuate the second key issue; categories are a reader-facing space. The inclusion of file pages in categories of articles could prove to be confusing, annoying or even misleading. Separate categories for categorising related images for editorial reasons (categories like Category:Radio station logos) are fine, and that is where related images will typically belong. I removed a few files from the article categories, but when I realised how many there were, I thought this required some wider discussion. So, does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Should be pretty simple to add the NOGALLERY template through a bot so just the link appears. I think it is a capital idea to add it to non-free images. — BQZip01 —talk23:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
You feel that that non-free logo images should be included in categories containing articles? I really can't see how that is in any way useful. Take the example I gave before- that file page just isn't a "Radio stations in Washington (state)". The fact that files are not consistently named means that there will be no way to find them within the category, and it means that the category will be clogged with the files. What use does it serve? It's something that is done practically nowhere else on Wikipedia; as I say, if you feel the need to categorise non-free images related to the project, Category:Radio station logos and such (perhaps subcategories) should be sufficient. J Milburn (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, what is it that you support? You support the way things are now, or you support my idea to clean it up? J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing History
Being fairly new to this, I'm not sure how to fix something. The article for San Francisco radio station KGO-AM contained a misspelling of a very important program host. I corrected the spelling, and added a note regarding his death. It was promptly deleted by user "Milonica" as well as his name! I find this "cleansing" of HISTORICAL FACT to be quite disturbing. What is the point of Wikipedia if a few people can simply remove facts with no justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Schlamazel (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Radio station logo Fair-Use Rationales to fix
Greetings! This is a listing of images whose fair-use rationales do not match the articles they are used in - this is often caused by typos or page moves. We happen to be lucky, as a Wikiproject, to have many of our articles be callsign based... in other words, it is very easy to parse through this list to find images that we can and should fix. I'd get working on it right now, but... I kinda have to go to sleep and be at work in about five hours. So, if you are so inclined, please start tackling some of these. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Move requested
On 7/1 KXLJ (AM) changed its calls to KXXJ. I've changed the Juneau, Alaska radio template to say KXXJ but it still goes to the KXLJ page. Would someone be able to transfer KXLJ to a new KXXJ page? Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a quick note for the project members that I've broken up the list of FM radio stations in the U.S. starting with KN–KZ, to match the existing structure for stations starting with W. I've also broken up the lists of AM radio stations in the U.S. starting with both K and W. The purpose was to bring these very large lists down to more manageable sizes so that they load more quickly. I've also adjusted the associated template to reflect these changes.
Oh, and hi, everyone. I'm semi-back from a rather long hiatus, so you'll see me around again from time to time. Mlaffs (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This is to alert all members that the JOGV-FM, Bay FM 78, article has been nominated for deletion. It's a popular station in Chiba, Japan. I've already commented that all licensed station are notable, per our policy here.Stereorock (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just dropping a quick note to alert project members to the fact that I've revised the project template to include a new cleanup category, Category:Radio station articles without infoboxes. I'm just beginning to populate the category — I'd already identified a handful of U.S. stations that were missing them, although I'm sure there are more, and I'm now finding a bunch in Canada.
Articles can be included in this category by adding |needs-infobox=yes as a parameter in the project template on the article's talk page. Naturally, once a missing infobox has been created and added to an article, that parameter should be removed. Mlaffs (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Notability of non-com radio network affiliates
I have been going through many regional non-commercial radio network articles and creating individual articles for the individual stations, as a way of simplification and clutter reduction. On one, Allegheny Mountain Radio, I have run into a conflict with another user, who immediately reverted all of my work, claiming that the stations themselves (full-power licensed by the FCC) are not notable by themselves. Any suggestions? --Fightingirish (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not saying that non-commerical stations are not notable, I am saying that since they are part of a network of stations (like say K-Love stations...which are in some parts full-power) and don't carry their own individual programming they are not notable. If they were independent of the network, they would be immediately notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that if a full-power station solely acts as a repeater (even as part of a decent-size network), then it does not merit its own article? Better remove all those Ion Television Network stations then. I've been trying to break up some of these network pages, since they had gotten a bit cumbersome. Some, like Wisconsin Public Radio, typically ended with massive lists of station data for each individual affiliate. Pretty ugly stuff.
