Talk:WLW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Columbus AM market Template?[edit]

Should I put the Columbus AM market template on here? WLW was in last place in Columbus' Fall 2005 ratings. http://ratings.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/$rolfree.exe/arb045 Guy-Smiley 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well. WJR is on the List of Toledo, Ohio media outlets for similar reasons. -- SwissCelt 19:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC[edit]

I just added info about the show. I'd like to expand it into it's own article. If anyone can help with that, that would be great. Also, if anyone thinks that the way it is now is not all that good looking then let's talk and figure out a better way to incorporate this information, either into this article or, as I said before, into its own. Thanks. --luckymustard 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sloan[edit]

Seems like we ought to have something on here for him, but I don't know how to work with tables; when I just now tried to do it, all that happened was Tracy Jones getting moved into another column. Nyttend 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party Infomercial[edit]

I've been listening to this station for awhile now, but I can never seem to catch it at a time when there's not an infomercial for the Republican Party on. Is the line-up on this page still correct? -- Onlyinrussia (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last clear channel station to carry baseball games[edit]

I don't think this is true. KNBR 680, in San Francisco, carries Giants games. It is also one of the original clear channel stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreline (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last 500kw transmission date[edit]

The article states that transmissions were made to US troops in Europe during WW2 at 500 kW, but that the transmitter has not been used at that power level since 1943. This claim has been tagged as "citation needed" since 6 Feb 2011. No explanation is given of what message or program was sent out on what occasion. US news reports were available in the UK via shortwave relay and rebroadcast on local AM, and by direct reception of shortwave broadcast from the US. Why would the US have wanted to make occasional direct broadcasts via AM? After 30 months of the claim being tagged, I will remove it, since it has not been verified. If someone finds a reliable source for a 1943 AM 500kw broadcast to "US troops in Europe" it can certainly be restored, but please do not just point out someone who repeated the claim after reading it in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLW HD[edit]

I have removed the sentence about WLW broadcasting over a single HD channel because this implies that there can be multiple HD sidechannels, something possible with F.M. HD, but not A.M.. A.M. HD radio can only broadcast 1 HD stream. I have replaced it with one that says it broadcasts using HD because the other sentence could lead a reader to believe that A.M. HD is capable of multiple streams (for example, in Providence, WHJJ still to this day identifies its now-defunct HD signal as WHJJ-HD1 instead of WHJJ-HD. In the past I have come across articles and posts on e-mail lists, message boards, etc. talking about multiple A.M. HD sidechannels. There can be only 1, so to say it broadcasts a single HD channel is redundant.Stereorock (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stereorock: First of all, I am more than willing to discuss this issue, provided that you do not remove my comments as you did at the WMMS talk page.[1] As for the wording of the lead, there is nothing implied in specifying that this AM station -- like all AM stations which broadcast in HD Radio -- only broadcasts over a *single* HD channel. There is nothing inaccurate about that statement, and the wikilink to the HD Radio article can provide details on the various aspects of that broadcast technology, including the single-channel-limit for AM stations. If anything, Stereorock's new wording leaves the station's broadcast open to interpretation. I seriously doubt most readers know that AM stations can only broadcast over a single HD Radio channel -- it's not commonly known. Levdr1lp / talk 14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'm as much in the dark about how that happened as you are. I wouldn't deliberately delete any comments. Secondly, to someone who is familiar with A.M. broadcasting and who is familiar with misconceptions of A.M. broadcasting, it does lend itself to be interpreted that way. The use of the word single lends itself to the possibility of multiples. That when usually when the word single is used-to differentiate between single and many/multiple. To just say it broadcasts in HD Radio doesn't even enter the possibility into a layman reader's mind that it might be capable of more sidechannels. I see on your user page you have an HD radio, as do I. We know that A.M. HDs cannot broadcast more than 1 channel due to the bandwidth. To say WLW HD broadcasts a single channel is accurate, but it could be misleading. My personal aims on Wikipedia are for accuracy and clarity. Its on the 2nd ground here where I have the issue. To say WLW broadcasts the HD Radio system is accurate and clear. It might not be as concise, but when the conciseness could lead to confusion, its best left out. I want this as easily understood by a layman reader as possible. If they see on an F.M.'s page that broadcasts in HD that they can do sidechannels and get wondering about A.M., yes, they can find that out by going to the HD Radio link. However, if they see here that WLW broadcasts a single channel, it might get them thinking WLW could do more. Unless they're now reading this so they know it can't.Stereorock (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Stereorock: "Single channel" is both clear and accurate. Your wording may be accurate, but it lacks the necessary clarity. It also assumes most readers already know the difference between AM and FM w/ respect to HD Radio (they don't). So readers of the WLW article may assume that more than one HD Radio channel is possible on AM radio. So what? The article is about WLW, not HD Radio. Any concerns you have about the lack of familiarity w/ HD Radio technology in general are addressed w/ the presence of the HD Radio wikilink in the lead. Levdr1lp / talk 15:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why misrepresent something? Why let the misconception even exist? Reverting it to saying it broadcasts in HD Radio (only) is accurate (as you said) and it does a pretty good job of keeping the idea that it could transmit multiple channels out of the article. Simple, easy. If we are to strive for accuracy on Wikipedia, shouldn't all pages reflect that same goal, including information that can be obtained in a more complete form on another page? Shouldn't that, at the very least, be consistent?Stereorock (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specificity is clarity. There is nothing inconsistent with stating that WLW airs over a single HD Radio channel. Nor does it misrepresent anything; it's simply a factual statement. Again, the article is about WLW, not HD Radio -- any assumption readers make about HD Radio technology is irrelevant w/ respect to the subject WLW. It doesn't matter what readers think WLW can do or be in a hypothetical sense; what matters is what WLW is. It also isn't any real concern when there is a direct link to a detailed article on HD Radio in the lead. Levdr1lp / talk 17:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enquirer Kiesewetter[edit]

Enquirer Kiesewetter and Enquirer Kiesewetter2 are names of internal citations. I added Enquirer Kiesewetter2 to corect the error message about two definitions of Enquirer Kiesewetter, but I am unsure if the uses of these two names are consistent wit other mentions of Enquirer Kiesewetter without definitions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WLW. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WLW&oldid=1207591569"