Talk:KFRC (610 AM)

Blurb for DYK

Blurb for Did You Know feature of Wikipedia:

Did You Know

...the callsign of KFRC in San Francisco, California in the U.S. stood for "Known For Radio Clearness"? However, when the AM radio station signed on with 50 watts in 1924, it was heard as far away as New Zealand, far exceeding anyone's expectations.

KFRC

If it stands for "Known for Radio Clearness" then why is it so surprising the channel had such a wide reach? Using "however" seems a bit wrong in this context. Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

50 watts?

Along those lines, there seems to be something funny about the 50 Watts reaching New Zealand claim. 50 Watts would be barely enough to serve the city. Early powerful AM stations often had 50,000 or even 100,000 Watt outputs - and if atmospheric conditions were right I suppose these could reach New Zealand. But not 50 Watts. I'd check to see if maybe the number isn't off by 3 orders of magnitude (i.e., somebody dropped a "k" somewhere). Fawcett5 13:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 50 watts, I had the same reaction when I was writing the story. However, the mysteriously low number came from 2 sources, and was actually explained. The early signal was on 1230 AM, and is not the one they went into long-term use with on 610 AM. They also had a favorable location for the antenna. A big problem with AM is other signals, which may not have been as much of a problem back then.

Source 1: San Francisco "Bulletin", Tuesday, September 23, 1924: Section 2 Page 1:

"BULLETIN RADIO STATION OPENS TOMORROW; GLOBE FLIERS' CHIEF WILL DEDICATE KFRC."

(excerpt)

"The station itself is a new departure in broadcasting units. It is not a high powered station. It is rated as a 50 watt station, but of the Western Electric type, which guarantees a high degree of efficiency. Radio engineers and the Radioart Studios personnel determined on the low power, perfectly tuned unit as preferable to the high powered sets which cause interference. The Government at Washington is watching the work of KFRC with considerable interest in view of the coming conference as it is believed that such units will form a solution of the present broadcasting congestion." [1]

Source 2: THE HISTORY OF KFRC SAN FRANCISCO AND THE DON LEE NETWORKS Copyright John F. Schneider, 1997 Seattle, Washington

(excerpt)

"The transmitter itself was a fifty watt unit, the latest Western Electric design. The only other one like it was in St. Louis, where it was said to "pound into New York like a local. The relatively low-powered transmitter was said to be preferred by the station engineers because it would cause less interference and yet deliver almost equal signal strength because of its superior circuit design." [2]

I am posting all this to the article's TALK page, and will do some more research as well. Maybe we can learn more. Thanks. Vaoverland 16:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

A few thoughts. The frequency used at the time isn't too different from the 1.8Mhz amateur band, where global communications can and do take place, albeit that very good antenna systems are required. San Fransisco to New Zealand is mostly a sea path, so multi-hop ionospheric propagation, even at those frequencies, would probably stand a better chance than over a land path. Each time you double the power of a radio transmitter the received signal will increase by 3 decibels. That isn't a lot, and even a 10 times increase only gives round a 10 dB increase at the receiver. In practical terms that means that if a 50,000 watt transmitter was a good strong signal over a given path, a 50 watt transmitter might well be audible - signal to noise ratio is what matters with weak signal reception and in 1924 there were relatively few broadcasting stations and the general level of background noise from electrical appliances and industrial sources would be much lower than it is now. I've personally had amateur contacts between the UK and Australia on higher shortwave frequencies with a 5 watt transmitter - not comparing like with like, but an indication that a little power can go a long way. Overall it sounds quite likely that KFRC was heard in New Zealand.Thomsk 19:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so now it's time to sort this all out

I slapped a merge tag on this article and on KIFR. Here's what needs to be done:

1. The KMVQ article needs to be compiled. KYUU has a lot of background for this. Also some KFRC stuff from the 99.7 era belongs there.

2. KIFR and this page now need to be combined. The 106.9 stuff should be on here in some form. Lots of history with this frequency. Need to take care in not making the article too long.

