Talk:WWV (radio station)

Should WWV be documented as being in the United States?

*everyone* knows that Colorado is in the United States - the ITU prefix even gives away the county

This is not worth an edit war, and I'm not going to make any change to the parent article. I would however say that it's my opinion that the country of origin should be left in if there is any doubt...

1. Not everyone knows that Colorado is in the United States. Much of Wikipedia's audience is international, and it doesn't hurt, nor is it dumbing down this article, to indicate what country a radio station is in so that an English speaking reader in say, Germany knows where you're talking about. CHU in Canada mentions its country of origin immediately in its article.

2. The audience of this article is not necessarily people intimately familiar with amateur or world band radio, who would know what an ITU prefix is, or why that defines the station as being in the United States.

3. Unlike line of sight radio stations, WWV can be received in locations outside the United States. Even the announcement at the top of the hour does not specifically say that Colorado is located in the United States, so someone who hears the station for the first time and then comes to this article may not know what country it's coming from, particularly if they've DXed the station and only been able to hear a small portion of the announcement.

Just a few thoughts... Skybunny 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I belive location convention is that in the U.S., it is sufficient to indicate the U.S. state as the major location, much as you might say Aberdeen, Scotland without having to say Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. I would compare to other articles with locations. And besides, clicking on the wikilink on the location will clear up any such question. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

While not quite the same thing, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States_and_Canada says that state or province name as major place is appropriate. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see where traversing the links can do the same thing; it sunds fair enough to me if it is left off. It just seemed better to discuss this here rather than in the form of edits on the front page. Skybunny 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I appeared to start this debate with the following discussion with the Admin who has locked the article. I placed this material on his Talk page but he did not reply:

G'day. You seem to take exception to me placing the abbreviation USA after Colorado in the article WWV. I did it for the following reasons.

1. It is convention to assume that your reader does not know geography. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28country-specific_topics%29 which states the convention is "Item" of "Country" as the preferred way of referring to things. 2. It could be construed as arrogant that everyone knows that Colorado is in the USA and therefore it doesn't needed to be stated. 3. The addition of USA simply makes the article more informative, not less informative. Further it is an accurate statement. Therefore I cannot see the need for its removal.

I'd appreciate your explanation. Maustrauser 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you not consider it an abuse of your Adminship to lock this page? You have not discussed your refusal to allow the country to appear after the State. I have politely asked you to provide and explanation, which you have not done. I waited several days for your response, and without one forthcoming I added USA to the article. You then reverted my change and locked the page. I would appreciate your explanation other than "Everyone knows where Colorado is." I have copied this to the article Talk Page in the hope you might reply. Maustrauser 11:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Even though this article is in my watchlist, so are a lot of other articles, and I did not notice your attempt to communicate with me immediately. Now, about your USA link; putting it in is redundant. I told you that there's a high probability that if you ask someone where Colorado is, they'll reply "United States". You can also tell from the very first letter of this station's call sign, "W", that this is a U.S. station. As well, the convention for mentioning U.S. cities is to say the name of the city, followed by the name of the state, and that's it. Besides, you only need to click on "Colorado" in the article to be told that it's a U.S. state. Also, there's already a link to the United States article further down in the article. Again, linking to USA at the start of the article is redundant, and I ask that you do not do it.  Denelson83  12:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

voice announcements designed to sound like Don Elliot - not John Doyle

On August 13, 1991 both WWV and WWVH began broadcasting voice recordings that were digitized and stored in solid state memory devices. Previous voice recordings were played back from mechanical drum recorders, which were more prone to failure. The male voice on WWV was designed to sound like Don Elliot, the station’s original announcer. WWVH still uses the voice of its original announcer, Jane Barbe, although the digital storage device has made her voice sound slightly different.

