Talk:KWKW

not relevant, nor necessary

There is no usefulness for the KFAC entry to be merged with the KWKW entry. - The area refers only to part of KFAC's broadcasting spectrum, the AM band at 1330 - KFAC existed for over 50 years and has a history of its own, separate from KWKW - KWKW has a long history too, much of it in spanish radio broadcasting, and hopefully some knowledgeable contributors could expand on its history in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.243.54 (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is need for some degree of merger to cover the early years of this license's existence. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was shocked to come to Wikipedia today and see that the KFAC page had been ravaged, and the incredible history lost. Because of (what appears to be) a sloppy merger, I'm finding it impossible to even find the correct history pages of the venerable radio station history. This completely misses the point of being a true encyclopedia. If history is obliterated, then truth and its value are lost. If a knowledgeable staff member has a method of locating the legacy pages for KFAC, please at least put a link somewhere than researchers can locate easily. Thank you. 76.87.36.128 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Granted, I'd like to credit those who did endeavor to keep some vital KFAC legacy facts included here, however as with the above commenter,

I feel it would still be better to have a KFAC legacy page of its own. 76.87.36.128 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Separate pages for a "defunct station" that is in reality still very much active aren't needed when the general accepted standard (but not official Wikipedia policy) is of one page for the broadcast license. Several exceptions do exist due to extraordinary circumstances, but do not apply here. Having a separate page for KFAC might have been passable in 2008 but not in 2022; this rewritten article treats KFAC correctly, with everything attributed and cited and no opinionated tone, which was a major flaw of the old article structure. KWKW details the history of KJS-KTBI, a very noteworthy station built by Biola, the historical context and legacy of KFAC, and the history of KWKW post-1989. It is the true and appreciable legacy of a historical station that deserves it. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh?

Strange that going by search engine to KFAC one finds the article. But then when one clicks the Talk page then back again you're taken to KWKW instead and can't find the original KFAC pages anymore. KFAC now devolves to a bunch of other stations, including spanish and religious. Link. I guess they had a bad ending or something. Sold out by the new owners. Really, how many rock stations do we need? But while they existed people enjoyed them. A rare gem Link Anyway, here the Talk page is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KFAC_(radio_station) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.191.146 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• KWKW now treats the history of KFAC correctly, and the history of the station went well beyond KFAC itself. KRRL also notes the history of KFAC-FM correctly, too. KFAC is a disambiguation page because several distinct stations have used the call sign over the decades and need to be treated as such. As to why a separate page exists for "KFAC (radio station)" no longer exists, see my above comment for further elaboration. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I did see your comment above. And I still think its wrong. Your "general accepted standard" is an essay by one user, and has not proceeded beyond that to be reviewed and become official. That you choose to elevate it does not make it so. Tracking a station through its broadcast license, no matter how convoluted, would be akin to hiding an article about New York City in an article titled New Amsterdam.

I visited the old KFAC article and its talk page some years ago. I came back this evening to add to it. I'm glad someone has included its URL here, so perhaps I can at least archive it. It has a lot of useful information.

By the way, I write as someone who grew up in southern California listening to KFAC from the mid-1940s until we moved out of the area in 1969. And I actually appeared on an Uncle Whoa Bill show in (I think) 1949. KFAC was a major part of my young life and my classical music education. I agree with others here that KFAC rates its own page. Lbyler (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lbyler, the reason we have the "one-to-a-license" rule in US radio is because some stations are like chameleons. One of my other GA projects in radio was KZDG, an AM station in San Francisco. It has changed call letters nine times and aired everything from classical to Top 40 to sports to South Asian fare in its 75-plus years on the air.

I have a userspace essay at User:Sammi Brie/One or Two. It describes the circumstances in which I find it viable to split a license history across two articles:

• when discontinuity is produced by a license revocation proceeding;
• when a station has an extended period of silence, measured in years, and people will not connect the old and new together, typically paired with a major change in the operation of the station.