3. Some of the KFRC stuff should be on KEAR.

I could help with it, once I can possibly sort it all out in my head. This is mind-boggling. Not to mention the Free FM stuff will be migrating over to KYOU.--Fightingirish 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. It was hard enough when I sorted out the KFRC/KEAR/KIFR mess a year and a half ago. Since I haven't been up in the Bay Area in a while, I wasn't even aware of these recent changes. While I'm glad they brought back the old KFRC format, it's sad that they got rid of Free FM and moved the talk shows to a weak-signalled AM station that you can't even hear in the South Bay; that's KYCY, not KYOU which is a TV station in Iowa. DHowell 02:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's just been merged, but I think it should be split

I believe there should be two articles, one about the historical KFRC, and one about the current station at 106.9. There is enough information on both to fill up two separate articles, and the "Movin' 99.7" switch along with the KFRC-FM revival at 106.9 represents a clean break between "historical" and "current". Since we can problaby expect more shuffling from CBS in the next few years it might be better to make sure all this information is separated to best preserve it in the future. Here's my suggestion:

1. Move the KIFR redirect (which contains all the GFDL history for the article about the 106.9 frequency) to KFRC-FM. This would become the article about the current KFRC-FM 106.9, and the history of the 106.9 frequency in San Francisco. (However, a wholly separate article could probably someday be written about KMPX (FM) in the 1970s, along the lines of KOME, KMET (FM) and KPPC).
2. Make KFRC an article primarily about the historical AM station, and its historical FM counterparts (KFRC-FM 106.1 in the 1970s, and KFRC-FM 99.7 until the "Movin' 99.7" switch).
3. Make KMVQ (which should actually be moved to KMVQ-FM, see the FCC database) about the current "Movin' 99.7" and the history of the 99.7 frequency in San Francisco, but with information about KYUU primarily in the KYUU article (which also, according to FCC, should be KYUU-FM).
4. Information about KFRC-FM 99.7 from 1991-2006 should probably be primarily in KFRC, since it is closely associated with the legendary AM station, but KMVQ-FM and KFRC-FM could include summaries and links back to KFRC. Info about KFRC-FM as "Movin' 99.7" primarily should be in KMVQ-FM.
5. Leave KEAR mostly alone, since it primarily covers the history of the Family Radio flagship on its various frequencies, and not the history of 610 kHz, which is covered in KFRC and really has little to do with the current occupants of this frequency.
6. One thing I am undecided on, though, is whether the historical KFRC article should be left at KFRC, with a disambiguation link at the top to KFRC-FM, or if KFRC should become a disambiguation page and the historical article moved to either KFRC (AM) or KFRC (1924-2006). My preference is to leave the historical page at KFRC, since it would be about both the historical AM and FM stations, and using years to disambiguate radio stations is unprecedented. Also, someone looking for information on the current KFRC-FM would probably still find the historical KFRC article interesting.

If there's no objections to this, I'll start working on this after the holiday weekend. DHowell 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my suggestions (to be completed after the history are back as they should be). Primarily, I think that there should be one article per frequency (FCC license), and the history of the frequency (FCC license) should be in each article - without creating additional articles for call signs that are no longer used. All the history that happened with the same FCC license (same frequency) should be in the same article. This is the basis for my response (numbered to match your suggestions above):

1. Redirect completed, though I think KMPX should be written about at KFRC-FM, since it was (most likely) broadcast using the same FCC license - that has been transfered around over the years.
2. Oppose - the majority of KFRC history should moved to KEAR. Most of the history takes place when KFRC was on 610AM (1924-2005). KMVQ should have a section about simulcasting KFRC AM (1991-4/2005) and then solo broadcasting KFRC-FM (4/05-9/06). KMVQ would have a link to KEAR for the earlier history of KFRC.
3. Redirect completed, though I think KYUU should be merged into KMVQ. KYUU is part of 99.7 history and there is not much more information at KYUU than is in at KMVQ.
4. Oppose - there should not be a separate article just about KFRC as an oldies station. Anything about 99.7 KFRC-FM should be in the article about 99.7 (KMVQ), and anything about 610 KFRC should be in the article about 610 (KEAR).
5. Oppose - KEAR claims its first broadcast date is in 1924 - the start of KFRC and the date of license issue to the station. Since the station started as KFRC, it should include the history of the station. The majority of the KFRC history (currently in KMVQ) should be moved to KEAR.
6. Oppose - I created KFRC as a redirect page, listing the 3 stations it may be referring to.

