Talk:WKNR

Untitled

I think that the Keener 13 material more properly belongs in the WDTW article, since that station is now using Keener's frequency. I have deleted the Detroit AM template, since it does not link to any station on this page, and therefore it is confusing here. --Hillrhpc 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Regular" vs "play by play" programming

Only one section/subsection is needed for the station's current programming. Further splitting is unnecessary given the amt of content (two short paragraphs). Per WP:BODY: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." A single section titled "Current programming" adequately describes both regular (talk) and play-by-play programming.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Branding

Unlike "ESPN Cleveland", the identifier of "ESPN 850 WKNR" (which seems to double as the FCC-mandated every-hour ID) is unique to WKNR. Compare to WTAM/Cleveland. While branded "Newsradio WTAM 1100", that station also refers to itself as "The Big One"; think of a station's branding as analogous to an individual station's name. "ESPN Cleveland" does not refer to a single station, but rather a pair of sister stations in the same radio market (one could argue that "ESPN Cleveland" refers to the whole of Good Karma Cleveland properties, including espncleveland.com and beyond). Let's not make things any more complicated than they need to be.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Apples and oranges. WKNR has an individual brand as "ESPN 850", and is part of the overall "ESPN Cleveland" brand that GKB has on their Cleveland holdings. GKB uses the "ESPN 850" and "ESPN Cleveland" branding pretty much interchangeably (as all the references I provided showed). The WTAM comparison is different, as "The Big One" is a slogan, not a brand. Another example is WJMO "Praise 1300", which has a slogan of "Cleveland's Inspiration Station". "ESPN Cleveland" is used as a brand concurrently with "ESPN Cleveland" and "ESPN 1540 KNR2". Vjmlhds (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: "ESPN 850 WKNR" is unique to the subject of this article; "ESPN Cleveland" is not. And labeling both as a "brand" potentially confuses readers. As for "The Big One", slogans generally refer to formats: "Cleveland's Rock Station", "Cleveland's Blazin' Hip-Hop and R&B", etc. Clearly, "Cleveland's Newsradio" is the slogan describing WTAM and its programming, whereas "The Big One" is more like a secondary/alternate name for the station. Levdr1lp / talk 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: OK...how do we classify "ESPN Cleveland"? Clearly, GKB is pushing it as some sort of branding. It's not really a slogan (i.e. "Cleveland's Sports Station" or something similar). Why is it so out of bounds to think GKB is using duel branding here? There's no rule/law/commandment that says a station can only use one form of branding. GKB is certainly is trying to get "ESPN Cleveland" out there. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The issue isn't so much whether "ESPN Cleveland" is a brand or not; it's more or less irrelevant. What's more important is to identify the station's primary brand, clearly and prominently, as such. The common use of "ESPN Cleveland" is enough to mention in the lead, but let's not complicate things by using the term "brand" for two separate things, one of which isn't even unique to the station. Levdr1lp / talk 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: "ESPN Cleveland" is what is known in the business world as an umbrella brand, meaning it's the all-encompassing brand for several entities. Now WKNR and WWGK each have their own individual branding, but they also fall under the "ESPN Cleveland" umbrella brand. So the correct approach is to identify "ESPN 850"/"ESPN 1540 KNR2" as the primary brand, but also recognize "ESPN Cleveland" as the umbrella brand. It wouldn't be an issue except for the fact that GKB prominently puts "ESPN Cleveland" front-and-center in marketing and on-air promotion, thus it has to be acknowledged. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: First find a source that uses the term "umbrella brand" in reference to "ESPN Cleveland". Otherwise it's just WP:OR. And please stop making changes to the lead until we reach some kind of consensus here. Levdr1lp / talk 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Enough. I have provided reference after reference, wikilink after wikilnk, showing that GKB considers "ESPN Cleveland" as a brand for it's stations. All you're doing is just simply reverting because I committed the egregious sin of changing it from the way you had it. I don't need your permission to edit an article, especially when every edit I made has been backed up by sources and has been done by the book. I'm sensing some WP:OWN issues here, especially in the earlier blanket reverts you made when I fixed the bare URLs in the references. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: On the contrary, if anyone is claiming ownership here, it's you. You have repeatedly made changes unilaterally without trying to reach consensus on this talk page. You have repeatedly failed to provide a source using the term "umbrella brand". You also ignore my edit summary comments, such as not needing a link to the station twitter account when there are already at least two links to the station website (to verify the regular use of "ESPN Cleveland"). When I remove a redundant reference, I'm not making a "blanket" change; I'm removing unnecessary markup. Levdr1lp / talk 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: No, no, no...we're not playing that game. Anybody who edits any article does it unilaterally. And you're not looking for consensus...you just want me to get worn down and give up, so as to leave it the way you had it. You have nothing to back up your claims, while I provided source after source. And I didn't use the term "umbrella brand" in the article...All I did was link to the term to define what it is that GKB is doing with the "ESPN Cleveland" brand. This BS is getting real old, real quick. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: This is not a "game", nor am I trying to "wear you down". The lead remained more or less unchanged, or at least the wording in question, since 2012 when I began this thread. You chose not participate then, and you have repeatedly made changes now prior to reaching consensus. You also don't have "source after source"; rather, you have multiple links to the station website or images on that site (essentially, all redundant to the existing links to ESPNCleveland.com in the infobox and external links section). Clearly ESPNCleveland.com refers to the term "ESPN Cleveland" as a brand, but that same term, clearly, also refers to a broader organization and not just a single radio station. Though related, "Clear Channel Cleveland" is not synonymous with "96.5 KISS-FM"; one refers to a cluster of radio stations, the other a single, specific outlet. Similarly, "ESPN Cleveland" refers to WKNR, WWGK, ESPNCleveland.com, etc. -- "ESPN 850 WKNR" is the unique brand for the subject of this article. As for the LinkedIn page, I wouldn't automatically consider it reliable as the majority of LinkedIn pages are user-generated. Levdr1lp / talk 21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: The fly in the ointment here is that GKB uses "ESPN Cleveland" as on-air branding pretty much equal to that of "ESPN 850". 96.5 KISS FM nor any other Cleveland CC station uses "Clear Channel Cleveland" as on-air branding. This is the difference in the two cases. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The point about "ESPN Cleveland" being used on-air regularly is valid (whereas CC Cleveland is not), however it does not change the fact it is used by at least two other media outlets (WWGK, ESPNCleveland.com). Also, while "ESPN Cleveland" is regularly used on-air, I wouldn't say it's necessarily being used interchangeably with "ESPN 850 WKNR". And none of this justifies making changes without reaching consensus first. Levdr1lp / talk 21:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: You're making it sound like I made wholesale changes. I did 2 things: adjust the name of the ownership company because they changed their name after expanding into other business fields, and point out that both WKNR and WWGK use their individual station branding and the collective "ESPN Cleveland" branding on-air. I used sources to back up the information, and I tried to as simply and in as few words as possible explain the essential "dual branding". You really come across as if you're putting me on trial here, when I did absolutely nothing that was out of bounds regarding WP:AGF, WP:V, or any other Wiki policy. You on the other hand just broad stroke reverted my edits, removed sourced material, early on changed "Good Karma Brands" back into "Good Karma Broadcasting", and undid the work I did to the references after I made it so that they were no longer bare URLs. If there's anybody in the wrong here, it's you. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: My so-called "broad-stroke reverts" are not nearly so broad-stroke as your recent edits, specifically your refusal to wait for consensus on a pre-existing topic. No one is arguing whether or not "ESPN Cleveland" is a brand. Your sources linking to ESPNCleveland.com are more or less redundant, however, given the prominent position of the station website in the infobox and the external links section (the URL itself would seem to be verification enough!), and the wikilink to the Good Karma Brands article, rightly re-named, eliminates the need for a source to verify the company's name change in the WKNR article (the subject here is WKNR, not its owner). The real issue is over the use of the word "brand" w/ respect to "ESPN Cleveland" and whether or not that level of detail belongs in the lead; I believe it does not. Pointing out in the lead that the station (together w/ sister WWGK) is "often referred to as ESPN Cleveland" (note the boldface) should be more than sufficient to address your concern without potentially confusing readers. "ESPN Cleveland" clearly refers to a larger organization than simply the AM station licensed to broadcast at 850 kHz. WKNR alone is not ESPN Cleveland; WKNR is only part of ESPN Cleveland. Levdr1lp / talk 04:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Consensus =/= "Leave it my way or else". Stop removing sourced material. And please quit bringing a stick to a gunfight, because it never ends well. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: "ESPN Cleveland is a sports marketing entity with assets such as ESPN 850 WKNR, ESPN 1540 KNR2 and ESPNCleveland.com." That's what I've been saying all along. "ESPN Cleveland" and "ESPN 850 WKNR", while closely related, are *not* the same thing. The subject of this article is WKNR, not a broader "sports marketing entity" comprised of at least two other media outlets. As for your "sources", three of the four are redundant to the station website link found in both the infobox and the external links section (the URL itself, ESPNCleveland.com, might even be sufficient!). You don't need additional verification that "ESPN Cleveland" is often used in conjunction with the station when that fact is already made so abundantly clear by the station website. The fourth "source" is a LinkedIn profile which appears to be run by Good Karma Brands. Setting aside reliability concerns with LinkedIn, all this source proves is that GKB considers "ESPN Cleveland" a brand. But so what? Readers of this article need to know what the brand is for WKNR, not its parent organization. Labeling another term a "brand" in the lead will only confuse readers. Levdr1lp / talk 19:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: You know...it's almost like a pattern. Every couple of months or so, you seem to have this urge to pick a fight with me over really what are minor edits. You're so hung up on making sure it stays YOUR WAY, that you fight to the death for each tiny little edit. Kenny Rogers said it best - "You gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em." I do all the work, and find all the references, and all you wnna do is say "No soup for you". Really...it's gotta stop. Nobody's getting confused, there's no false airs about any of the additions I made, and all I said is that WKNR is branded "ESPN 850" and also promoted on-air as "ESPN Cleveland". It's not that hard, and not that complicated. No need for you to make calculus out of simple arithmetic. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: What exactly are you claiming that your sources verify? That "ESPN Cleveland" is often used in place of WKNR? I see nothing which says "ESPN Cleveland" and "ESPN 850 WKNR" are equivalent; rather, one of your sources explicitly states that one is a sports marketing entity, the other one of its assets. None of your sources say that "ESPN Cleveland" is used in place of "ESPN 850 WKNR", but they do indicate that "ESPN Cleveland" is often used in conjunction with WKNR. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, three of your four sources are completely redundant to the external link already found in both the infobox and the external links section (the station's official website at ESPNCleveland.com). Let's be clear about this: the two ESPNCleveland.com links merely verify that "ESPN Cleveland" is often found alongside "ESPN 850 WKNR", and this uncontroversial fact is already verified by the station website in both the infobox and external links section. The Good Karma Brands source merely links to ESPNCleveland.com, without even mentioning WKNR by name. Your ESPNCleveland.com and GoodKarmaBrands.com "sources" are redundant. They are superfluous. They are not necessary. And the LinkedIn profile is not necessarily reliable b/c profiles on that site are largely user generated. On top of all this, you are using terminology -- duopoly and umbrella brand -- which are not directly supported by any of your "sources". Their Wikipedia articles would seem to conform to what you are describing here, but you don't have any sources w/ respect to WKNR to justify usage of those terms. It's just WP:OR. Levdr1lp / talk 22:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Translated - "Leave it the way I had it". Just because you use a large volume of words, it doesn't make them any more meaningful. Your WP:OR claim goes out the window as GKB clearly states in that internship piece that they own both WKNR and WWGK. 2 stations = duopoly. Also all the various assets falling under the ESPN Cleveland umbrella IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF UMBRELLA BRANDING!...which again GKB themselves makes clear. And ALL I EVER SAID WAS THAT GKB USES BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL STATION BRANDING AND "ESPN CLEVELAND" when promoting their stations on-air. Good Lord you have some serious WP:OWN issues going on here. Nothing I have added to the article falls under WP:OR, as GKB lays it out in the references I added...basically saying "here's what we own, and here's what we call it". You're grasping at straws to justify this continued nonsense...please stop before things get out of hand. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, and when you play with the devil, eventually the pitchfork comes out...then you need to buy an eye patch. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: First of all, please stop making threats. As for your sources, none of them directly support that WKNR and WWGK form a "duopoly", or that ESPN Cleveland is an "umbrella brand". While the duopoly and umbrella brand articles as they are now would seem to conform to your own definitions, Wikipedia articles are not sources unto themselves. Moreover, the term duopoly seems to have been more widely-used for television stations, and at a time when traditional broadcast media had a larger share of the market (i.e., before the Internet). Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which allows one company to own six (or more) radio stations in a single market, the term duopoly seems increasingly irrelevant and dated. Wikipedia articles reflect what the existing coverage says, and there is little or no coverage of "duopoly" describing ESPN Cleveland. If you had a Crain's or Plain Dealer source that referred to a duopoly composed of WKNR and WWGK, then I would have no issue with that. But you don't, so here we are. Levdr1lp / talk 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: "Duopoly" reference found. Still nothing for "umbrella brand". Let's call it a compromise and be done with this -- "It turns out that the station Craig Karmazin already owns in the market is WWGK "ESPN 1540," so he will be creating a Sports/Talk duop with his acquisition of WKNR-AM."

