Talk:List of early radio broadcast stations in Western Australia

Article scope
What is the intended scope of the article? The contents thus far covers only broadcast radio, but the article title allows for much broader scope. For example lists a variety of other "radio in WA", such as: Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * communications with shipping,
 * communications with bases in the Antarctic
 * police radio
 * shortwave


 * The title and lead sentence have been mofdified - as to the intention of the article, really if you want to enjoy your copy-edit fame - go play with History of broadcasting in Australia... JarrahTree 13:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
Re:

This:

is logical nonsense. "AM radio" is a subset of "medium wave radio broadcast station", so to say that the former developed from the latter makes no sense. If the sentence is supposed to be about broadcast radio (as opposed to all the other types of AM radio) the sentence should say so - as my version did.

This:

is padding that tells the reader precisely nothing.

I suggest that my version of the lead section is better written and conveys more information, in fewer words. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Rubbish - if you want to write an article about radio and broadcast radio in western australia - do it - the article has been mangled because of your repeated visits. Take responsibility and go off an write about the whole of radio in a separate article and leave this one alone JarrahTree 14:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to get technical, "AM radio" is misleading because AM is simply a form of modulation. What we're talking about here is broadcasting on the medium frequency band using AM. AM itself can be used on any frequency. I used to own an AM troposcatter voice link that operated in the microwave bands. Technically, the lead paragraph is a bit of a mess. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a mess but I fail to see why it has to mention other bands and forms of radio when all it (the article) is trying to outline the development of broadcast stations in a limited scope and time. JarrahTree 15:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why it has to mention other bands and forms of radio — Are you referring to your version:


 * or mine?


 * I think mentioning FM and digital is important because it sets the context for the gradual decline in the popularity of AM, which probably should eventually get a mention in the article (the title of the article does not limit the scope to the pre-FM/DAB past). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

one small bloody article about the development of am broadcast history - and all this?
 * Nothing to do with this article - again, (and again) write an article about radio in western australia and enjoy all that, this article is nothing to do with other bands or anything other than history of broadcast radio in the 20s to 60s - it doesnt even take into account - what preceded the esablishment of broadcast stations. You have missed the scope of what this was intended to be and expended a vast amount of energy (I know you enjoy an argument or two you have said that in real life)  and a waste of time that goes nowhere.  Write the radio in wa article, and leave this one alone. This article needs to be re-titled to avoid further interventions of this sort mitch, so it is clear of your notion of decline of interest in am has nothing to do with the interest in the 20s to 60s. JarrahTree 03:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have missed the scope of what this was intended to be — Where exactly is the intended scope of the article described? I specifically asked in, but have yet to see anything that limits the scope to any particular time frame. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of X (or Y)
MOS:FIRST advises that we do introduce the list as "This is a list of X". I'd just FIXIT, but I'm still not sure what the article scope is because currently the article title is "... early radio broadcast stations ...", but the first sentence is "... local radio broadcast stations ..." (without defining the range of either of those words). To avoid yet another broken record debate, perhaps someone else might care to write a consistent, coherent, "clearer and more informative introduction". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The endless messing with such trivial items really destroys any sense of what could be a collaborative atmosphere - try creating articles so other editors can do to you what you do to others, your de facto entrenchment in articles and splitting hairs endlessly over the years is debilitating. JarrahTree 06:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-independently of early vs local, it would be helpful to give some indication of whether the list should include FM stations, which it could if the time scope is not limited to before 1977. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead sentence has been modified, try very hard to make articles so others can come and do the same to you. I honestly dont think you have any intention of contributing to new articles in the wa project - it seems too much fun being a nuisance on others articles. JarrahTree 06:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Could you please define "local" in the lead sentence, so that the "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) [are] unambiguous [and] objective". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

1930s vs 1941
The lead sentence is not currently consistent with the contents:

I'd fix it myself, but my track record on guessing or trying to influence the intended scope of the article has not been very good thus far. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It would appear you know nothing about the subject and only looking at selected references... seeing you identify with that JarrahTree 07:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sections
Is the plan to expand the per-station sections so that they have more than one sentence each (in which case expand section would be appropriate)? Otherwise I propose that a single "Station" section should hold a bullet list of the stations. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no WP:OWN and no plan (see edit history as record of trying to cope with your interventions so far), it is suggested, per previous statement, that there should be neither No bullet list, and no expand - you show no willingness to explore for further references, why should the article have either... JarrahTree 07:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One sentence per section seems a bit extravagant. Per :


 * If you don't want a bullet list, we could just do prose in a single "Stations" section. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If there was an appraisal of the rather pathetic state of 'history' at each of the individual station articles, there is the opportunity at the three areas of references already mentioned to expand and provide information about each station, and with some judicious exploration at even other points of references, each station 'could' WP:NODEADLINE have at least a paragraph or even two of useful information not otherwise gleaned from a range of sources, the historical encyclopedia source is excellent for generic generalisations, the trove sources very brief and potentially contradictory, and the wikibooks source has vast mass of unverifiable items that are nonetheless trackable via trove... It is not what 'I' want, as you are the only participant in this absurd circus of a stub that should have lain quiet and somnolent over this hot weekend, you have wanted to make the article a lot more than it can be - just try to ingest or inhale what lies in the wikibooks source - there are about 100 articles + you could create if you so wanted... JarrahTree 08:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)