They way I would handle Family Radio (KEAR), that been bouncing between radio stations, is this. On the frequencies it used to be on, there should be a sentence saying "this frequency was known as KEAR from xxxx-xxxx) and broadcast Family Radio." On the current KEAR article, it should have the history of 610 AM (the majority of KFRC's history). In a section of the KEAR article, there should be a "KEAR call sign history", where there is a time line of events. I would normally object to having such a history, but KEAR is unique in that it is one organization always with the same programming that has moved between frequencies and always utilizing the same call sign. Another way to handle this is to mention the KEAR history in the Family Radio article, which describes the programming.

This differs from KFRC, as CBS sold KFRC (AM) to another organization and CBS had no plans to keep using KFRC (AM). CBS also changed the format and frequency of KFRC-FM. With KEAR, you have one organization with the same call letters and the same programming moving between frequencies (FCC licenses). With KFRC, you have a company changing call letters and programming.

--Scott Alter 00:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frequency	before 4/05	4/05 - 10/05	10/05 - 10/06	10/06- 5/07	5/07 - present
AM 610	KFRC (Classic)+	KFRC (Christian)++	KEAR (Christian)
99.7 FM	KFRC-FM (Classic)+			KFRC-FM (Rhythmic AC)	KMVQ-FM (Rhythmic AC)
106.9 FM	KEAR (Christian)++		KIFR (Free FM)		KFRC-FM (Classic)

+ indicates simulcasting

I made this table to try and keep the station changes straight. --Scott Alter 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

History merges

Before anyone makes content changes to the articles, I just want to be clear about something. When all of the call sign changes took place last week, did the radio stations actually switch their frequencies, or did they just change formats?

I suspect they just changed formats and call signs, but the stations remained the same (including the same management and ownership). If this is the case, then the article histories need to be moved around. Radio station articles on Wikipedia generally follow each radio station, not the call signs. So the article at KFRC should be the current 106.9 and the history of the station at 106.9. KMVQ should be the current 99.7, and the history of the station at 99.7 (which would include its history as KFRC - see WXRK and WKRI for examples).

Whoever made the initial changes last week did not do them properly - rather than moving the articles about the stations to the new call signs, the person kept the articles and started changing the content to reflect the new station. If it is the case that only the call signs changed, then some db-histmerge-ing needs to be done. The article and history formerly at KIFR should be associated with the new KFRC (and the new content at KFRC). The old content of KFRC should be merged with the new content at KMVQ, and this combined article moved to KMVQ. I just had all the WFNY-FM/WXRK/WKRI/WXTM articles fixed today (after someone moved those incorrectly), so I know what needs to be done.

If I have described what happened accurately, then we should proceed to make the changes (which requires an administrator). Right now, there are 3 articles with 3 histories (KIFR, KFRC, and KMVQ). There should be only 2 histories for KRFC and KMVQ, and KIFR should be only a redirect (with no history). Once this is fixed, then the articles could be split as described previously. --Scott Alter 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To complete this db-history merge, it has to be done in a few steps:

1. Move current edits of KFRC to KIFR (beginning with "19:31, 17 May 2007 Boadrummer")
2. Perform db-history merge from KMVQ into KFRC (after all current KFRC edits and references have been moved to KIFR from above - to prevent 2 simultaneous histories of 2 different articles)
3. Delete KMVQ
4. Rename KFRC to KMVQ
5. Rename KIFR to KFRC

This should be done the same way with the talk pages. --Scott Alter 23:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened? I must object

I know we are supposed to be bold, but this goes way beyond being bold when articles are moved and histories merged without adequate discussion. I indicated above what I wanted to do and asked if there were any objections. The fact that there was should indicate a potential dispute about how this should have been handled. Unfortunately, now action has been taken that may be quite difficult to undo. Franky, I think this obsession with FCC licenses, to the exclusion of all else in determining how articles on radio stations should be written, is wrong. Let me address the points:

"Primarily, I think that there should be one article per frequency (FCC license), and the history of the frequency (FCC license) should be in each article - without creating additional articles for call signs that are no longer used. All the history that happened with the same FCC license (same frequency) should be in the same article."

This may be fine for small market stations or low-rated stations which might not have much notability other than their FCC license. For major market stations which have been around for 80-some years and made signficant impact on the field of radio broadcasting, notability is established far beyond the existence of an FCC license and a frequency. What you have proposed (and apparently tried to implement) is like saying that if a big famous company that has existed for many years moves to another building, that information about the entire history of that company should be contained in an article about whatever company happens to move into the old building. An FCC license is like a building, "companies" (stations) "move in" and "move out" all the time. As an encyclopedia, we document what is notable, and where the average person would expect to find the information. Radio stations' notability can often transcend the notability of the FCC licenses they use to broadcast.

