Talk:WNNX

Go to the "Discuss this page" section of the main Atlanta FM radio stations page. According to the rules mentioned there, this station is commonly identified by a name that is a misnomer. Therefore, this station needs its own basic and advanced characteristics. 66.245.30.189 00:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone answer this question??

Why does the station go by 99 even though 100 is the proper round number for 99.7. (Please try to use as much detail as you can.) 66.245.121.84 16:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The station started calling itself Power 99 as a way of breaking from the image of Warm 100. The old format had spent a great deal of money advertizing "Warm 100... your radio is off center..." The actual frequency is 99.7 and therefore the name change help solidify the fact that the M-TV ushered pop music was here to stay.

Well, why is it logical for a radio station at 99.7 to go by 99 rather than 100?? 66.245.14.250 01:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because "100" doesn't appear in the frequency, perhaps... -- Grunt 01:39, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

But, what do you think is the rule for rounding decimals?? A tenths digit of 7 rounds up, not down. 66.245.14.250 01:40, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe because it's not about rounding, but about marketing a memorable handle. older≠wiser 01:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no rule for shortening an exact frequency. A radio station may either round or truncate, and this station has in fact done both. As someone mentioned above, it used to be "Warm 100" before it became "Power 99", and it did not change frequency. FM stations at x.7 and x.9 megahertz (or x.6 and x.8 in some countries, like the UK) go either way; and it's fairly arbitrary, unless there is another station using that number on one side (as WWWQ-FM, "Q100", is now). In densely-packed metro areas, few FM stations go without their tenths-place digit, as they likely sharing a whole number with another station. This is important when it comes to ratings, such as by Arbitron, so that listeners give credit to the proper station. –radiojon 05:06, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

I know this is an ancient discussion, but the real reason for the change from "100" to "99" was because of the advent of digital-tuned radios. WSB-FM, at 98.5, for example, initially started out as "WSB 99 FM" before switching to the more digital-friendly "WSB 98.5 FM". On a hand-tuned stereo, most stations called themselves by the number they were closest to. However, with the arrival of digital-tuning, people began to get confused by a "99" station coming in on a "98" frequency. -User:ChrisB 01:28, 2005 May 6 (UTC) This station went on the air in west end Atl at 130" tower and 20,000 watts now its one of two of the heigh station ant with towers in Atl

Disambiguation

How do I start an article about a station called 99X in a diferent city if there is already an article called 99X? Temp

Nevermind, I figured out I could just use the call letters, which I did. I also just realized that this article isn't even named 99x. My bad. Temp

The Transition Plan

So we should expect to see a lot of activity here today and over the weekend. Not a surprise, but there should be some plan of what should (or shouldn't) take place. My initial thoughts:

• "WNNX" as call letters will continue to exist, but may be transferred elsewhere. This could affect not only the page title, but a lot of the terrestial-related content listed. Should we worry about this now? No. But it's something to thing about.
• Should the article be renamed "99X" or variation thereof if the call letters don't apply anymore? Do we create a new article for "99X" and remove the redirect, to cover the new online/HD broadcast only (with a link over to this article for history of the brand)?
• Let's avoid trivial info, such as the penultimate song, if possible.
• Do we merge the current WWWQ article into the WNNX article (as the staff, promotions, etc has transitioned over to the "WNNX" calls)?. This would be consistent with keeping the history of the frequency. If so, then we would make a section for "the 99X era" to match the "pre-99X" section currently in the article. However, if we do this it may require splitting the article into current and history pieces for length.

Any other thoughts, suggestions, plans of action? RadioBoy2003 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about moving the bulk of the 99X content in this article to 99X and using it to build a new article. More or less in the spirit of WDRE (former Philadelphia radio station) (except that we wouldn't need the crazy disambiguation in the title). Then, we could use a short summary of the station in this article with a link to the main article.

A lot of what's in this article is pertinent to the history of the station's frequency. But we don't need all of the details about 99X as we move forward. We can also include the information about 99X.com in the new article.

