Template talk:Infobox radio station/Archive 2

Operator field
This actually worked quite well on Template:Infobox broadcast, so I think it'd be good here too.

Due to the significant proliferation of local marketing agreements and other similar arrangements that are basically the same in practice, I feel that this infobox should explicitly separate the "owner" of a television station from a company that operates it, rather than our current practice of shoving them in with the Owner field.

This would require the addition of a new field, "operator". Operator would be listed in the infobox below the current Owner field (or maybe should it be above?). If the station is being operated by a company that is different from its owner, i.e. those Mission Broadcasting stations that are actually run by Nexstar Broadcasting Group and treated as their own, the operating company (Nexstar) would be listed in this new "Operator" field alongside the FCC license holder (Mission) in the "Owner" field.

I've seen this happen in radio too at times, so I think this would be a good addition. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just some notes: applied Special:Diff/696479167/697433956 to Infobox broadcast per 's edit request in December 2015. This appears to be an equivalent request. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 22:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Temporal Sunshine  Paine   22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Would love to see an example of a radio station where owner, operator, and licensee are all populated. Otherwise, I fear we're just adding additional parameters rather than solving a possible labeling issue. JPG-GR (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is only if the station is essentially being programmed by a different entity than its legal owner, such as WRME-LP, and Midwest Television's San Diego cluster, which are in a joint operating agreement with Local Media San Diego under an entity known as SDLocal. ViperSnake151   Talk  05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up - is there a consistent way to source this, such as the FCC database? JPG-GR (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2017
On the redirect Template:Infobox Radio station, add on the third line:

This is the new text of the redirect:
 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Infobox radio station

stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 09:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: It is not a shortcut. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Share" parameters considered harmful
Well, they're not "harmful" per se, but I don't think this is encyclopedic information. Rather, I think it's material that's covered by WP:NOTNEWS. They require updates whenever a ratings "book" comes out, or else they're out of date. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Do the most recent book's ratings really have "enduring notability"? Jeh (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Good lord, now we're getting crap like this. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And this. Jeh (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A problem wit her including this information (the shares) is that they are "beauty contest" numbers; the 6+ ratings are virtually meaningless & don't mean anything in any worthwhile sense. A station can be highly rated overall, and be forced to change formats if a lot of the "wrong" people listen (usually age 55+) that advertisers refuse to gear their ads towards. So, the overall rank and share are meaningless numbers, especially the share which is probably meaningless to the average person.Stereorock (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Parameters share, share source and share as were removed because:
 * The call for removing them cited a fundamental policy. Such a policy cannot be easily ignored.
 * There was no opposition since 27 February 2017.
 * There was one support since that date.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to this decision about the ratings; I've always hated them in the infobox with a passion because they're only edited by the very few who care about radio ratings and those editors are very few and far between, in addition to some stations not purchasing the numbers because they disagree with ratings entirely. Also to be taken in mind that Nielsen went after WMF and WP:TVS (and rightly so) involving their copyrighted DMA positions years back; now that Nielsen bought Arbitron, that was a ticking time bomb to when they would OTRS those. This was the best decision to be made here, and I'm glad to see them being pulled.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment! I've been bracing myself (figuratively) for an onslaught of complaints from the ratings updaters. Jeh (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, I oppose the ratings parameters because they would have to be updated every quarter, which is too frequent, to stay accurate. I concur with Stereorock that the publicly available numbers (the "6+") are meaningless. SirChan (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Character formatting for "slogan" and "branding"
There is no guideline specifically for character coding of the "slogan" and "branding" arguments. Many editors use italics, many use bolding, some use bold italics, some use quotes, some use various combinations of them, and some use nothing. As a result you will be able to find numerous examples of just about any style you care to defend. My read of MOS is that they are quotations and nothing else, so per MOS:QUOTE they get quote marks. And nothing else, because nothing in MOS:BOLD or MOS:ITALIC supports their use for slogans or brands. See e.g. MOS:NOITALQUOTE. Unless it's in a foreign language, in which case italics and quotes are called for.

This would be consistent with the recommendation at Wikiproject Radio Stations: Introduction, which shows using e.g.


 * KLMN (102.3 FM, "The Illuminator") is a radio station ...

... putting the call letter in bold (as it's the article title) and the branding in quotes, no other embellishment.

