Talk:WLQR (AM)

Requested move 27 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus to move WLQR (AM) to an alternative title. Regarding WLQR (defunct 1450 AM), the practice of disambiguating using (defunct) has been superseded as a result of discussions elsewhere. Thus the choice came to proposal 1 (supported by Neutralhomer) or proposal 3 (supported by Tdl1060). More input would have been welcome, but this discussion has been open for more than a month. By my judgement the arguments of Tdl1060 are stronger, so I have moved it to WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• WLQR (AM) → ?
• WLQR (defunct 1450 AM) → ?

– This one is confusing for people without a background in radio, so let's try and explain it simply. In 2010, Cumulus Media, a large owner of radio stations, sold a station known as WTOD in Toledo, Ohio. It desired to keep the WTOD callsign, so it parked it on the former WHSC in Hartsville, South Carolina, which it owned. In March 2016, the South Carolina station switched callsigns with 1470 AM in Toledo, then known as WLQR, and then a week later surrendered its license, having used the WLQR calls for just a week. Six months later, the Toledo AM station followed suit after trading its calls with an FM station (creating a WLQR AM which went defunct and a WTOD FM which is still around). The result: two defunct stations, including one article with an unusual nonstandard disambiguator.

Proposals I'd like to consider:

• Proposal 1

• Defunct Ohio station: WLQR (Ohio)
• Defunct South Carolina station: WLQR (South Carolina)

• Proposal 2

• Defunct Ohio station: WLQR (AM)
• Defunct South Carolina station: WTOD (South Carolina), last callsign used for more than a week

• Proposal 3

• Defunct Ohio station: WLQR (AM)
• Defunct South Carolina station: WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina), using the station's only callsign until it was used to warehouse calls for Toledo (it was used for 64 of the station's 70 years of broadcasting)

I'm not sure which is right, but something has to be better than the current placement. Raymie (t • c) 05:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 3. This the call sign the station held for most of its history. As a defunct station, it should be kept in proper historical context, and the greatest amount of weight should be given to these years.--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Striking my vote. I still believe the article should be renamed, but "defunct" works fine as a disambiguator, and these discussions, which are being carried out on four different talk pages, unfortunately are not addressing the problems with the current or proposed names for the stations individually.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If consensus on Talk:KCLA (defunct) favors allowing the use of "(defunct)" as a disambiguator, I support moving WLQR (defunct 1450 AM) to WHSC (defunct). If consensus favors other methods of disambiguation, I support Proposal 3. Keeping the South Carolina station titled WLQR violates WP:COMMONNAME and is a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. Four days of operating at 10 watts during daytime hours only with the call sign WLQR, as the station was ending operations, do not outweigh 64 years of operating at full power with the call sign WHSC.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all. These proposals make no indication that the stations are defunct, whereas the current method does. I don't see what's confusing about the current method, but the proposals all leave no indication that the station no longer exists, making it look like just another radio station article. These proposals could present a problem if a defunct station & a current station carry both the same callsign, & community of license (or at least market).Stereorock (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all per my explanation at Talk:KAPY-LP (defunct)#Defunct radio station disambiguator changes. I also think it might be helpful to discuss this and related disambiguation issues at the WP:WPRS talk page before proposing additional moves. Levdr1lp / talk 05:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment I concur & support Levdr1lp (talk · contribs)'s above statement, especially in regards to a discussion on WP:WPRS.Stereorock (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 1: and I would add making WLQR a disambig page for both pages, showing that both stations are defunct within the disambig page. That way it takes away the need for it within the title of the page itself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:05 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • @Neutralhomer: Why do you think the article's title should be a call sign that the station held for only four days of its 70 year existence, when the station was operating at the greatly reduced power of 10 watts during daytime hours only? This is certainly not the name that most people concerned with the station would recognize it by, making it a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of the article is devoted to discussing its period as WHSC, which is arguably the most important period of the station's history. Keeping "WLQR" in the title of the South Carolina station is a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. An article on an active station should always be titled by its current call sign, but an article on a defunct station should always be kept in proper historical perspective.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tdl1060: While true, it was the last station to hold the WLQR callsign. So, while it is defunct, it no longer holds the current callsign and after three years, I don't think it's coming back. Either one. WLQR (South Carolina) and WLQR (Ohio) just seem like better ideas than the others. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
      • @Neutralhomer: Exactly, the station is defunct and no longer holds the call sign WLQR. What is wrong with moving the article to WHSC (defunct)? WHSC is what most people would recognize the station as and best conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. A hatnote could be placed on WLQR (AM)'s article to clear up any confusion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Tdl1060: We have to stick with agreed upon NMEDIA naming conventions. The last known callsign of a station is what we leave it as. If we start moving stations around to what they are more recognized as per COMMONNAME, it opens up a whole can of worms and then we have brandings, callsigns of the past (NYC's 1560 AM is better known as WQEW then it will ever be than it's current WFME (AM)), and a number of other things. It's easier to stick with what we know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
          • @Neutralhomer: Station's articles should always use their current call sign while they are active. However, this station is no longer active and WLQR is no longer the station's current call sign. The naming conventions do not explicitly extend to defunct stations, otherwise all defunct stations would be renamed to add "D" before the call sign, and then the whole discussion on Talk:KCLA (defunct) would be moot. In most cases when a station is defunct, it should keep the last call sign that the station held as its title. However, we have not always moved station articles to call signs that they only held briefly while silent before the call sign is cancelled. Virtually no one would know a station by a call sign that it only held while silent, and it would be ridiculous to have a station's article titled that way. This is a similar case, as WLQR was only held for four days when the station was only running 10 watts. A compromise that would be acceptable to me would be to move the article to WTOD with some acceptable disambiguator. Although the station was only running 10 watt during 2 of the six years this call sign was held and was off the air for another year and a half, at least this is a call sign that would be recognizable to a large segment of people interested in the station.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I respect your opinion on this, I do. But I'm gonna have to stick with my choice. I think a move to a different callsign would be confusing and against NMEDIA. That being said, I'm probably about to get blocked, so it won't matter (even bring anything up against any admin on AN or ANI, it never turns out good and you will become the subject of the thread, not the admin). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:57 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.