Levdr1lp / talk 23:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: First, nice job with finding the reference. Second I won't use the umbrella brand wikilink, but now that the duopoly is established, saying that the two stations are jointly billed on-air as ESPN Cleveland (w/o umbrella branding stuff) should work. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: There's no need to change the wording any further. Levdr1lp / talk 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: I'm happy if you're happy. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm not happy; I'm satisfied the issue has been resolved. Levdr1lp / talk 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting note

WHKW/Cleveland (1220 AM) carried the WKNR callsign for 10 years and 355 days, from July 13, 1990 to July 3, 2001. WKNR/Cleveland (850 AM) has carried the WKNR callsign — including today, August 1, 2012 — for 11 years 29 days, from July 3, 2001 to the present. In other words, WKNR/850 has carried the WKNR callsign longer than WHKW/1220 ever did.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, this post of mine has little to do with improving the content of this article. Please disregard it. Levdr1lp / talk 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jim Rome

As of January 2, 2013, Jim Rome's show will move from Premiere Networks to CBS Sports Radio (which is distributed by Cumulus). WKNR will stil air the show (with a reference to back it up in the article), though it will now be distributed by Cumulus. Vjmlhds 04:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. So wait until January 2 before making any changes. Levdr1lp / talk 08:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Alumni" list

These type of lists are not especially helpful, if only because they fail to provide any context to the various "alum" ties to the station. Moreover, each of these individuals is already linked in the body of the article. Listing someone like Alan Freed alongside Michael Reghi makes little sense-- they worked for the station decades apart, under different call signs and formats. Levdr1lp / talk 13:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

If any editors have any specific concerns w/ the lead of this article in its current form, then please share those concerns here. Levdr1lp / talk

@Levdr1lp: I just feel that the lead should be more to the point, with an economy of words. Also, I feel that all of WKNR's affiliations should be listed together in one concise paragraph (ESPN Radio, Browns, Monsters, OSU). Basically one sentence should be...Owned by GKB - WKNR + WWGK = ESPN Cleveland, and the the next sentence should be the list of affiliations (in prose form obviously). I believe it looks better the way I laid it out, and I feel it's more direct. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Rearranging the same words, which is essentially all you did, is no more to the point. And clearly the station's affiliation w/ ESPN Radio should be linked with its status as one half of "ESPN Cleveland". This so-called "duopoly" is a special case, and as such, requires wording more sophisticated than a simple laundry list. Levdr1lp / talk 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: I wouldn't call it "so-called", when you yourself found a source which straight up called it a duopoly. This whole ta-doo started because of the "ESPN Cleveland" labeling/branding/however you wanna phrase it. ESPN Cleveland's frequent use on-air/in promotional material/etc. was worthy of a mention in the article, and all I ever wanted was the best way to explain it. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Uncle! Instead of the constant back and forth, I'm gonna hoist the white flag and stand down. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Yes, I found the reference verifying that WKNR and WWGK form a "duop", presumably short for "duopoly". When I said "so-called", I was not questioning the reliability of that source; I was merely noting that a small blurb eight years ago at RBR.com remains, for now, the only example of duop/duopoly being used to describe the WKNR-WWGK pair (the two form a so-called duopoly, because RBR.com calls it so... presumably). That said, I have no intention of removing the Duopoly (broadcasting) wikilink from the WKNR lead (I wouldn't have added it otherwise). But I also stand by what I said earlier in this thread: a term like "duopoly" is mostly irrelevant when radio companies can own six, seven, eight, or possibly more stations in a single market. The term "duopoly", based on its Wikipedia article, also appears more appropriate for TV stations, which are fewer in number per market than radio stations. It also feels somewhat dated, given the numerous online alternatives to local AM/FM/TV -- monopolizing the public airwaves is less of a concern when everyone has access to a PC or smart phone. Levdr1lp / talk 03:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WKNR, WKNR, rivals, and WKNR

