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)

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)