Radio station articles in particular are overfilled with boldface as it is, as many stations change call letters often and it seems to be deemed necessary to boldface them all.

In any case, I would like "put them in quotes per MOS:QUOTE, unless they are non-English words, in which case add italics within the quotes" stated explicitly in the template documentation. Thank you for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If in the above example, branding is "The Illuminator", that should be in bold probably in the main text; in the infobox, it should probably be undecorated. Slogans are clearly quotations, however. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Branding is a quotation too (it's something often said on the air). I see no reason why either is not a quote, or why either should be bolded anywhere. Stations change their branding often and it is not going to be an alias for an article title; I find no other reason in MOS:BOLD that can justify bolding it. Jeh (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they are clearly a different name, which should not be styled with quotation marks. Whether the name changes often or not is immaterial. I could be persuaded that they should not be bolded, but if it's a name (and especially if there is a redirect to the page with the title), it should definitely be bolded. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't agree. Granted that brands are often names, this is not a "name". It's part of brand identity. A name is what something is called. The station that for a long time here ID'd as "one thirty-six KGB" was never called that by anybody but a jingle singer. Today, KOGO AM is never called "Newsradio six hundred ko-go" except in the jingle package and on the sides of their vans. And so on. And I think such things should go in quotes because they are said on the air like that, just as the slogans are. Jeh (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When we say the name of a station's brand, we are saying its name. When we are saying its slogan, it is quoting a branding. But one may argue that the branding is a title of a "work" (the station's programming). What I've gone towards is italicizing the branding but not the slogan. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A "branding" is a name of considerably lesser stature than the station's call sign. (I argue that it is really nothing more than the most often-used slogan.) But whether it's "really a name" or not, we don't routinely bold names of things anyway! Unless they're article titles or redirects - and even then only in their first appearance in the article, usually in the lede. See MOS:BOLD. MOS is clearly shy about allowing BF (c.f. "only in a few special cases"). So "it's an alternate name" is not an argument for bolding the brand. Jeh (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New parameter
Please could someone add "Network" to the template under "Affiliations". This would be useful to have in the UK where stations belong to a wider network of stations. Mark999 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit requests — improvements, tracking category for TemplateData bug
Description: Insert a field "Network" at label23 and shift each described label in the infobox one down (label23 -> label24, etc.). Raymie (t • c) 03:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Would it be possible to get a category that would contain articles using this template with a blank "name" field? As I've been adding short descriptions, I've found several pages with unnoticed lost parameters from the above-referenced TemplateData issue that lurked for several years. Also, it might not be a bad idea to add the Network parameter suggested by ; it probably would see use in some countries. Raymie (t • c) 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ as you are asking a question, instead of proposing a ready to go edit, I've deactivated the edit request. You can certainly continue to discuss it below!  If you have something to try, use Template:Infobox radio station/sandbox to test it out. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you still add the Network parameter though? The other one I am asking a question; I just want to know if it might be possible to add such a check for a missing "name" field (similar to the Module:Check for unknown parameters check). Visual edits to infoboxes like this one inadvertently removed fields because of the bug, and in some cases I'm finding ones that need fixing after several years. Raymie (t • c) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, anyone can mock this up in the sandbox (you can try if you want!) and then reactivate the request, I'm guessing you might use label28. — xaosflux  Talk 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, update the Template:Infobox radio station/testcases to test the change. — xaosflux  Talk 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mark999 actually did that, adding "Network" at label23 to the sandbox in January; I just think he didn't know how to ask for a TPER. I've also edited the second test case in the testcases page to try it out. Raymie (t • c) 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, I can't do it from where I'm replying this min, but I've reactivated the ER to get it queued up! — xaosflux  Talk 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 03:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove label12 (audience share) which was readded in the last edit after having been removed in the wake of a discussion; in any event, a null edit is needed to allow TemplateData update. Raymie (t • c) 05:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 July 2019
Re-add the parameter "Operator", it was suddenly deprecated when the "Network" parameter was added in, and it affects several station articles in North America. There are several stations operating under a local marketing agreement, whether as a result of pending acquisition or other means. The documentation still has description of "Operator" parameter as a result, but can no longer be seen on many articles as a result of the sudden change in parameters. These changes will help accurately cover North American radio. Please see this template's sandbox syntax for details.