"Redirect completed, though I think KMPX should be written about at KFRC-FM, since it was (most likely) broadcast using the same FCC license - that has been transfered around over the years."

"Redirect completed, though I think KYUU should be merged into KMVQ. KYUU is part of 99.7 history and there is not much more information at KYUU than is in at KMVQ."

What you are saying would mean that articles like KOME, KMET (FM) and KPPC should be merged into KUFX, KTWV and KROQ respectively, and I object strongly and vociferously to this. KOME, KMET and KPPC are notable in their own right, it's not the FCC license that they used at the time they broadcast that gives them this notability. Journalists and authors generally write about radio stations and their programming and impact on culture, not about FCC liceneses.

"Oppose - the majority of KFRC history should moved to KEAR. Most of the history takes place when KFRC was on 610AM (1924-2005). KMVQ should have a section about simulcasting KFRC AM (1991-4/2005) and then solo broadcasting KFRC-FM (4/05-9/06). KMVQ would have a link to KEAR for the earlier history of KFRC"

"Oppose - there should not be a separate article just about KFRC as an oldies station. Anything about 99.7 KFRC-FM should be in the article about 99.7 (KMVQ), and anything about 610 KFRC should be in the article about 610 (KEAR)."

I object to this. KFRC (AM) was a station that existed for many many years, and has nothing to do with a religious broadcaster who happens to occupy the same frequency (FCC license) as that historic station which is notable in its own right, regardless of what frequency that set of call letters is assigned to presently. It should have its own article, just as Gimbels has its own article, and its history is not (primarily) contained in the article on Stern's or Manhattan Mall.

"Oppose - KEAR claims its first broadcast date is in 1924 - the start of KFRC and the date of license issue to the station. Since the station started as KFRC, it should include the history of the station. The majority of the KFRC history (currently in KMVQ) should be moved to KEAR."

The change to 1924 as first broadcast date in the KEAR's infobox was made relatively recently; for a long time the infobox had the start date of KEAR on its various frequencies. This change also reflected the "FCC license above all" idea that I object to. By the way, KEAR, the station, not the article, does not claim 1924 as its first broadcast date. If anything, it claims 1959, see this Family Radio web page. On the other hand, the 1924 airdate is mentioned in an article about The History of KFRC, not an article about KEAR.

"Oppose - I created KFRC as a redirect page, listing the 3 stations it may be referring to."

Really, in my opinion, "KFRC" refers to one radio station that has moved around quite a bit in its recent history. I proposed two articles because there really is more to be written about that history than there is about the current station and frequency, and the "Movin' 99.7" switch created a "clean break" between history and the present. We have, for example articles on the history of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Democratic Republic; we don't try to squeeze all that historical information in a single article about Germany. And those historical articles about Germany have way more relevance to the preset Germany than KFRC 610 has to the present KEAR 610.

"They way I would handle Family Radio (KEAR), that been bouncing between radio stations, is this. On the frequencies it used to be on, there should be a sentence saying "this frequency was known as KEAR from xxxx-xxxx) and broadcast Family Radio." On the current KEAR article, it should have the history of 610 AM (the majority of KFRC's history). In a section of the KEAR article, there should be a "KEAR call sign history", where there is a time line of events. I would normally object to having such a history, but KEAR is unique in that it is one organization always with the same programming that has moved between frequencies and always utilizing the same call sign. Another way to handle this is to mention the KEAR history in the Family Radio article, which describes the programming."

Again this would be comingling information in a way that would be confusing for most readers. If someone is looking up the article KEAR, they are likely interested in the current Family Radio religious broadcaster. They might be interested in the history of that broadcaster in San Francisco (if they are interested in a less geographical sense, they can go to Family Radio). They might be interested to know that 610 was once KFRC, but I'm not sure how much interest they'd have in Don Lee et al. For that information, I think the average person would expect to find it at an article called KFRC. The average person might expect information about the current KFRC-FM, or even KMVQ-FM at KFRC, but that's why we have disambiguation pages.

"This differs from KFRC, as CBS sold KFRC (AM) to another organization and CBS had no plans to keep using KFRC (AM). CBS also changed the format and frequency of KFRC-FM. With KEAR, you have one organization with the same call letters and the same programming moving between frequencies (FCC licenses). With KFRC, you have a company changing call letters and programming."