WKNR/850, the subject of this article, is the radio home of Ohio State football in Cleveland. Ironically, WKNR/1220 (which now identifies as WHKW) is the radio home of Michigan football in Cleveland. Funny how the present Cleveland WKNR airs the Buckeyes, while the former Cleveland WKNR currently airs its archrival the Wolverines. Of course, while Cleveland likely claims a large Ohio State following, the city of Detroit is only 30 minutes from Ann Arbor, and so likely claims an even larger Michigan following. And, strangely enough, Detroit is also home to WDTW, which is perhaps best known by its former callsign: WKNR. (Though I'm not sure if it ever aired either team along US-23). Levdr1lp / talk 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In retrospect, this post of mine has little to do with improving the content of this article. Please disregard it. Levdr1lp / talk 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split: The Really Big Show

OK - here we go:

I say bring it back as an article - a lot has happened in the interim to kick up the WP:N factor a notch ("Draft Day", adding Jerod Cherry)

Vjmlhds (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see what the movie Draft Day has to do w/ splitting this article. The station is never mentioned in the film, let alone the show. Tony Rizzo provides a brief voiceover (in the form of an in-film radio broadcast during fictional GM Sonny Weaver, Jr.'s drive to work), and the camera does show a car radio tuned to "850 AM", but the cut is almost instantaneous and there's no on screen reference. Even this Cleveland.com piece fails to mention "The Really Big Show" by name, instead referring to the real-life local radio hosts as simply "WKNR AM/850 sports-talkers". Levdr1lp / talk 08:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Jumped the gun a tad...my bad. But to the question at hand, does being a Talkers Heavy Hundred show qualify RBS to pass WP:N standards? It has consistently ranked as such for several years, and is only 1 of 2 Ohio based shows (with Kiley & Booms) to make the list. Being ranked as one of the top 100 (top 75 really) sports talk shows in the whole country by a legitimate national industry publication (ranking ahead of several national shows) counts for something...no? Summarizing - Talkers Heavy Hundred, co-hosted by a 3-time Super Bowl winner, signature show on an NFL flagship station. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A ranking is not nearly as convincing as an article from a reliable, independent outlet covering the show in detail. The "3-time Super Bowl winner" & "NFL flagship" info is WP:OR and/or irrelevant w.r.t. establishing notability. Levdr1lp / talk 23:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Here's a story from the L.A. Times talking about how RBS handled LeBron's return - does this move the needle? User:Vjmlhds (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Here's something from the Broadcast Film Critics Association - it's the bio for Ray Justavick (aka "RJ the Movie Critic"), where it talks about his role on the show and talks a bit about RBS itself. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the LA Times link "moves the needle" to some extent. The subject of that story is Cleveland sports radio in general and in the context of LeBron James' return, however, so I would want to see more reliable, independent sources b/f supporting a split. (By the way, there's nothing wrong w/ local coverage so long as it's relatively in-depth and focuses on the show itself.) The movie critic's bio is a passing reference for someone associated w/ the show (not independent), & would not help establish notability. WP:SIGCOV Levdr1lp / talk 00:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: [1] Here's a story about how RBS got WKNR a big ol' fine from the FCC for allowing their "Who Said That" contest to drag on and on and having their prizes expire. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: From this point on I am going to refrain from using the {{ping}} notification in this discussion as this really isn't supposed to be a one-on-one exchange. As for the story involving the FCC -- and setting aside any concerns regarding just how independent LSGLegal.com is (does this law firm have a past or present relationship w/ WKNR and/or Good Karma?) -- it appears to focus more on the station's actions and less on the the show itself. As for the larger issue (whether or not to split), please try to bear in mind that The Really Big Show is a local, semi-drive-time program airing in a mid-size radio market. Radio shows typically have standalone articles only when they are syndicated, and even then there's never a guarantee of notability. Consider the only radio shows in the Cleveland market which have articles. Rover's Morning Glory replaced Howard Stern through out the Midwest, including major markets Chicago and Detroit, and continues to syndicate to this day. Weekend Radio may air on as many as 80 public radio stations throughout the country; this fact surfaced after I recently nominated it for deletion (it resulted in "no consensus", and I don't plan to renominate it specifically b/c of its history of syndication). The Maxwell Show is somewhat of an exception; its notability is largely due to the amount of controversy it has generated (a story which basically implies anti-semitism from Cleveland Jewish News, a whole chapter devoted to the show in comedian Jim Norton's book, the Metallica prank and subsequent probation, the host's reported drug addiction and stint(s) in rehab, a recent somewhat unflattering profile in the Chicagoland Media blog, etc.). In this context, I just don't see enough coverage for The Really Big Show to justify a standalone article. With sources like this, and given the host's previous work at WJW (TV)/WMJI/WHK (AM)/etc., and given the amount of coverage he received during his recent court case, you're much better off writing a Tony Rizzo (media) article. Levdr1lp / talk 14:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• file:WIKI KENNY ROGERS.jpg As a wise man once said, "you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em"...I fold. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I've hidden the Kenny Rogers image. Feel free to restore it, but just know that I really don't think it belongs on an article talk page per WP:TPG#YES (keeping layout clear, etc.), and I'm probably not alone in feeling that way. Either way, I still think there's probably enough coverage for a Tony Rizzo article. Feel free to create one if like; I won't tag it for notability concerns or nominate it at AFD. Levdr1lp / talk 16:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WKNR. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929124251/http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/entertainment/columnists/george_thomas/16774459.htm to http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/entertainment/columnists/george_thomas/16774459.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WKNR. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002171748/http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2011/09/wkrk_fm923_the_fan_replaces_ro.html to http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2011/09/wkrk_fm923_the_fan_replaces_ro.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WKNR. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112152313/http://www.espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=38421 to http://www.espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=38421
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510235931/http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=15161 to http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=15161