Thank you for considering. AirTSC{talk}
 * That was _definitely_ not the intent of what I had done... Let me get someone on the case right away. Raymie (t • c) 20:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on August 4, 2019
The addition of bold in the slogan field by Cyberpower678 is unnecessary and is generally frowned upon in most Infoboxes. It is also jarring to the reader as well. I respectfully request it be removed and returned to it's unbolded state. Thank you. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 16:06 on August 4, 2019 (UTC)
 * Digging into this, it appears Cyberpower678's change was to make the field italic by default (double-tick). The problem here is that many transclusions are already doing this, which results in 'this' - bold within single quotes (quadruple-tick). If some logic can't be added to prevent this, I too would recommend rolling this back. I'm gonna wait for Cyber to take a look. JPG-GR (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The bold issue should be fixed. However, each slogan in-article which uses italics will now be de-italicized (which would have been true with correct implementation regardless). --Izno (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Izno: Thank you, I appreciate your help on this. :)
 * @JPG-GR: Good to see you still around. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:41 on August 5, 2019 (UTC)

Italics redux
From my talk page:

"Could you remove the italics from the "slogan" field cause by this edit, please? Typically the slogans are put in italics, but when one wants to only certain parts of the slogan field in italics (WWDE-FM and WPTE for example, I only want the slogans in italics, not the "HD1" and "HD2"), you are stuck with all italics. Your help would be appreciated.  Thanks! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:38 on November 13, 2019 (UTC)"

I don't have an issue with doing that, but it seems to be contrary to the intent to have italics in the field. Anyway, the current edit on that regard is my correcting edit here. Are you actually asking me to remove the italics entirely? (I am not a fan of them personally--they do not seem to abide MOS:ITALICS.) They should be quoted IMO, but I believe I've made that statement somewhere already. --Izno (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, in the archives. --Izno (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is how they are typically shown on the page with quotes and italics. But not the forced italics through the template. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:05 on November 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not answer my question nor does it make obvious to me that you have consensus for your suggested change (whatever it is). --Izno (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, though it did. Autistic brain. :S  OK, currently, the way it is is forced via the italics within the slogan field within the template.  This is the only field that does this.  Typically this is how they are shown on the page (in the edit format) before the forcing by the template.  So, I would like the italics to be removed within the slogan field.  That way, pages like WWDE-FM and WPTE can have formatting like the "HD1" and "HD2" in non-italics and the slogans in italics and it all not be forced via the template.  Hopefully I explained that better.  Happy Thanksgiving... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:07 on November 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * What input wikitext do you want and what output do you want? --Izno (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, I want it back to the way it was before, pre-italics and reverting Cyberpower678's edit that added them. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:51 on December 3, 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the actual talk page edit request that instigated adding italics to the field. Did you have your own reason or was there an (archived?) section I didn't see? --Izno (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I've removed the italics. They were added to the sandbox in 2016 and I do not think CBP meant to add them here necessarily. I will resynch the sandbox to take care of that. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply, it's been a looong weekend and start to the end. Thanks for the removal of the italics.  Much appreciated! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:04 on December 11, 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 28 December 2019
Remove the tags from around  in field data25 to comply with MOS:SMALLFONT. Inspired by the discussion at Talk:WNGH-TV. Raymie (t • c) 03:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Tweaking Owner and Licensee
Been chewing this over for a while, but the recent removal of the small tags on the Licensee parameter has spurred me into action. I'd like to suggest uncoupling the Owner and Licensee parameters in this template and giving primacy to the Licensee. Specifically, I'd recommend that the Licensee would no longer be in parentheses, that the Licensee would appear before the Owner, that both the Owner and Licensee parameters would show with labels when they're completed, and that neither would show if not completed (currently, Owner shows regardless).

My rationale:
 * the licensee is the information that's usually easily publicly available and verifiable
 * the owner often requires more work to determine, and may not always be worth including (say, for example, where there are ten shareholders holding equal interests in the licensee)
 * for display purposes, editors will often just put the licensee in the owner parameter, which isn't necessarily correct

I considered suggesting just reversing the order –- making the Licensee the primary parameter and putting the Owner in parentheses –- but that would create a lot of weird-looking infoboxes due to that third point above.