Documentation found here:

Per NIST publication #432, 2002 edition, page 32.

http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1383.pdf

Designed to, but it's not his voice. I have a phonographic memory, and I have heard the voices of both Don Elliot and John Doyle. The voice on WWV is definitely that of Doyle. --  Denelson83  23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Phonographic memory is not documentation. Erager 16:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have requested a citation for this assertion from a primary source within the context of the article (which I myself have been unable to find). If someone can find a primary source which indicates either that John Doyle is or is not the current voice of WWV, please put it in. Lacking data which clearly says that Doyle is 'not the voice of WWV, I would hope there is otherwise no other dispute. Skybunny 06:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen to this recording of John Doyle's voice. After that, tune in WWV on a shortwave radio and listen to the voice announcing the time, and you tell me if the two voices are different. --  Denelson83  07:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's beside the point. I am no more qualified than any other editor to make this determination for myself. However, the CBS 46 citation, which is biographical about one of its staff, is an appropriate citation, and I have put it into the article. Skybunny 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A-ha! Citation! And another one! --  Denelson83  07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

voice announcements

We may both be wrong- see this document: http://ts.nist.gov/MeasurementServices/Calibrations/upload/SP250-67.pdf

page 5 and 6 of publication (14 and 15 in adobe) Erager 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That does not agree with my phonographic memory. I've just sent an e-mail to Lee Rodgers asking him if that is his voice announcing the time. --  Denelson83  19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have included the NIST publication reference discussed above into the article, which was never done; it is the most concise and specific reference that I have read to date. Skybunny 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, great idea to clarify that the NIST's own publication has a mistake. Let me know how that works out. Erager 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Denelson83, if you are going to keep this dispute going then do something about it. Peer review - whatever- but let's either resolve it or remove the dispute. Erager 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a 3O: Stating that it may be Person X's voice because it sounds like it to you would be WP:OR. State what is verifiable, not what you think. If NIST says it's Person Y, then say that. If a publication as of 19xx says it was Person Z (at that time), say that too. Remove the bit about "it sounds like it is so-and-so" -- give a WP:RS cite for that assertion, or remove it as OR. And remove that silly dispute tag while you're there. Of all the things to need DR for! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But this is verifiable. See this page. --  Denelson83  23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to mediate/advocate for everyone in this discussion - I'll be back soon with my initial opinions, and hopefully we can work from there. Martinp23 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be about whose voice is used by WWV, and there are sources supporting both sides of the issue. When we have multiple reliable sources like this,we must present a neutral point of view, taking the different interpretations by the sources into account. If the sources are reliable and verifable, then there should be no reason to cast doubt upon their assertations. I've read the NIST piece, and it seems that this is presented, in a round about way, in the article now. The current sentence is quite difficult to understand, so can I suggest that each of the parties places a proposed, sourced sentence on this talk page, taking into account my points above. We should then be able to work from there. Thanks, Martinp23 17:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I still can't reconcile the official government publication's statement about who voices the time on WWV with what I have heard with my own ears. We need to settle this conclusively by contacting NIST, Lee Rodgers and John Doyle, and asking them to clarify who the voice is. --  Denelson83  21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Remember that since the NIST publication says Lee Rodgers is the voice, you are going to need to conclusively prove that the voice is in fact John Doyle. Xenon54 / talk / 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

why does WWV Broadcast a 10kiloWatt signal on 5,10 and 15MHz And WWVB Uses a 50 Kilowatt signal?

i think WWV Should Make their Signal 50 Kilowatts --spiddy 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all a matter of what the Earth's ionosphere does to radio signals of different frequencies. WWVB is a groundwave signal, while WWV is a skywave signal, and the ionosphere is very effective at reflecting shortwave radio signals. WWVB needs all that power just to cover the Continental United States with its longwave signal, while WWV can cover half the world with its shortwave signal just using 10 kW. --  Denelson83  04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Time announcements automated?

Were the time announcements automated, even back in the 1960s? It seems like back in the 1960s the technology was barely there, if at all, to have a unique voice announcement every minute. If there was a live announcer in the early days, when was the change made? Can this be added to the article? -Rolypolyman (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)