While it's true that KFRC-FM and KMVQ-FM are owned by one company, and one could say that this company merely "changed programming" on their various frequencies, the general perception is that CBS changed the direction in a major way of a long-time radio station (KFRC oldies -> KFRC "Movin' 99.7"), and then "revived" that old station at a frequency where they had a format that was not succeeding (KIFR -> KFRC-FM) then gave a new set of call letters to go along with the new format at the old frequency (KFRC-FM -> KMVQ-FM); I'd bet that relatively few listeners of "Movin' 99.7" even noticed that call letter switch. People who wanted the old KFRC can now find it at 106.9. People who want information about the old KFRC ought to find it at KFRC. DHowell 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When I requested the db-histmerge on KMVQ as described in "History merges" as above, I was only following the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Article_creation_for_stations_with_call_signs. When the new articles were initially created, they were done incorrectly. Your proposals were mostly about content of the articles - which I did not significantly change. Before I made any changes, content had been deleted from these stations. When I was done, the complete history of each station was in place, with deletions restored.

Please explain what I did wrong (not that I even did the merge myself - an admin did it after reading this talk page, which had your opinions). The proper way to do it is renaming using the move function. As for moving content around, I provided my opinions and did not split any articles or move content. The split does require discussion. What we disagree on is essentially whether historical stations should have their own articles, or if the history should go by the FCC license. I will now explain to you what was done wrong and how I fixed it.

This whole mess occurred because instead of moving 99.7 KFRC-FM (with Movin 99.7 content) to KMVQ-FM (with Movin 99.7 content), someone blanked all of the content about Movin 99.7 and decided to make a new article with new content about the same Movin 99.7. This was totally the wrong thing to do. Movin 99.7 stayed the same the entire time. The only thing that happened to Movin 99.7 was a change of call signs. As such, the article on Movin 99.7 should have been simply renamed to the new call signs (as specified in the guidelines). There was no reason to have to start a new article from scratch just because a station changed call signs. KMVQ should not have been started as a new article. This is the reason that the db-histmerge needed to me completed with then KMVQ and KFRC (my #2 in "History merges" above). Was this wrong to keep the 99.7 article with the same article history and the station information? I don't think so. This history of the Movin 99.7 article should be continuous. There was no reason to create KMVQ as a new article.

The other problem caused by the initial events was that someone decided to completely delete all of the content about Free FM and KIFR's history. This content should not have been deleted. Also per the guidelines, this was a station changing call signs and formats, so the article should have been renamed to the new call sign (KFRC-FM). If this move was big enough to warrant a new article, then KIFR should have been left alone, and a new article created for the new KFRC-FM. With the db-histmerge from KMVQ into KFRC, the recent changes made to KFRC needed to be moved - otherwise there would be 2 article histories mixed together. The appropriate place for the content about the new 106.9 KFRC-FM would be with what happened after Free FM at KIFR.

What I initiated is the proper way to deal with call sign changes. What you have proposed (splitting the article), is totally separate from call sign changes and is still an open matter for discussion. The fixes I made to the article histories should not effect splitting the article. If you want to make an article about strictly the KFRC oldies stations, then go ahead. Split the KFRC history out of KFRC-FM (formerly KIFR), KMVQ-FM (formerly KFRC-FM), and KEAR (formerly KFRC (AM)). If you do this split, then place the appropriate see also links in those 3 articles and everyone is happy. What is the problem?

The only thing you can say that I might not have been right in doing was creating KFRC as a disambiguation page. If the split will occur, then simply put the content at KFRC instead of having the disambiguation page. My reason for initiating the db-histmerge was to quickly get the old Movin 99.7 page back as it was, before work was put in to a new article about Movin 99.7. A new article about an unchanged station is unnecessary - especially when there was already a complete article on the station.

But remember, I placed the db-histmerge tag on KMVQ with a hold-on tag and a link to this talk page. This allowed the admin who made the changes to see your discussion on the split. My actions after the split of renaming KFRC to KFRC-FM and KMVQ to KMVQ-FM should not be controversial. My edits of the current KFRC-FM converted the Free FM information to the past tense, and I added back in the new content written about the new KFRC-FM from other contributors. The changes I made were not malicious and had no effect on your desire to split the article. Also, I did not remove the split template - the admin did it during the db-histmerge (not sure if intentional or not).