Some of the Q100 content should certainly be moved into this article as well, given that Q100 is technically still using WNNX. Probably the same course of action - add a summary of the history of the station in the WWWQ article and put the current information in this one. Once Cumulus figures out what they're going to do with call signs, we can just move the two articles to their new call signs. (We'll need an admin to move this article to WWWQ - assuming Cumulus just moves the call signs as expected.)

If all of this sounds okay, I was thinking about taking a pass at it tonight. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits you made are a start. I am hesitant to remove completely all the "WNNX" related items and place them on the 99X page, as that would be inconsistent with the "pre-99X" section that currently exists on this page. If it were me, I'd include all terrestial history of the frequency on this page, and use the new 99X page for all future material. RadioBoy2003 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an aircheck of the final moments of 99X? if so please let me know and if it's available online, can you provide me the website on my talk page? thanks. chrismaster1 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008

• 99x.com is still referring to itself as WNNX. It appears like the WNNX name will be associated with the web station and the radio station will be renamed with different call letters. If this is the case, this page should still remain WNNX and be associated with 99x.com.Werecowmoo (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. WNNX is a callsign. The current 99X will not be associated with WNNX when/if Cumulus moves the WWWQ callsign to 99.7. At that point, 99X will become WWWQ HD-2. (HD signals don't get their own callsigns, since they're broadcast via the top-level frequency.) -- ChrisB (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was listening to the 99x.com webcast today and they definately said "the new WNNX, 99x.com."Werecowmoo (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What they're saying is irrelevant. We're talking about FCC regulations. 99.7 HD-2 is a subcarrier of the 99.7 FM signal. At present, yes, it's WNNX HD-2, because 99.7 still carries the WNNX callsign. But when Cumulus moves the WWWQ callsign to 99.7, the HD-2 signal will have to legally ID itself as WWWQ HD-2. They can techically say whatever they want to on the .com feed - they could identify themselves as 96 Rock if they wanted to. But once the callsigns change, they will not be able to legally identify the HD-2 as WNNX. -- ChrisB (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that upWerecowmoo (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The logic

RadioBoy - I'm responding to your post here, just so everyone can see what the reasoning was.

The main problem is that Wikipedia's radio articles don't follow any one guideline. WHFS follows the history of the callsign, not the frequency - it doesn't talk about the history of the 105.7 frequency. In the case of WHFS, the callsign has simply moved around the Baltimore area. WNNX is more than likely going to be shipped out of state (assuming that Cumulus decides they don't want to lose it). In the case of WDRE, there's an article about the current WDRE (in Long Island) and a separate article about the former WDRE Philly. The current Philly station at WDRE's former frequency (WPPZ 103.9) has its own article. The 99X situation is more like the latter - the current 99X isn't moving with the WNNX callsign, and the current WNNX article focuses on the frequency.

Also, we have a LOT of content about 99X. It was readily justified to include it all in this article when WNNX was 99X, but there's just too much content for an article that currently covers the entire history of the frequency (per article length guidelines). Wiki guidelines freely allow for (and encourage) new articles to be created to expand on a specific topic. But duplicate content guidelines frown on including all of that content in both articles. The guidelines encourage what's done here - move the bulk of one topic elsewhere and summarize it in the original article.

Simply put - the point of the 99X article is to focus on the former station. If the jocks and programming had remained, it would have been much easier to support the claim that the station had simply "moved" to HD and .com. But every reliable source sees it for what it is - the end of a radio station, and the transition of that brand to another station. The same applies if Cumulus moves the WNNX calls to another city and creates a new 99X - that station is not directly related to the original; at least, not enough to justify combining the topics into one article.

There is currently no value in giving the current 99X its own article. Guidelines would pretty much preclude it on notability grounds. It only exists because of the former 99X, and has no true programming. If, at some point, Cumulus decides add jocks and programming and makes it a self-sustaining station, then I think it would deserve its own article, but at "WNNX HD-2" instead of 99X (per article naming conventions). But, for now, it should stay as a mention in 99X and WNNX (in the same manner that the other local HD stations are considered).

Since the 99X in the 99X article isn't a current station, we can readily justify using 99X as the title. If we had to, we could use "WNNX (former Atlanta radio station)" as its title, but I think that's unnecessarily cumbersome; it was only needed in the case of WDRE Philly's article because that station identified itself by its callsign. We can readily use disambiguation to prevent confusion between the 99X described in the 99X article and the current one (as it says now: "This article is about the former Atlanta radio station.")