Most stations that are part of regional non-com networks duplicate all programming in various markets. Why are they notable while the APR stations are not? And don't the APR stations break away individually for high school sports? Typically, if a station is listed in a regional radio navbox, then I give it an article, with its own FCC data and other information. Why not?
In addition, some of the K-Love full-power stations (like WLVE) have their own articles, as they should. Translators that function as repeaters should not, and should always be redirects, if the pages for them exist at all. Part of my little project will include listing translators for individual stations. Bear with me, I haven't gotten to it on all of them yet (the Colorado Public Radio ones really fried my brain!).
I'm trying to avoid a revert war here. Those get pretty stupid (as you no doubt know). Whatever the consensus is by other users here is what I will abide by. In the meantime, if you want to claim the APR articles as your own personal online fiefdom, then have at it.--Fightingirish (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If a station has any sort of history and/or originates any local programming, an individual article (with strong pointers back to the network article) is my preference over a network article with a dozen infoboxes. It also makes for cleaner navigation in categories, navboxes, and lists by frequency or other criteria. - Dravecky (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I was actually pushing "Save page" at the same time as Dravecky, and he's said it better than I was going to. But since I've done the typing anyway, I might as well complete the process.
I've actually been running across Fightingirish's work as I've been going through a little project of my own and, I have to admit, I've been enjoying seeing articles pop up for some of the individual stations in these networks that were simply a mess of redirects.
Here's a question that may help in this discussion — beyond the questions raised above about whether they're totally network-programmed, did any of these stations exist prior to joining the network? In other words, is there a history that could be fleshed out beyond just the fact that they now carry the network programming? Neutralhomer, I think you know where I'm coming from here, as we've both seen the magic that people like Dravecky have worked on articles like these.
There might, I really don't know. I know that WVMR, WCHG and WVLS (the original stations of the AMR network) have always been owned by Pocahontas Communications Cooperative Corporation (the owners of AMR). I can't say for certain, but I think since these stations came online, the stations have just joined the network and simulcasted parent station WVMR-AM. Again, I could be wrong (normally am) but I don't think they have ever had individual programming. As for WVMR-FM (launched this year) and the soon to be WNMP (not yet on the air), they will simulcast parent WVMR-AM.
I would like to clarify something else. When I say "network" (which only I use, I think, not even AMR), it is a very teeny, tiny network. Allegheny Mountain Radio only serves three counties: Pocahontas County in West Virginia and Bath and Highland counties in Virginia. All of which are right up against the VA/WV border. The stations don't serve the entire county either, just parts, due to the Green Bank Telescope and the United States National Radio Quiet Zone (which covers more area than they enforce). So this isn't a network over a wide area or a statewide network, it is just parts of three counties.
With all that said, if Dravecky can dig up anything about any of the stations outside of just the basic FCC information, I am all for creating articles for the stations. As Dravecky and Mlaffs know, I have no problem with articles for all stations and in fact support their creation. I am just going by the WP:WPRS rules is all.
Hi, I'm part of a student radio society in the UK and had wanted to get our station on wikipedia, but shortly after upload it was deleted for 'not being notable enough' (A7?) we're in the middle of applying for an L-RSL am I right in thinking once we are OFCOM licenced that counts as being notable enough to warrant inclusion? Or does it only apply to permanent licences? (re-building it in my userspace till we either get our licence or some press coverage)
Addendum, would like to add apologies if this is condescending but this page appears to focus on US stations, an L-RSL is a 5 year licence that is almost always automatically renewed at the end of it's life unless OFCOM (licencing body) feels to need to take it away
My view would be that, if you get a licen[cs]e, and you have independent locally-originated programming, then the article should at least not be a candidate for speedy deletion. However, you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be the one creating such an article. Press coverage would certainly help, as that would demonstrate that someone outside your club thought it worth writing about. (One of the rules is that an article should explicitly make a verifiable claim for its own notability; most student groups are not considered notable, but most licensed radio stations are.) I'm not sure how the UK contributors feel about the general notability of RSL operations; it might help your case if you can point out articles about other such stations that have been considered notable in the past (i.e., gone through a formal deletion review with the result keep). 121a0012 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)