If you are objecting because the creation of a new KMVQ was like actually making a split between KFRC and Movin 99.7, then what I did (maybe a merge in your eyes), was appropriate. The split should not have been done without discussion (which is in progress).

I still maintain that the split is a separate matter from the call sign changes. Right now, each station's history is with the history of the station. If you want to pull out the KFRC history into a new article, then that is the discussion of the split. Had you phrased the split discussion in this way, I might have agreed with you...but the way you phrased it I liked it better as I had previously stated. I would not be completely opposed to make an article about KFRC composed of content from KFRC-FM, KEAR, and KMVQ-FM.

You seem to be mixing my opinions on your proposed split with the actions of db-histmerging. What I really don't understand is why you are so angry about what happened? How does this effect your desire to split the article? If anything, I think it should be easier to split the content now. Before there were essentially 4 sources of content (KIFR, old 99.7 KFRC, new 106.9 KFRC-FM, and KMVQ). Now, there are 2 complete sources of information. --Scott Alter 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And before you argue that information about KFRC (AM) is now in the KMVQ-FM article, I agree that it is misplaced. I also think it was misplaced in the KFRC article about the FM station. The information either belongs in KEAR or a new article. You're probably mad because you wanted to keep the KFRC (AM) history together with a new article. When you do a split, that's what happens - only one subject matter can retain the article history. Even before the articles were renamed, if the split happens, either Movin 99.7 or KFRC (AM) will retain the history. The other will not have the associated article history. That's just how Wikipedia works. If the split does happen, a series of renames could keep the history with an article on KFRC (AM). So relax. There's no reason to get worked up over this matter. --Scott Alter 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that creating a new KMVQ-FM article was "the totally wrong thing to do". The problem is that if you actually read the article now called "KMVQ-FM" (which was formerly KFRC), it is hardly about "Movin' 99.7" at all. This isn't a case of an article that is half about one subject and half about another. It is at least 90% about KFRC and its history on both 610 and 99.7. Even the opening paragraph, which is now blatantly inaccurate if about "KMVQ-FM" or "Movin' 99.7", makes it clear that it is mostly about KFRC AM and not KMVQ-FM ("... which began broadcasting as an AM station in 1924. Since 1991, the station has been broadcasting on 99.7 MHz FM, but for over 80 years, the station had served the community on 610 kHz AM until 2005. ... The famous callsign letters ... did not stand for ... "Known For Radio Clearness," though this was the slogan used when the station first signed on with 50 watts of power. ...) The only real mention of the current station and format of KMVQ-FM is in the final two paragraphs of the history section, and the infobox. In my opinion, a new article should have been started when the "Movin' 99.7" switch occured, but this might have been tough to justify as the call letters were still KFRC-FM. When CBS later moved the call letters to another frequency, clearly intending to revive the old KFRC format, it was quite clear to me that this an example of the "rare situation" spelled out in the guidelines: "Note: In some rare situations, it may be unclear whether a new call sign should be considered a successor to an old one or an entirely new station. If there is any doubt, solicit opinions on this project's talk page." Maybe there is doubt whether KMVQ-FM is an entirely new station, but that's why I tried to solicit opinions before making any changes. I think the fact that this article is nearly all about a former AM station rather than FM 99.7 makes a good case for the KFRC history to be separated from the KMVQ-FM article. But it doesn't make sense to me to separate KFRC AM from the old KFRC-FM history, because they are so intertwined. KMVQ-FM is a new station (that happened to start 8 months before those call letters were actually assigned), and I believe it was rightfully made into a brand new article, given the lack of much content about "Movin' 99.7" in the KFRC article.

I think the case would have been easier for me to make had CBS changed the call letters at the same time as the format switch. Because the call letter change came 8 months after the format switch, confusion about how to handle these articles abounded.

I agree with you about KIFR. I don't believe KIFR notably made enough of an impact to warrant a separate article, and so KIFR should have been renamed to KFRC-FM and information about KIFR "Free FM" moved into the history section. Note, however, that is exactly what I was proposing to do originally: "Move the KIFR redirect (which contains all the GFDL history for the article about the 106.9 frequency) to KFRC-FM." But any history merges that might have been required could have been done *after* it was settled what information goes where. And again because 106.9 has a separate notable history from that of stations formerly called KFRC, the KFRC history should not have been merged with the 106.9 history. I was already planning to undo that merge (which, if you remember, was my original split proposal; you essentially executed that split, but then you also did a merge which is what I am now objecting to).

