Hi TomG2002! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This map should help explain why the Hamptons-Riverhead radio template is not necessary: Nielsen Market Metro Map 2014

There was a time, before Arbitron was purchased by Nielsen, that the Hamptons-Riverhead market was its own market, but one that was embedded within the Nassau-Suffolk market. This situation was actually short lived, and Hamptons-Riverhead disappeared, essentially merging back into Nassau-Suffolk. Creating the Hamptons-Riverhead market template today is not necessary, as it is already included within Nassau-Suffolk.

As for the examples you mention, the Pittsfield radio template is necessary, because it's not part of a metro market (see map link above).

The Newport Radio template is actually not necessary, as it is part of the Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket metro market (again, see map link above). I'm not sure why that template was created, but, as far as the map goes, Newport can be merged into the Providence template.

You can find more maps at the American Radio History site that go back to 1987. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we should be using the most recent information available.

-- DrChuck68 ( talk) 14:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree with you 100%, except I did merge the two templates together. That last for about a month, until someone restored it to it's present shape. Also there are a number of templates that are actually embedded into actual markets: Lewiston-Auburn (in the Portland market), Northeast Kingdom (St. Johnsbury is part of the NEK and a principal city of the Montpelier-lead market), Gilroy-Hollister (in the San Jose market), Livermore and Tri-Valley (both in the San Francisco market), etc. The reasoning was because it "functions as a separate market". So do the Hamptons and so does North Conway-Fryeburg. Where does the disagreement come? TomG2002 ( talk) 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

They "function as a separate market" based on what? Is it based on WP:OR, or a published source? Nassau-Suffolk is a single radio market, and that is verifiable. As BlueboyLI ( talk · contribs) pointed out in the template history, splitting it into two templates would cause confusion. It's possible that some of these other templates were created based on WP:OR, or based on old data nobody got around to properly merging them. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 01:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Template:San Francisco Metro Markets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet ( talk) 16:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Those other markets are in fact in the market. Santa Rosa is in Sonoma County, Diablo Valley is in Contra Costa, Gilroy is in Santa Clara, etc. All those counties are in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market. TomG2002 ( talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Springfield MA Radio. Block evasion by User:Pablo909. Binksternet ( talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC) The reason why I added Albany, Providence, Danbury, etc. is because there are markets that are equivalently distanced, if not further, on other market templates that haven't been touched. Examples include Santa Maria and Los Angeles, Palm Springs and Bullhead City-Laughlin-Needles, DFW and OKC, and Fort Wayne to Chicago. At one point in time, Houston and McAllen were being grouped together, along with Santa Barbara and San Diego, Yuma and Phoenix, Portland ME and Boston, and Albany and Syracuse, Lebanon, NYC and Burlington. Even Worcester (east of Springfield) at one point got grouped with Albany, where Springfield is closer. TomG2002 ( talk) 19:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Materialscientist: Just to confirm, did you run CU check on this account? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

  I did. It was consistent with socking but did not prove it (moot), thus it was combined with behavioral evidence. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

  @ Materialscientist: Can you show some examples of behavioral evidence? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The behavioral evidence, without spilling the WP:BEANS, is that the old Geoffrey100 socks were all interested in combining the San Francisco radio coverage area with those of Oakland and San Jose. [1] [2] TomG2002 caught my attention with this change to the SF Radio template, and with his creation of the San Francisco Metro Markets template, a workaround that Geoffrey100 would have supported. The two naming styles are similar as well. On the other hand, Geoffrey100 was not just interested in radio topics but also Chinese-American topics. TomG2002 hasn't shown any interest in that. Binksternet ( talk) 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Materialscientist: I somehow forgot about this one. What do you say? Should I decline the request? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I think TomG2002 should be unblocked. Despite his similar interests, he has a different style than the sock puppeteer Geoffrey100. And he explains his reasons with clarity, something Geoffrey100 never did. Binksternet ( talk) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I have since looked at the article stating dozens of ways you could be presumed as a sock puppet, and have realized why I (may) have been mistaken as a sock puppet: my lack of involvement with the Wikipedia community. This is due to my social skills deficits. I also have similar interests to User:Geoffrey100 and User:Pablo909, which is radio. I had absolutely no intentions of disrupting Wikipedia, in other words, a good faith editor, and was using the Nielsen audio map to create the defunct San Francisco metro markets template. I didn't mean any harm, I promise. Please unblock me, User:DrChuck68, User:Binksternet or another user. TomG2002 ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you explain this edit? In what way have you been recognized and confirmed in your identity by other Wikipedians? Binksternet ( talk) 16:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

