Talk:WBACH

Reason For Termination
The reason for the end of WBACH is almost certainly the addition of a 24 hour classical channel of Maine Public Radio (now truncated to Maine Public) called Maine Public Classical, which is musically similar but a bit better. Perhaps someone has time to research this and add it. Xerlome (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It actually was the opposite. There was great opposition and complaint when Maine Public Classical moved their "all classical" station off-the-air and made it only accessible to small, remote areas of Maine. Not to mention, it can only be heard either online or by installing a specific HD application to a specialized radio system in your home or car. They lost a lot of listeners because of this who went over to WBACH because it provided full-time classical music: on the air. Maineartists (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Page move
This page is misleading and confusing. WBACH is no longer on the air -- nor the station. WBQX (106.9 FM) FRANK FM is now broadcasting. This page should be moved; and content updated to reflect the current situation:. Maineartists (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WBACH → WBQX – WBACH has permanently gone off the air after 25 years of service. It is now WBQX FRANK FM 106.9. The page should be named WBQX with a hidden search link for WBACH; not the other way around. It is confusing and misleading. The content needs to reflect the current situation. Maineartists (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support: This move probably should have been done a while ago; per naming conventions, articles on U.S. radio stations are generally titled based on their call signs, not their brandings. -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of subsequent comments, switching to oppose. Now that the WBACH network is defunct, this is once again clearly an article for the network as opposed to WBQX individually. In this context, WBACH is in fact an appropriate title. -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  08:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is actually quite a bit trickier than advertised. WBACH was a network of multiple radio stations, not just the brand name of WBQX itself, so at the time of creation it was all structured in accordance with our rules for radio networks: the article was about the network, and since all of the "stations" were rebroadcasters of a common service rather than originators of their own standalone programming, their call signs were redirected to the network article rather than being spun off as standalone topics in their own right. As the network wound down, however, most of its stations were switched to rebroadcasters of something else, and were thus repointed to their new programming source instead of here. This wasn't one radio station that got mistitled in defiance of our conventions for naming articles about radio stations; it was a network of multiple stations that got correctly titled in accordance with our conventions for articles about radio networks This article did in some respects get turned into an article about WBQX itself once the other stations left the network and WBQX was the only station left, but it wasn't and isn't supposed to be about WBQX itself — fundamentally, this article is supposed to be about the network as a whole. WBQX was the last surviving outpost of the network, but it was neither the first nor the primary station — so it does not own the entire history of the entire network, and should not be the title of the network article. The question here, rather, hinges on WBQX's current format as a classic hits station: is it an originating station which produces the Frank FM programming in its own originating studio, or is it still just a rebroadcaster of another radio station from a larger market? If it's an originating station, then there should be a new article created at WBQX separately from this article, and if it's just a rebroadcaster then the WBQX redirect should be repointed to wherever the content about its current programming source is located. But this article is meant to be about the network rather than about WBQX per se, so the solution here is not to simply move this article to the WBQX title. This article should certainly be edited to clean up the ways in which it's been shifted from WBACH the network into WBQX the station — but WBQX itself should be either a new separate article or a redirect somewhere else. It should not simply become the new title of this article, because this article is supposed to be about the whole network and not just about WBQX itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Pardon my ignorance ... if all that you are saying is correct; I am finding it very difficult at this point to even see the relevance of keeping this article operative regardless of the title. It seems that you Bearcat are the one to go in and make sense of all this mess; and once it is sorted out, what is left? one radio station: Frank FM (106.9); is that what we are to gather from all of this? Does WP even warrant an article on all the backstory of a now defunct network of sold off radio frequencies? To be Frank: in the end ... who cares? IMHO Maineartists (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Our role isn't just to keep articles about current things — if a thing was notable enough to have an article while it existed, then it remains notable permanently regardless of its current status. For example, the Dumont Television Network is long defunct — but people can and still do need to access information about what it was, so it's important that we keep an article about it anyway. I am currently in the process of restoring the infobox and introduction that the article should have had all along — the WBQX-specific infobox and introduction have been copied and pasted into the WBQX redirect as a hidden comment, so that they're available and accessible if there is a strong basis for a separate article about it. But the fact that the network doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean in and of itself that we shouldn't have an article about it, because people may still need and want information about what it was. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bearcat's detailed elucidation of the issue. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.