User talk:Jeh/Archives/2015/06

Tijuana radio

I certainly understand the edits — I was trying to clean them up and add the Mexican concession information which was missing.

While I'm here, if you do enough editing of Mexican radio articles, {{mexico-inf}} (which I created a year ago) is probably going to be helpful for you. It basically makes citing the IFT's technical information (for radio, mostly concessionaires/permitholders and ERPs) a lot easier and works on AM, FM and TV. Raymie (t • c) 20:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Owner" in the radio station template has a specific meaning. Regardless of the merits of any other changes you made, it is incorrect to list a US company as the "owner" of a Mexican radio or TV station. Perhaps the template needs a "programmed-by" or "managed-by" parameter. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That'd be a great idea, and I didn't mean to do quite what. The awkwardness of how we've handled these sorts of cases before, basically listing the US party as an owner with the disclaimer that someone else owns the concession and transmitter and the actual concessionaire in small print, could really be improved. I'd be willing to propose the change with you. I mean, look at XHPRS-FM, which I did not edit. Raymie (t • c) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That one needs to be fixed too. The present scheme is awkward, but for now, listing the "concessionaire" (which afaict is roughly equivalent to "license holder") as the owner, with the "programmer" in small print, is the right thing. In the US the "owner" of a radio station is the license holder - I don't believe US law allows for one entity to hold the license while another owns the physical plant. Is the Mexican situation different enough that we need to add a "concessionaire" parameter? And what would be a better name for "programmed by"? There's a financial arrangement there too, which "programmed by" doesn't really express. Jeh (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Concessionaires are basically the same thing as licensees, to the point where certain owners/companies have different concessionaires that pretty much identify the owner. (I actually found a mistake on XHLTN-FM by seeing that the concessionaire was Administradora Árcangel, which I recognized as being a business within Grupo Imagen. Similarly, Stereorey México = MVS.) Currently noncommercial stations, like XHITT-FM, are not concessions but permits, though this is about to change as the 2014 telecommunications reform replaces permits with two new types of concessions.

I have been doing a lot of work on Mexico radio articles because of improper use of the IFT information template. A heavy editor thought it worked like the FCC query templates but it generates an inline citation instead, and he also did not use an accessdate parameter which is important.

We could also do this for television stations, where the prevalence of local marketing and shared services agreements would make a "programmed by" far more useful. Raymie (t • c) 19:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Still, it is grossly misleading to list a company that owns neither station nor license (or "concession") as "owner". Since you just went ahead and did that again, I am going to leave you to it. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a great solution, but I am only doing what has already been done elsewhere while a better solution is prepared — I have proposed this on the talk page of the infobox, and I hope it will be done. Raymie (t • c) 19:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Other stuff like it exists" (WP:OTHER) is not a compelling argument for misleading content. Contrariwise, there is nothing misleading about listing the concessionaire as the "Owner" with "managed by" after it. That is therefore the correct solution. The number of pages where it's been done wrong is irrelevant. Jeh (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oscilloscope

Thanks for accepting/helping with the Oscilloscope pic addition. I really wanted to add a modern USB scope. I hope its not excessive to add another image? Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)