OK, I will remove the template then. I didn't realize that was what it meant, I just thought it was a way to prove (without proof?) that you aren't a sock. TomG2002 ( talk) 20:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Binksternet: What kind of edit was that? Does it prove sockpuppetry? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The now-suppressed edit included a template added by TomG2002 to his own user page, the template being one that I can't find right now, but I remember it asserted that the user had been identified in person by another Wikipedian, for instance at a conference or meetup, which supposedly confirmed TomG2002 as a legitimate user. The edit doesn't prove socking. Binksternet ( talk) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I reverted your addition of WXNI to the NB/FR market because WXNI is now licensed to Newport, not North Dartmouth, according to the FCC's CDBS. Stereorock ( talk) 02:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Oh, it still transmits from North Dartmouth, and according to Rhode Island Public Radio's Facebook page, they ID as "WXNI FM and HD, North Dartmouth". It was posted on July 11th. ^[1] TomG2002 ( talk) 21:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited KDMX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tacoma ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Unspecified source/license for File:Jane Stuart-Gilbert Stuart Birthplace Museum.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Jane Stuart-Gilbert Stuart Birthplace Museum.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{ PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{ self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ^{( Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited City of license, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laval ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WMEG, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank FM, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakes Region ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Just wondering what you're using as your criteria for putting links to nearby markets/regions in these templates. In some of your edit summaries, I see "100 miles," but I'm wondering if that distance may be encompassing too much area. With templates like Boston (and other densely populated areas) that have many regions with 100 miles, that list could grow to be too long, and I'm not sure how helpful that will be to readers. You may want to consider cutting that back to a 75 or 50 mile radius for densely populated regions. For more rural and less densely populated areas, a 100 mile (or longer) radius may be just fine. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 17:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I have used the fringe contour of the most powerful radio station(s) in a said region as a reference point for the “nearby market” section. These stations include WSRS and WXLO in Worcester, WKCI and WPLR in New Haven, WSPK and WPDH in the mid-Hudson Valley, WHUD for the Lower Hudson Valley, WBLM in Portland, WFNK and WTHT in Lewiston-Auburn, WTOS in Augusta, WHOM in Northern NH, etc. I included all (or most) of the markets that these stations can be heard in as “nearby”. So for instance, WGBH-FM (one of three reference stations for Boston) can be heard in Tolland County (part of the Hartford market), as can WVEI-FM (a reference station for Providence). WAMC (the one reference station in Pittsfield) can be heard in northwestern Middlesex County (Boston region), western Hillsborough Cointy (Manchester region), and southwestern Merrimack County (Concord/Laconia region). WCTK (the reference station for New Bedford-Fall River) can be heard in eastern New London County, etc.

Usually, using these parameters, the furthest region for each template comes out to around 100 miles, so instead of explaining my methodology every time I edit a template, I put “100 miles” as an approximation. I hope this helps! TomG2002 ( talk) 20:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I oppose this as this is adding too much clutter to the templates, & confusion. Only adjacent markets should be included, not every market that has one powerful station 100 miles away! Additionally, your methodology is flawed as radios are of varying quality & some radios are not as sensitive as others! Stereorock ( talk) 05:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC). reply

I agree with Stereorock's logic here. A list of adjacent markets is sufficient. Each template already has a link to the list of radio stations in that state, and that list also includes all the templates for that state. The list of nearby markets in Boston can be trimmed down. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 12:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WJYY, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakes Region ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 15:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

On the east coast and west coast, 100 kW FMs are rather rare/unique. In some cases (such ask KRUZ) their wattage is "grandfathered" so they are allowed to retain their alloted wattage (in KRUZ's case, 105 kW). In the midewest and Rocky Mountain regions, they're more commonplace, and don't need to be pointed out as much. I'm thinking these footnotes should be used in these rare/unique cases, rather than for any station that broadcasts at 100 kW. KOLT-FM may broadcast at 100 kW, but that's not unusual for Colorado/Wyoming. The "Nearby regions" section in the template will lead the readers/editors to stations that can broadcast to the current template, but their COL is outside the current template. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 14:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hey, I'm doing some of the leg work to determine what Mexican radio templates look like with Template:Mexico Radio Markets replaced. How far apart do you think adjacent markets need to be to be linked from each other's pages? Raymie ( t • c) 22:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

It depends. For some markets that are more densely populated, only the adjacent markets need to be listed. For other, more isolated markets that may have only one adjacent market (like Baja California Sur), you might link to other nearby markets (like Tijuana) or use the water boundary of a state/market if applicable. TomG2002 ( talk) 12:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

What I did (and it's complete now) was adjacent states for all state templates, as well as nearby markets in some cases where it was going to be needed. All state templates also link to all the templates within their states (and the reverse), with three templates (Comarca Lagunera, Puerto Vallarta and Tampico) belonging to two states. In some cases, the only link up from a market template is the state one, as there are no other market split-outs within 100 km.