I hope that explains what I had in mind. There aren't that many guidelines in play here, but I think this best follows what Wikipedia suggests.

BTW - the plan here is to move the current WNNX article to WWWQ and the current WWWQ article to a new location once Cumulus changes the callsigns. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy/complete explanation from your viewpoint. While I agree with you regarding keeping the article length shorter if possible (therefore a split is needed somewhere), I disagree with lumping the history of 99.7 from 1992-2008 into the 99X article *while at the same time* leaving all other history of 99.7 in the current WWWQ article. There has to be a better way to represent it... and the 100.5 article needs to be brought up to the same level of detail relating to the history of that frequency as well (yes, even if that means refering people to the current 99.7 article).

• But duplicate content guidelines frown on including all of that content in both articles. - completely agree.
• the point of the 99X article is to focus on the former station - that's fine, but then where do you put the info about the 99X.COM brand going forward? (perhaps that's the answer -- name it 99X.com?)
• and the transition of that brand to another station - agreed. As I pointed out earlier, a new article going forward (whatever one it was called) is appropriate in this situation.

Anyway, I could go on. Flip-flopping the two articles, and creating a third for the new entity, is going to result in some sort of a mess that will need some advanced editing/cleanup skills here. The only solid recommendation I can make is to be consistent across the entire set of articles in how each of the articles refer to each other. They're indelibely linked now; let's not screw it up too much. RadioBoy2003 (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the real answer to the first part is to put the former dj information into prose. Wikipedia frowns on lists like this, and there's really no good reason to do it. If we expand the information about the related stations (Power 99, etc), we can talk about the folks as part of the history, which would make it easier to organize everything.

And, no offense to the part-timers, but there's really no justifiable reason to list out every person who at one point had a shift at a station. It's nice for completiveness, but it doesn't really help the article at all. If the person isn't notable enough to warrant a coherent sentence about their tenure, they're really not worth including. (None of the other major radio station articles have lists of former staff like these.)

As far as the current 99X.com - I think the safest route is to wait it out to see if it becomes somehow notable on its own. If its only notability is that it shares the brand name of the previous station, then it doesn't warrant anything other than the brief mentions it currently gets. If the concept works and it becomes successful, then we can figure out how to best present it.

Kind of as an aside - I think a lot of Wikipedia's articles about radio stations are completely overridden with technical jargon. I feel like there are a few radio hobbyists using Wikipedia to mix the technical details (broadcast range, power, etc) amongst the general information, and it makes the articles borderline unreadable for the layperson. It's worth noting that a station was downgraded from C to C3, but we don't need to explain what that means - we can just link to other articles. We also don't need to list the height of the tower and the five other stations that share it when talking about the history - information like that should be included in a separate section in the article (preferably at the bottom) - something like "Technical details". -- ChrisB (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Official WNNX/WWWQ Call Sign Swap on 29 January 2008

The call signs for WWWQ and WNNX were mutually swapped by the owner and appear on the official FCC web site on 29 January 2008 (referenced). I move the admin revert to the edit on Revision as of 21:48, 29 January 2008 by User "1690khz" since the Wiki article tracks the WNNX call sign.

You're right, but you can't just swap the content of two articles. That's called a cut-and-paste move, outlined here: WP:CPMV. The correct method is to have admins move the pages entirely, so as to preserve the edit histories of both articles. I put in the request - you can re-add the content that you added once the moves are finished. -- ChrisB (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading your post again, and I'm baffled. Both of these articles actively follow the history of the frequency, not the callsign. (The 99.7 article in particular.) If we want to change that, it's something that should be discussed by the wider group, not a decision made by one user. There is no overriding consensus on Wikipedia that articles should follow callsigns. I'd readily argue that the opposite was true - if the articles follow the callsign, then why does the infobox template have a "former callsigns" label? -- ChrisB (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ROCK1005ATL.PNG

Image:ROCK1005ATL.PNG 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 ensure 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) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)