I don't feel this is too wild a suggestion, but this is a heavily-used template, so please – have at it. Mlaffs (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Revert: While, it is a good idea, I would go back to the way we had it with the small tags on the Licensee parameter. I think having the Licensee before the Owner would be a bad thing.  Currently, there are a couple instances (in sales in progress or sales just finished) where the owner is technically one party, let's say Educational Media Foundation, and the licensee is another party, let's say "Capstar TX LLC", for the sake of this example.  So, having the licensee first, Capstar, which is always associated with iHeartRadio, the reader might think the owner is, in fact, iHeart.  I think switching things around now, when readers understand things, might be a detriment rather than an improvement.

tl;dr? Oppose Mlaffs proposal (while a good idea) and Revert back to the small tags in the Licensee parameter. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:39 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * Small tags are inaccessible and should not be added. Period. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with regular-sized text in the licensee field as well. That's just the way we had it, so I figured let's go back. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:34 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 29 January 2020
Please change two parameters:
 * callsign_meaning  =
 * former_callsigns  =

In each, "call sign" should be separate words per Call sign. NedFausa (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request 23 March 2020
The templatedata description for webcast currently says. I believe there is a typo and the  should be changed to   since   does not make sense in this context.

The result should be SuperUserCode (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Template-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. Template documentation is almost never protected. If you seem to be unable to edit it, please reopen the request with further details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal. Raymie (t • c) 17:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Country: should it be in infobox?
The infobox on an article like DZNS doesn't indicate what country the station is in, unless the reader recognises Vigan as being in the Philippines.

There seems to be no field for "country", although it's listed in the lower part of the documentation page. I tried adding "country=Philippines" but it didn't display, so I removed it.

I suggest that this would be a very useful addition to this infobox. I think I've come across this problem before while stubsorting radio station stubs: unless you know the city name there is sometimes no indication of geog context (in this case the country wasn't named in the lead either until I added it just now). Pam D  09:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

HD and digital subchannels for U.S. radio
I'm looking for some consensus on the usage of the subchannels parameter when it comes to HD radio for U.S. stations. I've been following the examples done by Natahn Obral. In his examples, the format parameter has the format of the analog signal. If there multiple HD subchannels, they are all listed in the subchannels parameter (HD1, HD2, etc.). HD1 is a simulcast of the analog signal, so that is labeled as "HD1: WXXX analog." This makes logical sense, as HD1 is a simulcast of the analog signal.