I'd be curious to hear if any of the templates contain too many stations and could use another market split-out. Raymie ( t • c) 07:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Using the words "receivable" or "audible" on radio templates makes it sound way too much like WP:OR. A radio template refers to an "area" or a "region" where a station originates (COL). Receiving antennas vary from radio to radio, and may not be able to receive all stations listed in the template. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 23:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pack Monadnock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your edits to {{ Kingston Radio}} and {{ Brockville Radio}}. You have "Brockville is its own market" which I can kind of understand, but "Bancroft is unrated?" Why are Central Frontenac, Kemptville, Loyalist, and Napanee also wiped out? Many of Canada's templates have large regions grouped by towns/cities, that don't have a many stations in each town/city, and Kingston was one of them. In doing this kind of edit, now there are several articles that still have the Kingston template on them, but the Kingston template doesn't have the link to that article. There are some U.S. templates also organized this way, such as {{ Northwest Washington Radio}}. Is that area rated? I can't say for sure, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. However, it is a region and there are some stations there. I guess my point is not every template is a rated metro area. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 15:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Kingston and Brockville are kind of far apart — approximately 45 miles, to be exact. With the exception of 103.9, which targets both markets, the two markets have only limited overlap. Bancroft is even further from Kingston than Brockville is! If Barncroft and Brockville were closer, I’d group them with Kingston, but it doesn’t really make sense to group them when Kingston already has plenty of stations that serve its market — including several that aren’t licensed to Kingston proper. TomG2002 ( talk) 16:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

But is Brockville a market? If so, based on what? I'm not as familiar with the Canadian stations as I am with the ones in the U.S., so I don't know where I'd get a hold of that information. Again, not every template is a market. Some of them are simply regions. Canada is not as densely populated as the U.S., so you'll have more region-based templates than market based ones. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 17:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Please don't arbitrarily split up Canadian radio station navboxes, the way you did with Brockville and St. Catharines, without first establishing a consensus that such splits are needed at all. Radio "markets" are not as tightly defined in Canada as they are in the United States, and the CRTC is much more conservative in licensing radio stations with the result that Canadian cities almost never have as many radio stations as an American city of equivalent size would have — so Canadian radio navboxes are not based on the principle of "every city always gets its own radio navbox". Major markets get their own templates while smaller markets get handled at the region level, which is precisely why places which don't have enough of their own stations to warrant their own dedicated navbox, like St. Catharines and Brockville, were being included in the Hamilton and Kingston templates instead of getting their own.

Basically, a town or city needs to have around ten radio stations of its own before a dedicated navbox is justified; if it has less than that, then it has to be upmerged to a broader regional template. But that also works the other way around: a city like Hamilton does technically have enough stations to support its own navbox, but taking Hamilton out of the Hamilton-Niagara navbox also has the effect of sinking Niagara back below the ten-station cutoff, so the templates still have to stay merged since there's nothing else St. Cat's/Niagara can be merged with to keep it over the ten-stations cutoff. And it's also precisely because we group most non-metropolitan radio markets at the regional level, rather than by the "Nielsen markets" that we don't actually have, that we do not exclude stations from the template based on whether their city of license is a "rated" market or not — if it's in the region, it's in the template, because excluding it from templates on that basis has the effect of orphaning it from inbound wikilinks and leaving it isolated.

And by the same token, reorganizing the Ottawa template the way you did broke an incredibly important contextual distinction — the Ottawa template needs a way to distinguish which stations are on the Ottawa side of the river from which stations are on the Gatineau side, which isn't served by just grouping all the stations together in one list. (Hint: there's a big difference between the two groups that goes well beyond physical location and into actual on-air content. Wanna take a wild guess what it might be?)