The problem with the history merges you requested is that it did indeed make the split more difficult. I already had a plan (which I outlined earlier) which would have properly preserved GFDL history. An article which is almost entirely about KFRC's history should be renamed to KFRC or KFRC (AM) or KFRC (1924-2005) or even History of KFRC. But now the GFDL history for the article about the station once known as KFRC 610 is now at KMVQ-FM, where it clearly doesn't belong. That is why the history merge was wrong. Note also, that this merge also subsumed the historical 99.7 information which was largely in the original, separate KMVQ-FM article, but is now missing from the current article. Splitting the article would have prevented these largely unnecessary history merges (which now have to be somewhat undone once the split happens, to restore proper GFDL history to the proper articles). A more careful merge, if necessary, could have occurred after the content of the various articles was settled. I proposed the split exactly in order to avoid these confusing GFDL history merges (or more equally confusing cut-and-paste copies). So you can see why I got so worked up about it (and I apologize if you feel I was in any way being incivil).

To illustrate the problem more clearly, here is a link to the article as it was first created. Now does that article look like the beginning of an article about an FM station called KMVQ-FM "Movin' 99.7", or an article about the history of an AM station with an FM simulcast called KFRC? Even if you think the history of 610 should be in KEAR, wouldn't it have made more sense to merge the former KFRC article (which was more about 610 than it was about 99.7) with KEAR instead of with KMVQ-FM? (Though I would have objected to that as well).

If you will allow me, I would like to try to fix the articles in the way I am proposing. I would like to split the article by moving this article to KFRC (AM) (we can discuss the name or whether to replace the redirect later) and to create a new article called KMVQ-FM (so yes, there will be cut-and-pasting, which is now clearly unavoidable, but there is so little info on "Movin' 99.7" I don't really see much of a problem with this). After I am done, we can then discuss how to fix the various GFDL histories. If you still object to a separate KFRC history article, or anything else I've done, you can propose your ideas and get wider discussion and consensus. Would that be OK? DHowell

Although the initial purpose of this article was about mostly KFRC (AM), it developed into an article that I perceived to be about the FM station (though it had the history of the AM station). If the article was supposed to be solely about KFRC (AM and FM), then the Movin 99.7 content should not have been added. That is why the article is the way it is right now. If the Movin 99.7 content should not have been put into the KFRC article, then the problem occurred when content about the format change occurred. I somewhat agree with you that Movin 99.7 should not have been placed in the KFRC article, but since the content was there, when the station changed call signs, it is logical to change the article name too. Had the Movin 99.7 content been initially created in its own article last year, then we wouldn't have this issue now. This may be partially due to the ambiguity of the article formerly named KFRC - the article name was too broad. This is one reason why I like the guidelines, specifically about "If more than one article has the same base call sign, or if an acronym shares that call sign".

Anyway, I'll support the split to create a separate KFRC article. As for the name, I either like History of KFRC or KFRC (AM), depending on the focus of the article. If the main focus will be strictly about the AM station, with links to the new KFRC-FM and KMVQ-FM, then I prefer KFRC (AM). If you plan to include the history of the FM stations, then I prefer History of KFRC. I think that KFRC (AM) would be more appropriate, focusing mainly on the AM station. Any new history should be primarily in KFRC-FM. And KFRC should remain a disambiguation page with an added link to the new article.

To perform this split, I agree that this article (KMVQ-FM) should be renamed to the new KFRC article. However, I just had an idea to rename KYUU to KMVQ-FM, and cut and paste the content about Movin 99.7 from this article to the KYUU article. The KYUU article has little substance, and the mention of KYUU in KMVQ-FM will pretty much just be repeating all of the information in the current KYUU article. There is no need for an article solely about KYUU when all of its content is repeated elsewhere.

I do not think there is a need to move any of the histories or to perform any more db-histmerges. Essentially, the former KMVQ article that I had db-histmerged was selectively copied from the former KRFC (now this article). The only new contributions that are not currently in this article (as the result of the db-histmerge) is a sentence or 2 about KNBR (see [3]. Everything else was copied and pasted from KYUU and this article. I do not think we need to move around article histories just for this one, small section.