In the previous version of this template, there was only the format parameter, so there was much inconsistency over how HD subchannels are presented, and there was much usage of "FM/HD1: Format name, HD2: Subchannel info" in either the format parameter, or elsewhere. With the subchannels parameter, this information can be presented much clearer, as shown in the previously mentioned examples. I think the old FM/HD1 label in the format (which is still in use with infoboxes that use the old format) only serves to confuse average radio users, in thinking that whatever radio they have will automatically give them a station in HD, which is not true. There are still many analog radios in use in 2020, and putting the HD channels in subchannels reinforces the fact a radio capable of decoding HD signals can be used to listen to them. A station's legal ID may be "WXXX, WXXX-HD1" but they do that to identify two signals, one analog and one digital. --DrChuck68 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the legal ID for a station is "WXXX-FM and HD1" OR "WXXX-FM WXXX-HD1". In DC, WWDC ID's as "WWDC-FM and HD1", which their sister station is "WIHT, WIHT-HD1". -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 14:46 on September 28, 2020 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
 * Yes, you are correct. I made a typo above (which I have now corrected). On Long Island, the WPTY legal ID is "WPTY, WPTY-HD1" to identify the analog and digital signals. --DrChuck68 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you clarify what it is you'd like to see? In my mind, when the HD1 is a simulcast of the analog main channel then it need not be listed, but HD Radio channels where there is different programming should be listed as HD2: [Program Name]. For example, WAMU has "HD2: Bluegrass Country" but not "HD1: WAMU simulcast". However, they should defiantly be listed under subcarriers, not format. Carter (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But by not listing HD1 in the subchannels, aren't you leaving the reader wondering "Well, what about HD1?" By adding "HD1: WAMU simulcast" or "HD1: WAMU analog" (or even "HD1: Analog simulcast") to the subchannels, you're clearly stating that digital WAMU-HD1 is simulcasting the WAMU analog signal. For stations that only broadcast on HD1, such as WBLI, adding HD1 to the subchannels is redundant, as there's no HD2 or HD3 to differentiate the programming on HD1. I'd only be including HD1 if the station has two or more HD channels. --DrChuck68 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I might be too close to the topic to see this as a problem, but it seems obvious to me that if the frequency field shows an analog channel and the template, then the HD1 is the a digital simulcast of the analog main channel. Assuming that and only listing HD2/HD3/etc. in the subchannels would be more consistent than only listing the HD1 as a subchannel when there is an HD2. Carter (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After some additional thought, I agree with your point that does indicate that the station is on HD1. HD2, HD3, and so on would be listed in the subchannels. --DrChuck68 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if the consensus is that HD1 should be listed, I'd suggest labeling it as "HD1: WAMU simulcast" (or whatever the call letters are) and avoid using the word "analog" for a digital channel. That would also work for when an HD channel is being used as repeater for another station, for example when WAMU carried WTMD on its HD3. Carter (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After some additional thought, I've reconsidered my stance on using "HD1" in the listing :) --DrChuck68 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm in agreement with Carter, FM/HD1 should be sufficiant in the format field, HD2: etc. listed under subchannels. -- BlueboyLINY (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think FM/HD1 (or AM/HD1) should be shown in the frequency field (using the and  templates), not the format field. In subchannels, I'd suggest using the subchannel number followed by the program/station name and the format parenthetically, for example, |subchannels = HD2: Pride Radio (Top 40/Dance) or |subchannels = HD2: Bluegrass Country (Bluegrass/Americana) . If the subchannel is notable and has its own entry, as with Pride Radio and WIHT, then that should be linked; if not, then hopefully it's detailed on the page, as with the Bluegrass County section of WAMU. Carter (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this for a while, I beleive I've figured out what makes sense to me:
 * frequency has the frequency and to indicate that the station broadcasts digitally. This essentially declares that the station broadcasts in AM/HD1, or FM/HD1, and there's no need to repeat that elsewhere.
 * format has the main format, without any digital specification. For this parameter, I'm kind of thinking of future WP:Wikidata use, as the format name might get pulled from there at some point in the indeterminate future. The additional FM/HD1 label is superfluous, and technically is not part of the format name.
 * subchannels has any subchannels, from HD2 on up. HD1 does not need to be mentioned again, as the frequency has already declared the station is HD/digital. The WAMU infobox, as it is now, is the format that I'm suggesting. --DrChuck68 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and included this guidance in the infobox template description. Carter (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --DrChuck68 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Affiliations" parameter
There is confusion at CHUM (AM) over what information should be placed into the "affiliations" parameter. Other articles which use this infobox use the affiliations parameter to list other media outlets they are affiliated with. At CHUM (AM), an editor, User:Box76, has added the names of particular sports teams whose games are broadcast on the station.

The template lists the following under "programming": language, format, subchannels, network, and affiliations.

Previous discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations which mention affiliations seem to suggest it refers to affiliated media outlets. See:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2008
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2008
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2016
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2007
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2009

The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Network affiliate should be the guide here. The affiliates parameter should show affiliated stations or networks, not sports teams. So, for WEEI-FM (to use a station I'm familiar with), listing Boston Red Sox Radio Network as an affiliate would be appropriate, but listing Boston Red Sox would not. It's about the broadcast partner, not the sports team itself. Carter (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is correct. An affiliation can involve a format franchise (such as in Mexico where MVS Radio has franchise agreements with dozens of independently owned stations for its formats), a news network (CBS News Radio), or a significant sports radio network. If there are too many, then maybe it's not worth listing for that article in the infobox, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If the network owns the station, use the network parameter, as at KMES. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some teams don't have their own "radio network" page. Canadian teams, for some reason are like this, and a couple small MLB and newer NFL teams.  Almost all NHL teams.  Anyway, we just link to the team itself, because there isn't a "SPORTS TEAM Radio Network" page to link to.  That goes back...waaay back...to the early days of WPRS.  I've been here 16 years, so I know. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:01 on January 22, 2021 (UTC)