Canada and the United States are two different countries with different circumstances and different needs. So the organizing principle for Canadian-related content is not "always exactly replicate the way the United States is doing stuff" — Canadian templates are based on Canada's needs, not on unconditionally mirroring American navbox formatting. (And besides, you didn't even spell St. Catharines correctly.) If you think St. Cats and Hamilton need to have separate templates, and/or Brockville and Kingston need to have separate templates, then you need to propose that for discussion rather than just arbitrarily imposing it. Bearcat ( talk) 13:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

How about US templates that have less than 12 stations, like Stamford-Norwalk, CT, Morristown, NJ and North Conway, NH-Fryeburg, ME? Maybe for the embedded NYC markets, a single “suburban NYC” template would work? TomG2002 ( talk) 17:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Also, do we really need sections for every single city/region that a station is licensed to? This method of grouping stations made for unnecessary amounts of clutter on market templates. It’d be like grouping stations in the Boston market like I did in my sandbox — way more cluttered than it should be. TomG2002 ( talk) 21:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Firstly, the American templates are not my concern; the Canadian templates are. Secondly, as I already pointed out to you, if you want to reorganize the Canadian templates from their longstanding consensus-backed format, then you need to propose that reorganization for discussion to get a consensus for your preferred way — because again, what you're doing is (a) obscuring important information, and (b) stranding some smalltown stations as completely unnavboxed because there's no other "market" to regroup them with after you remove them from the navbox they're currently in. Canada, again, does not have tightly defined "markets" in anything like the way that the United States does: there is no "authority" we can consult to determine whether Kingston and Brockville are separate radio "markets" or not, or whether an Orangeville station is "in" or "out" of the Greater Toronto Area market, and on and so forth — there are merely subjective opinions based on distance in kilometres, which isn't how "markets" are defined in the United States either. So there's a longstanding consensus that Canadian radio templates are organized on a regional basis rather than a "market" basis, because we don't have objectively-defined Arbitron or Nielsen "markets" to use — and if you want that to change, you need to propose that change for discussion rather than imposing it arbitrarily. I'll be reporting you to WP:ANI if you make any more changes to Canadian radio navboxes without establishing a consensus for your preferred way first. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia defines the city of license as "...the community that a radio station or television station is officially licensed to serve by that country's broadcast regulator." In the U.S., that broadcast regulator is the FCC. It is not krgspec.com. krgspec.com describes itself as "...the radio division of Katz Media. We are the number-one national sales representation firm in the radio industry, working with more than 2200 radio stations in over 300 markets across the U.S."

krgspec.com is for companies that want to advertise on radio stations. The site shows what audiences the stations are able to reach, regardless of the FCC's city of license. WPLR has the COL of New Haven, CT. The signal reaches Long Island, and northern CT, but does that make it a Hartford station, or a Long Island station? No, it does not. The city of license is the city of origin, so it goes into Template:New Haven Radio, and no other template. Companies may advertise on WPLR in order to reach New Haven and Hartford, but that does not mean that WPLR is a Hartford station, as they are licensed to serve New Haven. WRKI is licensed to Brookfield (near Danbury) but it can reach most of Fairfield County. Its city of license puts it in Template:Danbury Radio, and that template only. Just because a station can reach an area doesn't mean it serves that area. Please do not confuse reach with serve. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

What about WEBE, which is clearly a Bridgeport-market station as it transmits from downtown Bridgeport? It definitely serves the Bridgeport market. I get that WKCI and WPLR aren’t in the Bridgeport template, but WEBE? TomG2002 ( talk) 13:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

