Talk:CKAV-2-FM

Re: deleting CKAV-2 article and redirecting to the Toronto station
Let's not be too quick to do this - please wait until the station actually goes on-air before making such a major change. Or, at least, discuss it - thanks! --Ckatz chat spy  01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stations with numbers in their call sign are rebroadcasters. The only exception to this in all of Canadian history has been CITE-FM-1 in Sherbrooke, Quebec, which despite its call sign is actually a separate station with different programming from CITE-FM. (It used to be a rebroadcaster; they just never actually applied for a call sign change when it began airing its own schedule.) This actually has to be the other way around — based on the fact that the call sign is assigned as a rebroadcaster, this has to be a redirect to the primary originating station until such time as its programming proves it not to be one, not vice versa. You've also failed to notice that the Toronto station actually changed its call sign from CFIE to CKAV at the same time as the Vancouver transmitter was licensed, which militates even further against the likelihood of the Vancouver station originating any distinct programming; under Canadian call sign regulation, this can't be a separate station and still retain the 2 in its call sign. Bearcat 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, I'd appreciate it if you could please indicate the radio project guideline that states that rebroadcasters can't have an article. I have read through the project's talk page, and the archives. The closest applicable mention I could find was here, which says "Most of the time, they do not merit individual articles." This mention, on a talk page, hardly qualifies as "policy". Secondly, please don't presume that I "failed to notice" the Toronto station's call sign change. Actually, I did - along with checking out the station's web site, the Northwest Broadcasters site, and the CRTC decisions. I also saved the article from the Vancouver Sun some months back which said, and I quote:
 * "'Aboriginal Voices Radio is looking to staff a Vancouver operation, one of three regional studios that will begin broadcasting June 30, as part of a new national AVR network...'"
 * "'The Vancouver location will initially broadcast national programming from Toronto, but will develop original shows.'"
 * "'AVR chief of operations Roy Hennessy, a former Vancouver radio announcer, said he hopes to have at least two reporters, a morning show host and a number of on-air personalities operating out of the Vancouver studio.'"
 * Finally, it would have been nice to discuss the change first, rather than just blowing away the Vancouver article. That way, we could have come up with a better structure for the lead of the CKAV-FM article to reflect the fact that readers from Toronto and Vancouver are reading it. So, with all that stated, I have edited a compromise on the CKAV-2-FM page. The article text has been restored, while maintaining the redirect to CKAV. That way, the local article remains easily accessible to editors, rather than having to wade through the history. My intention is to restore the local article, while adding some information in the lead to indicate the national connection. However, I'll wait for a week or so before doing that, which should allow enough time to properly discuss the matter and achieve consensus. Thanks. --Ckatz chat spy  05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As for what policy is or isn't, the policy precedent on radio stations explicitly states that a radio station is only entitled to its own article if it originates at least a portion of its broadcast schedule in its own studios. The policy doesn't have to go into extra detail on the permissibility of rebroadcasters, since what the policy does say already explicitly precludes giving rebroadcasters their own separate articles. So the Vancouver station cannot have an article until such time as it actually launches some distinct programming from the Toronto transmitter. And to be perfectly honest, there's really no local article to be had here; more than half of the old article was a duplicate of Aboriginal Voices anyway. In fact, after giving it some thought, what really should happen, as per such as TVOntario and Access Alberta, is that all call signs, including the Toronto one, should simply be redirected to the network's main article, as there's really not very much that can be said about any of them without duplicating the network article. Bearcat 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)