Wikipedia

Talk:WTAM

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Vjmlhds in topic New studios
Learn more about this page

Fair use rationale for Image:WKYC 1965.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:WKYC 1965.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:WKYClogo 1968.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:WKYClogo 1968.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:WWWE 1972.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:WWWE 1972.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:WWWE 1985.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:WWWE 1985.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

WWWE years

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pete Franklin definitely bragged aloud that 3WE's nighttime signal was heard "over 38 states and half of Canada." I always mocked it by saying that he should've boasted "over 48 states and 3/4 of Canada."68.253.209.159 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

April 1, 2009 edits

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WTAM is again (mostly) IDing itself on air and on its website as 3WE, but note the date.... Mapsax (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Edited: Blog entry Mapsax (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that http://www.ohiomediawatch.wordpress.com/ (formerly http://www.ohiomedia.blogspot.com/) – otherwise known as "Ohio Media Watch" ("OMW") – is an anonymous blog with no apparent editorial oversight and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Relevant discussions include Talk:WMMS#Reliable_sources, User_talk:Levdr1lp#Ohio_Media_Watch, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135#Ohio_Media_Watch. Levdr1lp / talk 09:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Analog format

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Only 2,000 of the 13,000 analog AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have converted to HD; of those that have converted, all still broadcast via analog as mandated by the FCC. Moreoever, the first HD channel of every HD Radio station is a simulcast of the analog signal -- again, as mandated by the FCC.[1]
  • 239 million analog radio listeners in the U.S. vs. only 3 million HD Radio units. By far, analog is still the preferred choice among radio consumers.[2]
  • Clearly, the infobox should reflect that analog technology is still the dominant form of transmission. It's also no secret that the radio industry has been heavily promoting HD Radio; by including only the HD Radio formats, one begins to question the credibility of this article's content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavor, not a brochure for iBiquity. Levdr1 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WTAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WTAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on WTAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding this edit, I agree that WTAM is *promoting* both the new simulcast logo and its older logo (incidentally, probably worth remembering that's the station's job, not Wikipedia's per WP:NOTPROMO). However, while each logo is used on two WTAM social media pages, only the older logo is currently used on the WTAM website main header, the iHeartMedia website (specifically, the WTAM entry in the station directory), and the WTAM iHeartRadio channel. The new simulcast logo may become the station's primary logo, but I don't see enough reason to replace the older logo in the infobox at this time. The simulcast logo is already present in the translator subsection, and this would seem the most appropriate location for now.

Levdr1lp / talk 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The only fair thing to do is list both logos equally, as it's becoming clear that the newer one is becoming more prevalent, and that the older one - while still used - is getting de-emphasized (if not phased out). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Vjmlhds- Not sure what fairness has to do with this. Radio station infoboxes typically include a single logo to identify the article subject; a second logo is unecessary and would needlessly clutter the infobox. There is also a dedicated subsection to the new FM translator, and given that the majority of online sources (both official and social media) still use the older logo, I don't see why either logo should move *yet*. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote the station, and there is no definitive source verifying that the primary logo has changed. Levdr1lp / talk 02:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Levdr1lp Instead of just us two old warhorses going round and round, let's have a third set of eyes take a look, and whatever happens, happens. The 2015 me would be digging in for battle right about now...the 2018 me - not so much. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Vjmlhds- I welcome a third opinion (or fourth, or fifth, etc.). That said, I don't think your reasons amount to any more than original research. WTAM is promoting Geraldo Rivera's new show with the new simulcast logo in a TV commercial? Ok. Inferring that the station has replaced its primary logo because of that commercial, and therefore concluding that the older logo is no longer the best means of identifying the subject of this article? That's just your own unverified assertion. Levdr1lp / talk 03:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's been 5 days - it's apparent we're at a standstill here.
Also, using simulcast logos is become a trend for iHeart stations in similar positions to WTAM...see WSPD 1370 in Toledo for an example close to home. It's clear WTAM wants to promote the simulcast logo on their biggest platforms (website, twitter, facebook, TV ads for Geraldo) to let people know about 106.9. To argue that the old logo still being used in lower profile places (iHeart directory, iHeart stream - where the new logo also appears on a smaller scale) is grasping at straws at this point. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Let's update the list just so we're all straight:
  • New logo: website, Twitter, Facebook, TV ads for Geraldo - 1st 3 frequently updated, all with the logo front and center
  • Old logo: directory, streaming page, You Tube (which rarely gets updated..last one being in October when they showed a police chase), Instagram (rarely updated...last one being in August when Aretha Franklin died)
So the old logo is in places which don't get too much attention, while the new logo is in places that are heavily frequented, updated, and promoted.
And it's not like TV/radio stations make big proclamations about logo changes...they just do it.
Vjmlhds (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Vjmlhds- 1) There is no rush. 2) The Toledo station is irrelevant. 3) Please link to the Geraldo commercial if you're going to use it as a basis for your argument. 4) I think it's safe to assume the iHeartRadio stream -- which still uses the older logo -- gets plenty of traffic. 5) If the iHeartRadio stream switches to the newer simulcast logo, most available online sources will have started using the simulcast logo; and moreover, both the station website and its online stream -- arguably the two most important online sources -- will have started using the simulcast logo. In that case, I would support using the simulcast logo in the infobox. Unless/until then, I don't. Levdr1lp / talk 06:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Levdr1lp If/when the online stream switches to the new logo, and I happen to put the new logo back in the infobox before you do, I don't want to hear any complaints from the peanut gallery. If those are the terms you want to live by (website + stream), then I'm down with that, all I ask is once that happens, you don't come out of left field with some other reason not to put the new logo in the infobox. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)~Reply
Vjmlhds- Last month (April 2020) the old logo was still in use on the iHeartRadio webstream. Today I noticed new logo is now in use on the webstream. Per this discussion, I was prepared to change the logo used in the infobox, but was unable to because you already had late last year (December 2019). I'm obligated to AGF, and I will continue to do so, but your decision to ignore this discussion and act on your own -- presumably because I have been away for a while -- does not help. Levdr1lp / talk 08:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Evening host's expected exit

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Regarding the expected exit of evening host Nick Camino for WKYC (per Cleveland.com story), please share your thoughts on this at the relevant discussion from my talk page: User talk:Levdr1lp#Nick Camino. Levdr1lp / talk 02:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

To clarify- how should we treat this in the programming section? The Cleveland.com source is vague on when Camino stops hosting the WTAM evening shift (if he hasn't already), what happens to Sports Feed 2.0, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have deferred to Vjmlhds and consider this content issue resolved (at least as far as the two of us are concerned). Levdr1lp / talk 22:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

New studios

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nathan Obral Hey Nate, I'd like to ask you something because you'd probably know better than I do.

Have the iHeart Cleveland stations moved into their new downtown studios yet?

Once they do, then this article (and the other applicable ones) need to be updated accordingly, but have the U-Haul trucks officially been dispatched to Independence for the move north?

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:WTAM&oldid=1210171411"