According to the FCC, WEBE is licensed to Westport. This means it is licensed to serve Westport, regardless of their transmitter's actual location. As a result, their signal reaches Bridgeport (and most of Fairfield County). Greater Bridgeport does not include Westport in its definition, so that's why WEBE is in Template:Stamford-Norwalk Radio. This is also why I added Template:Fairfield County Connecticut Radio to the three Fairfield County navboxes. The original navboxes were based on the Nielsen markets, which split Fairfield County into three areas. The signals may reach into multiple areas, but we need to organize the stations according to the FCC data. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 14:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Westport is 2 towns away from Bridgeport. I don’t see why it can’t at least be included in both Bridgeport and Stamford’s templates, since Westport is definitely part of Greater Bridgeport. And also, according to https://connoisseurmedia.com/connoisseur-media-to-purchase-cox-media-groups-connecticut-Radio-group/, WFOX is the only commercial FM station home to the S/N market. TomG2002 ( talk) 16:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The Greater Bridgeport article makes no mention of Westport, and neither does http://www.ctmetro.org/about-us/ Also, that Connoisseur link is an old press release. Connoisseur acquired WEBE in 2019. If you have questions about resources you have found (or even questions on how to search FCC databases), please ask them on the appropriate talk page. Doing edits based on outdated information or misinterpreted data could be seen as WP:OR. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WWDP, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Country music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riley Green ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beacon Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beacon Hill ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, New England Academy, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Please see the school article guidelines which describes how the content of school articles should be organized, with the aim of providing general guidance to editors. It also mentions that stubs are to be avoided. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Steven (Editor) ( talk) 03:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Greetings, TomG2002. I had to revert your changes because you broke the table. Please, if you want to make changes, make sure you don't break the formatting while doing so. "Preview" is everyone's friend. :-D Thanks. - Denimadept ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to draw your attention to this edit. Please understand that "it's" is a contraction of "it is"; whenever it's is used, substitution of "it is" should make sense. The word "its" is a possessive denoting ownership as in "its head" or "its thoughts".

Actually, it's should almost never be used as stated in the manual of style: "Missing letters are replaced by an apostrophe in multiple-word contractions. Contractions should not be used in Wikipedia." Thus, occurrences of "it's" should be replaced by "it is". Just a heads up! -- LilHelpa ( talk) 21:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:New England Academy, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Party LiveLine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southborough.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, TomG2002. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " New England Academy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 06:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malden, Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Shore.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Template:South Georgia Radio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 09:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WPNH-FM, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barre, Vermont.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhythmic adult contemporary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix and WBQT.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! I'm Garrettw87. Your recent edit(s) to the page KHFZ appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I have consolidated Template:Longview-Marshall Radio into Template:Tyler-Longview Radio since the latter reflects and defines the actual, official radio market, and my reverting your change in KHFZ is related to that.
- Garrett W. { ☎ ✍} 18:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I noticed you reverted my edits combining the templates linked above, and I read the edit summary you provided.

I've been wanting to get more discussion going around this topic. Would you mind chiming in on this thread I've started?

After reading this essay by DrChuck68, I do understand why we can't use exact Nielsen market data as our basis, but I don't see why we can't approximate it yet still avoid making it look like we use their stuff wholesale. I guess what it comes down to for us is, which way of defining markets is most helpful to readers?

In this particular case, I don't think it's helpful to separate Tyler from Longview, because Longview as a radio market doesn't stand on its own all that well. Many Tyler stations have been popular in Longview over the years, and not just the ones that have translators in Longview. I know those templates have been separate for some time, but I strongly believe they should be combined.

Please do let me know your thoughts. — Garrett W. { ☎ ✍} 02:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The city of license of WEBE is Westport. It has always been Westport, regardless of where their transmitter or studios are. It does not "literally transmit from Bridgeport." It's the city of license that determines template placement, not WP:OR.

For the case of of WKTU, they started out as a Long Island radio station. Their city of license is Lake Success, located in western Nassau county. Over time, the station's transmitter moved to NYC, but the COL has remained Lake Success. This makes WKTU a special case where it can be placed in both the LI and NYC templates. WEBE is not a special case.

There are three templates that cover Fairfield county ( Bridgeport, Danbury, and Stamford-Norwalk). At the time they were set up, it was also how the radio markets themselves were set up. Would it make sense to merge all three into one? That would require discussion (and potential consensus) which I would be open to. DrChuck68 ( talk) 15:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I still don’t understand how the WEBE and WKTU situations are different. WEBE transmits from the Bridgeport area, has full coverage over Bridgeport, is number one in the Bridgeport radio market (and has been for years), etc. It’s no different from how WKTU is licensed to Long Island but transmits from NYC and has identical coverage over the NYC market to other stations on the Empire State Building. If WCTK can be included on the Providence template despite being licensed to New Bedford (30 miles away) since it targets Providence and is rated high in Providence, if Saratoga County stations targeting Albany can be included on both templates, or if WENJ can be included on the Vineland and Atlantic City templates since it targets Atlantic City despite being licensed to the Vineland area, then WEBE should certainly be included on the Bridgeport template — or any other station in a similar position (targeting multiple markets, having full market coverage over two or more markets, sharing a transmitter with a station from a different market, or being licensed to one market but transmitting from another one). For stations in these situations, it doesn’t make sense for them to only be on one template. TomG2002 ( talk) 17:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's take a look at the logic you're using:

• Station X targets market Y. What is this based on? WP:OR? That hardly justifies putting station X in template Y.
• Station X is number one in market Y. How does that warrant the station's placement in Y's template?