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Blue Jackets affiliation

The Columbus Blue Jackets 2018-19 Media Guide does not list WKNR as a radio network affiliate (see page 32). And while the network webpage on the team website does list WKNR, it's not clear when that list was last updated. I'd prefer another source to verify that the station is currently a network affiliate. It's possible the webpage list is outdated and left over from when WKNR carried the Blue Jackets during the team's 2018 playoff run last spring. Levdr1lp / talk 04:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Somehow WKNR was re-inserted back to said CBJ station list, but no citation was provided beyond said outdated webpage. I removed WKNR again while cleaning that page up overall. Again, a second source is preferable. Nathan Obral (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Length of lead & body, etc.

Re: this revert- I appreciate the effort Nathan Obral has made recently, but this article is simply growing out of control (as are WHKW & WTAM). There is no reason this or any other radio station article should be so large (170+ kB of readable prose, nearly three times the size at which WP:TOOBIG recommends an article "probably should be divided"), and with well over 400 citations. Many of the new subsections have only a tangential connection to the subject, particularly those devoted to individuals (#Dorothy_Fuldheim, #Pete_"Mad_Daddy"_Myers, #Casey_Kasem_"at_the_Mike", etc.). Again, I appreciate the work that has gone into this article. I also recognize that Nathan has been working with Sammi Brie to elevate this article to Good status, and that is a worthwhile goal -- perhaps I can aid in that effort. But this is entirely too much content. Levdr1lp / talk 21:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Obral, Sammi Brie- could one of you please link to a recent discussion regarding this article's content? I can't find anything on this talk page, either of your own talk pages, the WP:WPRS talk page (or its archive), WT:GAN, etc. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

levdr1lp: My apologies, I’ve been AFK this afternoon tending to personal issues. I appreciate the concerns regarding the article lengths of both WHKW and WKNR. These are both long-term buildouts and will be subject to extensive changes anyway in the next few weeks. I know that this level of detail is kinda uncharacteristic of articles in WP:WPRS but Sammi Brie and I have been working extensively on a number of articles in both radio and television over the past two 1/2 years. The long leads are proof of this: in our articles that have gone to Good Article status, the longer and more durable a lead, the better.

Both articles are victim to “one to a license” policy. I agree with the policy as does Sammi but it results in exceptionally long histories because both stations have been around for so long. That being said, the narrative of the intellectual property swaps when depicted properly do not need to be a stand-alone section. I lumped the swap section, WHK and WHKW together in WHKW because there’s next to no difference between the stations callsign-wise and it’s operated as a clearinghouse for a turnkey radio network without much local output or information on the station in WS:RS.

I have a plan of attack for both articles, in no order of priority:

1. Create an article on The Goodwill Stations and fork much of the info on “license challenge” section at WHKW; I had started to expand it before realizing what I was in store for. Wings Over Jordan Choir transpired the same way. For sanity purposes, it’ll be totally built out in sandbox, moved into mainspace, then truncated in the existing article.
2. Move much of the Dorothy Fuldheim info to her article so it improves both articles. The only reason why I hadn’t yet was because of other considerations (I’m inexperienced with bios and am not entirely comfortable with simply porting it over while her post-1947 info is consequently lacking). Ultimately her mention in the article proper would be a paragraph in the prior section and not even as a dedicated section.
3. Create a page for Pete Meyers (radio personality) as a WKNR fork. He has more than enough SIGCOV during his career and in the decades that followed, and it’s insane he doesn’t have one already. Again, bios are not my strong suit.
4. Both articles still have weak spots due to insufficient paper coverage. I do not yet have access to the entirety of Plain Dealer archives. You would not believe how much of a godsend the Akron Beacon Journal archives are.

I do strongly disagree with you regarding your changes to the lead for WKNR, which explains the reversion. Truncating it as such doesn’t give an appropriate summary of the article topic. Again, MOS:LEADLENGTH is being invoked; Sammi and I have made concerted efforts to treat the lead with more depth and seriousness. Wording it as “historically, this station was best known under the WJW callsign” is kinda inadequate when it hasn’t even been known as WJW for 37 years and has been WKNR twice as long as 1220 AM was WKNR. Again, both articles are three-in-one that are each 95 and 91 years old (the FCC history cards the consolidation of WFJC and WSCO is dealing with two unrelated stations that both ceased in 1930, but neither merit their own articles) so honestly, this was inevitable.

I am of the belief that the outlines for both WHKW and WKNR should not even have a “History” section but sections on the individual stations themselves, as “History” in this instance makes it unworkable. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 23:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, speaking as a FAC delegate, these changes do look like they would do a lot to improve the article and help cut down on the length. At FAC at least, I would say 7,000 words is a good target for a topic sufficiently broad that a lot more could be written about it. Articles longer than 10,000 words are likely to be opposed at FAC based on excessive length, although other review processes such as GAN are much more lax. I managed to write the FA Armenian genocide in 7094 words, so I expect it's doable for this article to reduce the length substantially.

When writing an article and especially when trimming, I'm always asking myself: "Is this something the reader needs to know to understand the topic?" "Could the information be covered in a sub-article or other article?" I find this helps me focus my writing and keep length under control.