As far as the current KFRC-FM article, I am happy with it as-is. When the KFRC (AM) article is created, the last 2 sections would be short descriptions and {{main}} links to KMVQ-FM as "KFRC-FM from 1991-2007", and KFRC-FM as a "resurrected station & format". As the current KFRC-FM becomes more established, people can contribute to that article. KFRC (AM) would pretty much be set, as the history of the AM station is no longer evolving. --Scott Alter 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now moved the article to KFRC (AM) and rewritten it to make it into a historical article about a defunct station.

"If the article was supposed to be solely about KFRC (AM and FM), then the Movin 99.7 content should not have been added."

Here's where we agree. However, because the station didn't change call letters when it radically changed formats, it was not clear at the time that this was the correct thing to do. It took 8 months and a call letter change before a separate Movin' 99.7 was written, which is exactly what Boadrummer did on May 17, 2007. Before that, very little content was added about "Movin' 99.7"; besides the short paragraph at the end, there were a couple of attempts to add spammy promo content which was quickly reverted. There really wasn't an article about Movin 99.7 before May 17; there was an article about the historical KFRC which masqueraded as an article about Movin 99.7, and included a small amount of content about the format change (which I've left in the KFRC (AM) article as I believe it is still relevant).

Rather than moving the KYUU article to KMVQ-FM, however, I created a new KMVQ-FM which is essentially a restoration of the old KMVQ-FM that you hist-merged in with this article. If you think KYUU and KMVQ-FM should be merged, you are welcome to propose that (but please allow time for adequate discussion); but personally, I think that while the current KYUU article is somewhat stubby, it has the potential to grow using content from the tribute page or from newspaper articles of the era. I believe that KYUU was a highly notable historic station on par with KMET (FM) and KOME. I don't think a hist-merge is appropriate because the KYUU article wasn't simply copy-and-pasted to create the KMVQ-FM article, it was paraphrased and summarized into sections of the KMVQ-FM article.

I also intend to suggest a hist-unmerge of the KFRC (AM) content and the KMVQ-FM content, since I derived the present KMVQ-FM from that formerly separate KMVQ article, which summarized and added to information that was in both KFRC and KYUU. The parts which were copy-and-pasted from KFRC need to be rewritten anyway, which I intend to do. DHowell 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hist-unmerge

The following edits should be unmerged and transferred from this article to KMVQ-FM:

• 01:21, 27 May 2007 WJBscribe m (moved KFRC to KMVQ over redirect: following change of station call sign)
• 01:19, 27 May 2007 WJBscribe (Complete history merge)
• 01:19, 27 May 2007 WJBscribe (Null edit)
• 01:18, 27 May 2007 WJBscribe (Null edit)
• 01:18, 27 May 2007 WJBscribe m (moved KMVQ to KFRC: history merge)
• 23:34, 26 May 2007 Scottalter (requires historymerge, but after other history is moved from KFRC)
• 01:42, 24 May 2007 67.170.184.73
• 01:37, 24 May 2007 67.170.184.73
• 02:48, 21 May 2007 JPG-GR (image to template)
• 05:36, 18 May 2007 24.25.199.68
• 02:34, 18 May 2007 Boadrummer
• 02:13, 18 May 2007 Boadrummer
• 01:37, 18 May 2007 Fightingirish (→See also)
• 01:37, 18 May 2007 Fightingirish
• 01:35, 18 May 2007 Fightingirish m (→History)
• 01:35, 18 May 2007 Fightingirish (Okay, here's a start. Anyone else?)
• 22:22, 17 May 2007 Boadrummer (←Created page with 'KMVQ is a San Francisco-based radio station, broadcasted on the 99.7 frequency. It used to be KFRC before the name was moved to 106.9, after a format change on ...')

I will wait 5 days for discussion before requesting this on WP:SPLICE. DHowell 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on KFRC (defunct). 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/20101222041213/http://www.djteesmag.com/may09/5festivals.asp to http://www.djteesmag.com/may09/5festivals.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228162550/http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=144446&pt=todaysnews to http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=144446&pt=todaysnews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030173748/http://www.radio-info.com/news/cbs-owned-1550-am-in-san-francisco-switches-to-south-asian-radio-zindagi to http://www.radio-info.com/news/cbs-owned-1550-am-in-san-francisco-switches-to-south-asian-radio-zindagi

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)