Ratings and so-called target markets should not be considered for template inclusion, because it's not really relevant. If station X has a strong local signal in area Y, it might warrant inclusion into Y's template. Notice I said might, as this is no guarantee.

Now let's take a look at a couple of the stations you've identified:

• WCTK - COL: New Bedford, Massachusetts - The COL indicates that it is in the New Bedford template. If we look at the coverage map on Radio-Locator, and look at the local signal (red line only), we see that the edge runs very close to Providence. The signal has the potential of reaching Providence, and tells us nothing about targeting Providence. Being on the edge like that, I'd probably leave the station out of the Providence template. However, if someone else were to put it in that template, I wouldn't make too much of a fuss about it.
• WENJ - COL: Millville, New Jersey - The COL indicates that it is in the Vineland template. Their coverage map on Radio-Locator shows that Atlantic City is well within the local signal (red line, good potential). In this case, I'd be okay adding the station to the Atlantic City template.

Now, how does this play out for WEBE?

• WEBE - COL: Westport, Connecticut - The COL indicates that it is in the Stamford-Norwalk template. If we check the coverage map, what do we see? Well, Bridgeport is within the local signal area, but does it need to be added in this case? Well, what we have here is three templates that cover one county in Connecticut. Is there overlap? Sure. Does that mean the overlapping stations need to be added to any, or all of them? No! That's why the Fairfield County Radio template footer exists, as it ties the three templates together.

Adding a station (including its frequency, call sign, and any digital subchannels) to multiple templates can unnecessarily clutter the templates, which is why we have to be careful about doing so, and not do it " because it's there." There must be very good, logical, sound reasons to do it.

These multiple templates also must be added to the radio station article (see WCTK and WENJ above). Being careful and logical when adding stations to multiple templates will help temper the maintenance needed for these templates and articles. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 00:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand all of that, but I still think there are logical, sound reasons to include (most) stations that have local-grade coverage of multiple markets on multiple templates. There are a number of exceptions (ie: we’re not going to include laundry lists of stations from NYC on all the NYC metro markets), but I think including stations that cover multiple markets on multiple templates is more effective than simply justifying their exclusion by pointing to the “nearby regions” header. In many cases, most stations in “nearby regions” don’t reach multiple regions the way that WEBE does, since WEBE covers Stamford, Danbury, Bridgeport and New Haven. However, I don’t think this would add a ton of clutter. In the case of Danbury, for instance, by adding stations that have local grade coverage of Danbury from out of market, you’d only be adding 99.9 and 107.9 from Bridgeport, 101.5 and 104.7 from Poughkeepsie, and maybe 99.1 and 101.3 from New Haven. Because the template doesn’t have all that many stations to begin with, I think this is appropriate. In markets that have a ton of overlap with a particular adjacent market, we can point to this in the header (as I had been doing on numerous templates with overlapping regions), as these overlapping regions are more than just adjacent to them, they have a significant degree of overlap to the point where the border between the regions becomes blurred. TomG2002 ( talk) 05:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

How could it not add a ton of clutter, not to mention confusion for the reader? As I have explained over and over again the city of license is the first piece of information (and usually the only piece) that puts a station in a template. These templates templates tell readers where, geographically, these stations are. The fact that some stations "reach" or "target" this template is largely irrelevant.

WPDH and WSPK in the Danbury template? Why?? They are not Danbury stations. They are Poughkeepsie stations. The fact that their signals have the potential to reach Danbury is irrelevant. Danbury is not geographically where they are. Just because a station can potentially reach a region, doesn't mean it can (due to various factors, such as terrain and buildings blocking the signal, and quality of radio receiver)

Signals (potentially) overlapping multiple regions are found in many places, but there's no need to explicitly point it out. If you do this to the hundreds (if not thousands) of radio region templates, it all creates chaos and a maintenance nightmare for editors. These templates are not meant to mimic the functionality of Radio-Locator, which is what it sounds like what you are trying to do. You want to find out what you can receive in city XYZ? Go to Radio-Locator, because that's what that tool is for. Wikipedia is not for that. The nearby regions and template footers adequately indicate what regions are geographically nearby.

Let's not reinvent the wheel, here. -- DrChuck68 ( talk) 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Fenway station, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Three Nations Crossing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply