373:, to find the 5 to 20 percent or so that I can actually hear from any given location in the state, is rather inefficient, especially on slower computers which may take a while to sort that table. Then having to know the name of every city in the region which has a radio station to find them all. I may not be the only one who thinks these large statewide lists are unwieldly, because so far very few have bothered to update the Owner and Format fields in
613:
editors (some of whom may be radio industry experts but not
Knowledge (XXG) experts), and are dependent on the watchful eye of a tiny number of dedicated editors, who could leave the project at any time or go on extended wikibreaks, without whom many of the present state lists would eventually become even more out-of-date and inaccurate than their predecessors.
612:
These lists have existed on
Knowledge (XXG) for much longer than the 5 months that the statewide radio station lists have existed in their present behemoth format, and I suspect have been updated by far more people. I also believe that the larger state lists are intimidating to newbies and occasional
56:
reasons. However, there is no consensus to keep this as a stand-alone list and plenty of arguments advanced for deletion or merger. With respect to incorporating this material into any future articles on Media in
Monterey Bay, such material can of course be obtained from the article's history as long
283:
database dump which does not have Owner and Format information updated, and omits
Branding entirely (many stations are known more by their branding than by their callsign, yet this important information is omitted from the statewide lists). The statewide list contains 800+ radio stations and is 62KB
386:
to replace most of these with sortable wikitables, because the lists sorted by city, owner, format, and frequency could all be sorted in one sortable table. But there was no consenus on what to do about market areas, and you solely made the decision to keep them out of the new tables. I asked that
368:
While stations may serve or have listeners in more than one market, every station serving a market has a primary market to which it can be assigned, and is assigned, according to the sources (RadioStationWorld and Inside Radio) that I cited. And that some stations might not belong to any market is
381:
for that matter, both large unwieldly lists. The "horrendous inconsistencies and disarry that existed" before, were SIX statewide lists for each state, which were in widely differing formats, and largely became unecessary because of the new sortable wikitable feature. There was consensus in the
752:
article, which would comprise the duplicated television station and print media information from the current city articles along with the radio stations? Then the cities' articles could all simply link to a single article on the area's media. See the various media articles referenced above for
302:
as is usual practice for a contested PROD, but userfied the content instead. Other similar lists (including statewide lists which were organized by market area), which had existed in the past for years, were also redirected a few months back, also by the nominator, and replaced by wikified FCC
395:, but I can't help but wonder if I am being "punished" for having other priorities and not working on them in these last few months, or if I would have wasted my time had I actually worked hard on them and completed them, only to still have them nominated for deletion? Furthermore, as
349:
Stations can be part of more than one market or none at all, making this an inefficient way to sort stations. The shift in the state radio lists from the horrendous inconsistencies and disarray that existed only occurred after discussion at
298:-ded many other lists I was working on, and I had not objected in time. (I am often away from editing Knowledge (XXG) for extended periods of time due to other priorities in my life.) When I requested undeletion, the deleting administrator
140:
already covers this particular area and is both current and of the currently accepted form (United States radio lists are on the state level). This is one of only two lists covering United States radio stations in this manner.
399:
says, templates are not redundant to lists and can should be used complement each other. The templates are a basic navigational aid, while the lists give a more comprehensive overview of each region's radio stations. Even
96:
91:
100:
506:
These
California lists were created in May and June 2007, not "early this year", and other lists outside of California have existed even longer, until they were redirected by JPG-GR in October 2007, such as:
83:
447:
There were about a dozen more of these
California radio-stations-by-market lists a week ago; the bulk got prodded. We normally use templates to group stations by market rather than individual lists, so
288:, which is generally the set of stations to which such a typical reader or editor will be able to tune and listen. The only reason so few of these market lists remain is that the nominator recently
660:
action of replacing all 50 statewide lists is what determined the current format, not discussion. But since I'm not arguing to delete anything, I don't see how my argument has anything to do with
404:
says that duplicate articles should be merged and redirected, not deleted outright. But if market lists are redundant to statewide lists, does that also mean that the state lists redundant to the
369:
certainly no reason to delete lists of stations which do serve a market. And sorting by market is only "inefficient" in your opinion. I happen to think having to sort and search through a
653:
649:
87:
790:
129:
284:
long, and such a long sortable table causes performance issues in some browsers, as well as being unhelpful for the reader and/or editor seeking information about stations
354:. Moreover, as each Arbitron market already has its own template, a template which each included article contains (or will eventually), these lists are wholly redundant.
303:
database dumps. The FCC does not track radio market areas, but many other reliable sources do. Market-area lists such as this one conform to our content policies of
79:
71:
178:
408:? All the information in the 50 state lists should also be in the 12 or so national lists, so they're "wholly redundant": should one of these sets be deleted?
267:). Radio markets are the industry standard for geographical categorization of radio stations. This list can be updated from at least two reliable sources:
805:
780:
762:
724:
695:
681:
668:
up-to-date than the state lists, unless you are personally planning to keep all 50 state lists always up-to-date yourself. And none of the state lists
644:
622:
501:
483:
461:
442:
417:
363:
344:
239:
214:
193:
168:
150:
65:
595:
631:. Millions of editors working on a list that's constantly in flux doesn't mean that a newer, fully up-to-date version shouldn't exist. Sounds like
335:, the market lists should be considered to complement the statewide lists and market templates, and each should be used to update the others.
768:
430:
374:
370:
276:
223:
137:
49:
580:
488:
We don't need separate radio lists for each individual market, and until these
California ones were created early this year we didn't
17:
744:
all contain the same duplicated information about TV stations and print media. Would it be acceptable to refactor this list into a
686:
There are a lot more people working on the state radio lists than just I. The same can't be said for the
California market lists.
378:
327:, so there is no policy-based reason to delete these lists. Redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion, and similar to how
268:
715:. The state list is just fine. There is already a market area nav box so we don't need a list, category and nav box.
600:
585:
821:
36:
745:
388:
470:
PRODs represent a precedent for deleting the remaining ones, just because I contested them a day late? Please see
279:
does not incoprorate all of the information from this list, instead, the statewide list is now simply a wikified
749:
820:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
664:. Nor am I arguing against fully up-to-date lists. I'm suggesting that market area lists are more likely to be
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
661:
632:
492:
separate radio lists for any other individual radio market. California doesn't get to have unique treatment.
741:
628:
383:
776:
720:
605:
733:
672:
up-to-date re: owners and format, and they omit important information like branding and market area.
164:
429:
Owner and format information from this list has now been used to fill in appropriate blank cells in
772:
737:
62:
590:
391:. Now, less than 5 months later, you've proposed and nominated them for deletion! I know I am to
299:
235:
210:
801:
758:
677:
618:
497:
479:
457:
413:
405:
340:
189:
136:
Article is a list of radio stations in a particular arbitrarily-defined radio station market.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
657:
351:
324:
316:
716:
691:
640:
438:
359:
146:
471:
396:
392:
389:
appeared to concede to leave the
California market lists alone so that I could work on them
328:
312:
160:
401:
308:
656:. Consensus to eliminate market area information from all radio station lists, no. Your
320:
304:
264:
256:
292:
231:
206:
48:. Information from this article was evidently used already to fill in information at
797:
754:
673:
614:
493:
475:
453:
409:
336:
272:
260:
248:
185:
117:
687:
636:
577:
And several "Media of ..." lists still contain market area radio station lists:
434:
355:
227:
142:
58:
652:, yes. Consensus for sortable tables, yes. Consensus for the exact format,
474:
for why the existence of templates does not justify the deletion of lists.
252:
332:
524:
As well as several statewide lists sorted by market area, such as:
814:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
275:(type Monterey into the City/Market to get an equivalent list).
53:
331:
are encouraged to co-exist and be used to update each other in
280:
159:
per nomination, already exists in the
California list.
569:
563:
557:
551:
546:
List of radio stations in North Carolina by market area
545:
539:
533:
527:
516:
510:
124:
113:
109:
105:
564:
List of radio stations in West Virginia by market area
269:
RadioStationWorld page for Salinas/Monterey/Santa Cruz
558:
List of radio stations in South Dakota by market area
259:
and see how Monterey-Salinas-Santa Cruz, CA (AKA the
52:, so this is no longer a candidate for deletion for
570:List of radio stations in Wisconsin by market area
540:List of radio stations in New York by market area
534:List of radio stations in Missouri by market area
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
824:). No further edits should be made to this page.
528:List of radio stations in Arizona by market area
791:list of California-related deletion discussions
387:the separate market area lists remain, and you
80:List of radio stations in the Monterey Bay area
72:List of radio stations in the Monterey Bay area
552:List of radio stations in Ohio by market area
329:categories, lists, and navigational templates
8:
732:: The "Media" sections in the articles on
179:list of Radio-related deletion discussions
596:List of media outlets in Quincy, Illinois
511:List of radio stations in Chicago by name
789:: This debate has been included in the
247:. Far from being "arbitrarily-defined",
177:: This debate has been included in the
466:You're not suggesting that a number of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
769:List of radio stations in California
431:List of radio stations in California
375:List of radio stations in California
277:List of radio stations in California
224:List of radio stations in California
138:List of radio stations in California
57:as the merger is properly noted per
50:List of radio stations in California
517:List of radio stations in Las Vegas
581:List of media in Cumberland, MD-WV
251:such as these are well-defined by
24:
627:The new format was discussed at
379:List of radio stations in Texas
746:Media of the Monterey Bay area
1:
203:per precedent and nomination.
601:List of Salt Lake City media
586:Media of Fort Wayne, Indiana
300:did not restore the articles
286:within their own market area
371:list of 800+ radio stations
273:Inside Radio station search
841:
806:05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
781:13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
763:05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
750:List of Monterey Bay media
66:16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
725:22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
696:17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
682:08:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
645:06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
623:00:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
502:07:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
484:03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
462:01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
443:19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
418:09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
406:nationwide callsign lists
364:07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
345:18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
240:04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
215:14:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
194:04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
169:02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
151:00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
817:Please do not modify it.
572:, created September 2005
32:Please do not modify it.
530:, created December 2006
519:, created November 2006
513:, created December 2004
560:, created October 2004
548:, created October 2005
542:, created October 2003
536:, created October 2006
606:Media of Toledo, Ohio
321:notability guidelines
317:neutral point of view
255:(see list of markets
313:no original research
263:) is the #81 market
554:, created June 2006
591:Media of Nashville
566:, created May 2006
808:
794:
393:assume good faith
319:, and conform to
196:
182:
832:
819:
795:
785:
309:reliable sources
297:
291:
183:
173:
127:
121:
103:
44:The result was
34:
840:
839:
835:
834:
833:
831:
830:
829:
828:
822:deletion review
815:
402:deletion policy
382:discussions at
325:list guidelines
295:
289:
123:
94:
78:
75:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
838:
836:
827:
826:
810:
809:
783:
771:per JPG-GR. --
765:
727:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
662:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
633:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
610:
609:
608:
603:
598:
593:
588:
583:
575:
574:
573:
567:
561:
555:
549:
543:
537:
531:
522:
521:
520:
514:
445:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
242:
217:
197:
171:
134:
133:
74:
69:
63:Moonriddengirl
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
837:
825:
823:
818:
812:
811:
807:
803:
799:
792:
788:
784:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
764:
760:
756:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
611:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
589:
587:
584:
582:
579:
578:
576:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
525:
523:
518:
515:
512:
509:
508:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
398:
394:
390:
385:
380:
376:
372:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:verifiability
301:
294:
287:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
249:media markets
246:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
216:
212:
208:
204:
202:
198:
195:
191:
187:
180:
176:
172:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
139:
131:
126:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
60:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
816:
813:
786:
729:
712:
669:
665:
489:
467:
449:
426:
285:
261:Monterey Bay
244:
219:
200:
199:
174:
156:
135:
45:
43:
31:
28:
753:precedent.
717:Vegaswikian
635:, frankly.
742:Santa Cruz
59:Help:Merge
767:Merge to
650:Discussed
468:contested
307:based on
186:• Gene93k
773:Rtphokie
734:Monterey
253:Arbitron
232:Dravecky
207:Dravecky
130:View log
798:DHowell
755:DHowell
738:Salinas
730:Comment
674:DHowell
629:WT:WPRS
615:DHowell
494:Bearcat
476:DHowell
454:Bearcat
427:Comment
410:DHowell
384:WT:WPRS
352:WP:WPRS
337:DHowell
333:synergy
271:and an
157:Delete.
97:protect
92:history
713:Delete
688:JPG-GR
637:JPG-GR
472:WP:CLS
450:delete
435:JPG-GR
397:WP:CLS
356:JPG-GR
315:, and
228:JPG-GR
201:Delete
143:JPG-GR
125:delete
101:delete
377:, or
220:Merge
161:Renee
128:) – (
118:views
110:watch
106:links
46:merge
16:<
802:talk
787:Note
777:talk
759:talk
740:and
721:talk
692:talk
678:talk
666:kept
658:BOLD
641:talk
619:talk
498:talk
490:have
480:talk
458:talk
439:talk
414:talk
360:talk
341:talk
323:and
293:prod
265:here
257:here
245:Keep
236:talk
230:. -
226:per
211:talk
190:talk
175:Note
165:talk
147:talk
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
54:GFDL
793:.
748:or
670:are
281:FCC
222:to
181:.
61:.--
804:)
779:)
761:)
736:,
723:)
694:)
680:)
654:no
643:)
621:)
500:)
482:)
460:)
452:.
441:)
433:.
416:)
362:)
343:)
311:,
296:}}
290:{{
238:)
213:)
205:-
192:)
167:)
149:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
800:(
796:—
775:(
757:(
719:(
690:(
676:(
639:(
617:(
496:(
478:(
456:(
437:(
412:(
358:(
339:(
234:(
209:(
188:(
184:—
163:(
145:(
132:)
122:(
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.