KFAC is an astounding case in this field, and KWKW is also among the largest pages in the topic area (8,000 words). We understand that it may be counterintuitive to some people to read articles that flow this way, but if we went the other way, we'd have major disambiguation problems and an overabundance of small pages with no reason to stand alone. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:KWKW/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: @Nathan Obral: Will be taking a look at this shortly (shortly being within "now", if not within 24 hours - I know Wikmedians dont like to wait and after all competence is required - I learn from my mistakes).

Will ping again when done.

Is it well written?

As usual use your browsers find and replace function.

• Why is KFAC bolded in the lead?

• See MOS:BOLD: This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. In this case, there used to be an article KFAC (radio station).
• For added context, this page amounted to both a total rebuild of KWKW and rewrite/ceremonial merger of KFAC (radio station). This revision of the latter preceded our rewrites and had been separated from the article 15 years earlier, predating policy on station articles. Some places, including this entry on FormatChange.com, link to KFAC (defunct), the original page title.

• In the lead remove the "itself", the setence can be KWKW is Southern California's oldest Spanish language radio station which I think flows better.

• This is where things start getting weird, because it was the oldest radio station on another frequency and license altogether.
• Not only that, this is the third iteration of KWKW, but the adoption of Spanish-language programming occurred when it was on the 1300 AM frequency.

It's OK, its good enough as it is already.

• Remove the phrase The first radio station purchased by Lotus in 1962, so it flows better (if you think its not an important part of the lead)

• Moved out of lead.

• and when the Great Depression hit, a fall in donations led to the station becoming unsustainable for the institute to operate. should be reworded to and the Great Depression led to a fall in donations, which meant the station was unsustaniable for the institute to operate

•  Done

• unlimited time I'm not sure what this means, I am not a broadcasting expert. I'm assuming it means 24/7 broadcasting, but if so it would just be more clear to say 24/7 instead of "unlimited"

• You'd be correct, but this was the wording of the day. Many stations still signed off at night, so unlimited time means that they had the capability to broadcast at night.
• KFAC no longer needed to have to sign off at regular intervals in order for KGEF to broadcast, as that station suspended operations, then had its' license revoked. KFAC did extend into 24/7 broadcasting, but did not do so immediately. Hopefully that makes some sense.

• All told it is maybe better to just remove this? The sentence flows better without it.

•  Done

• The sentence with "disaster struck" should be converted to The KWKU nominal main studio in Pomona would prove critical to getting KWKW back on the air after a major fire at the Sunset Vine Tower,which was home to the Lotus cluster, caused extensive electrical damage to the building on December 6, 2001. Before the fire, the building was deemed unsafe by fire officials.

• I reworded this but not the way you suggested because the fire caused the building to be deemed unsafe. (Context) There really should be a page about the building, to be quite honest... 🤔

• Remove the "however" out of The AM, however, or at least put the "however" first.

• Reworded.

• KCRW has a WP article shouldn't it be blue linked

• It already is earlier in the page.

Wow, you work fast! Usually it takes a couple of days for people to get back to me. The policy says 7 days, but I dont see the need for 7 days when all the comments have been resolved so quickly. I'll wait for comments from @Nathan Obral: before passing, just to make sure all the edges are covered Rlink2 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Just threw in my two cents. Thank you for the kind words. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Above commentary makes sense, will pass.

To be clear, I do a through review on each and every GA I do. In this case, it nearly took me an hour and a half to get through it all. This is amazing work, keep it up. Rlink2 (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very, very much for your hard work. \o/ Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it verifiable with no original research?

Yes.

One link was dead (I fixed it already). The rest of the citations seem good, consistent and clean.

Is it broad in its coverage?

Yes.

Is it neutral?

Yes

Is it stable?

Yes

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Yes

@Sammi Brie: @Nathan Obral:: as usual, good work.

Baseball

Los angles baseball Red Sox lost today make me. Sad try again tomorrow that so much fun 207.172.68.194 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)