On the other hand, I wouldn't worry about creating articles that are imperfect or have uneven coverage. The encyclopedia is a work in progress and it can always be filled out later—WP:NODEADLINE. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The main point of contention between the two is really specifically the section headers and the lead section length. I think both of them agree on what needs to be spun out or slimmed down. Compare the lead section and headings in Special:Permalink/1070488967 and Special:Permalink/1070495599. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of long leads but three paragraphs for an article this length is not excessive. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, what about the section headers between the two versions? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel that I have the specific knowledge to evaluate that issue. (t &#183t ; c) buidhe 03:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing input, buidhe. I honestly think Nathan Obral and I can resolve the header issue quickly if he's willing to hash it out (& I see no reason he wouldn't). Note that I've already deferred to Nathan's preference to remove the level-2 "History" header (thereby promoting each of its subsections by one level). At first I disagreed with this, but I now believe his concern was with the lack of level-2 lines to break up the body -- that said, Nathan would need to confirm this himself. I added date ranges in parentheses to the callsign headings so that, while not explicitly stated with a "History" header, a chronological organization should be understood (date ranges would have the added advantage of disambiguating call letters used at more than one station at different times in the Cleveland market, including WKNR itself). Levdr1lp / talk 11:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add that if you have access at all to Plain Dealer and Cleveland Press archives, it would be tremendously appreciated especially w/r/t Dorothy's article. Again, I'm fine with moving all the extraneous info on this article onto hers, and I might be able to do it tonight, but as a whole her article needs help, bad. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Obral- thank you for responding. 1) Please link to one or more specific radio station articles that you have helped elevate to Good status. 2) We don't get to pick and choose which editing guidelines to follow; a longer lead may be appropriate for a longer article (per MOS:LEADLENGTH), but articles should be no longer than 100 kB of readable prose (per WP:TOOBIG). I'm not convinced greater length makes a lead more "durable" (e.g., why does relative trivia like the meaning of the station's *former* call letters belong there?). Some might argue "brevity is a byproduct of vigor". 3) Information regarding the seven-way "swap" from 2001 is too important and too complicated to place into other subsections given how Wikipedia structures radio station articles ("one to a license"), and how call letters are assigned. If articles were created based on enduring formats/identities, then a WKNR article might include information from both the 1220 & 850 frequencies -- but that's just not how we write these articles. It was already hard enough trying to straighten out these station articles based on their license histories. Let's not blur all these subjects together all over again. 4) Let's keep this to a discussion about WKNR; if you want to talk about WHKW, please open a discussion there. 5) I would absolutely support a dedicated article for "Mad Daddy" Myers, as well as moving most of the Fuldheim content to her own preexisting article. 6) How old something is does not necessarily equate to how important it is. Alan Freed's time at the station was a relatively short compared to other on-air talent, but you could make a very convincing case that his was the most noteworthy program in the station's long and winding history. Moreover, not all radio years are equivalent. AM radio in 2022 has nowhere near the reach or relevance that AM radio had in 1952. Also note that the previous wording about the WJW callsign was "perhaps best known", *not* "is best known". 7) Eliminating the History section entirely sure feels like a nonstarter. I just don't see how you could write this article on this subject (i.e., a single station with a series of multiple callsigns, formats, & brand identities) without a chronological history. 8) I'll see what I can do regarding the PD & Press sources. Levdr1lp / talk 01:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to respond.

• We've collaborated on WKVB (FM) and KWKW (at GAN), and I have KZDG to my credit as well.
• Sometimes, the history section is so long that multiple level 2 headers are merited. We co-wrote WWJ-TV (at GAN), where the division of events merited a different kind of level 2 header. KVDO-TV, a defunct station, also has a different structure at the suggestion of the GA reviewer for that page.

It's fair that Nathan should evaluate plans to spin out material where warranted. Projects as large as these tend to spin out articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

After outside consultation, I have filed a request with WP:GOCE for them to assist me with revising this article and to help fix the many problems with it. I am dissatisfied with the length, size and structure but it is a problem I am confident in taking the lead and resolving a problem I unintentionally created. As it is, I reverted the article back to my edits from last night so WP:GOCE has something to go on.

In addition to working with Sammi Brie on WKVB (FM), KWKW and WWJ-TV, we also have KFOR-TV as a joint GA, and that article is itself incredibly lengthy. I have WAKR as a solo GA, that article was structured the way it was by request of the GA reviewer. Wings Over Jordan Choir is a solo GAN effort of mine and a request with WP:GOCE is already in place. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Obral, Sammi Brie- thank you both for responding. The "readable prose size" for the three articles which Sammi notes you collaborated on (WKVB (FM), KWKW, & KZDG) averages to roughly 34 kB; and none of those three articles exceeds 240 citations. Nathan- I'm glad that you apparently now view the size of this article as too large. That said, I put some thought and effort into this article this morning, and I would appreciate if you would at least consider the changes I've made without removing them wholesale. For one, the wording of these headers was a bit too casual. Compare your edit to Paul Brown, itself a "Good" article. Better to identify Alan Freed plainly rather than by the "Moondog" moniker, better to identify Akron as such rather than by a nickname the common reader may not know ("Rubber City"), etc. I've restored the changes I made just hours ago -- please note that virtually all of the body remains intact. I don't see why we can't reach some kind of rough consensus in the mean time. Levdr1lp / talk 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Two cents: Section headers follow article title policy (WP:TITLE) and should be succinct and understandable to the majority of readers. While chapter titles of a book might be witty or poetic, that's just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As one last note, the issue has generally resolved, and Nathan decided to step away from this page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)