Branding parameter
I'm not really sure what it means. Could someone please fill its description on the template parameters table? Right now it says "Branding: branding". Thanks! <span id="AdrianHObradors:1659605475724:Template_talkFTTCLNInfobox_radio_station" class="FTTCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand and use it, it's the way the station identifies itself on air. The situation is different in different parts of the world, but in the United States and Canada the primary name of the station is its callsign so WXRV will use its call letters for the top-of-the-hour ID, but the rest of the time on-air, on social, in print, etc., it generally refers to itself as "92.5 The River." Similarly, CIGM-FM refers to itself as "Hot 93.5." That would be the branding parameter. There can be overlap in this, for example, WAMU uses "WAMU 88.5" as its branding. This is different from the deleted slogan parameter, which would be longer and more descriptive: "Washington's NPR Station" in the case of WAMU, "Boston's Independent Radio" in the case of WXRV, and "Sudbury's #1 Hit Music Station" for CIGM-FM. In places like Australia, where call signs aren't always used, the station's name/article title may what elsewhere would be the branding, i.e., 3PFM vs. Phoenix FM, or the branding may be variation of the name, i.e., 2WFM vs. KIIS 106.5 vs. KIIS 1065 ("Sydney's #1 Hit Music Station"). In much of Europe, there's no real distinction between the station's name and it's branding Los 40,Onda Cero, Nostalgie, Radio ffn, etc. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tcr25. I was using the template for a Spanish station (Radio 3), so I guess I'll leave that field empty. I have another question though. I've used the "Operator" field to put the station director. Seems like a good place to indicate it, but don't know if it is wrong. Thanks again! <span id="AdrianHObradors:1659616449821:Template_talkFTTCLNInfobox_radio_station" class="FTTCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, for Spanish stations the branding will most often stay empty. operator is more for cases where a station owner hires another company to run the station. To use another North American example, WLYK is owned by Border International Broadcasting, Inc., but is operated by Rogers Sports & Media through a local marketing agreement. So owner Border International Broadcasting and operator Rogers Sports & Media. The template doesn't really have a space for naming station staff members. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should remain empty in common name-titled pages where the name field should have it. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about use of "former_callsigns" in cases where a previously used call sign is the same as the current one
I have a usage question about the "former_callsigns" parameter, specifically in cases where a formerly used call sign, after a period when another call sign is used, returns, and is again the current call sign.

My assumption is that any breaks in continuity should be documented, but I've seen cases where the term "former" is taken literally, so any previous use of the same call sign is deleted.

For example, WNEW-FM, which dates back to 1958, after using a different call sign, has returned to its original call sign. The former_callsigns parameter used to have two entries:

WNEW-FM (1958-2007)

WWFS (2007–2016)

However, the "WNEW-FM (1958-2007)" entry was removed, on the grounds that "WNEW-FM" can't (literally) be considered "former" if it is the same as the current call. So now the only listing is for "WWFS (2007–2016)", which leaves no information about the station's call sign usage from 1958 to 2007.

I find this to be confusing and a needlessly narrow interpretation of the meaning of "former". Thus, I believe it is better to include earlier usage of an identical call sign in the cases where there was also an intervening use of another call sign, even if the older call is the same as the current one.

In any event, I would be interested in other person's interpretation of "former" in matters like this. Given my understanding of the value in documenting "interrupted usage", I would suggest adding a parameter description along the lines of: "Includes entries for call signs that are identical to the one currently in use, but were then followed by an intervening break when a different call sign was used". Thomas H. White (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. The parameter is intended to show the history where the license has had call sign changes. The gap in history in this instance is illogical, but imagine if there'd been another call sign prior to the original use of WNEW-FM. Just because something is "former" doesn't mean it can't also be "current". Mlaffs (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed - former callsign should include a complete, uninterrupted history. To paraphrase Mitch Hedberg - “The station's callsign used to be WNEW-FM. It still is, but it used to be, too.” JPG-GR (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If the same callsign were used since the station was first licensed, it wouldn't be former, but since there was a change and then a reversion, the original callsign is still "former." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It is redundant to mention the same call letters separately when they have been used multiple times. Personally, I don't believe in that kind of repetition, as it assumes that the reader isn't intelligent enough. When a station reassumes a previous callsign, that "former" callsign is former no longer. So, in the case of, for example, the new WVBN (FM) in the NYC suburbs, the two uses of its original callsign WFAS-FM should be consolidated into one line in the infobox and not two. And for a station like WNEW-FM or WPLJ, both of which dropped those calls only to reclaim them a few years later, there is no point in putting them in the "former callsigns" heading at all. The reader should be allowed to figure things out on their own. MasterControlMaster13 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of an infobox is for the reader to be able to identify key facts at a glance; they shouldn't need to have to figure things out. There's a simple solution to this, by the way – we could change the name of the field from "former callsigns" to "previous callsigns". Mlaffs (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)