Talk:KOME

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Radio Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Radio stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 POV 2 Rewrite 3 Yes and No 4 Whew!: a sense of humor 5 Radio stations policy

[edit] POV

I think this is POV: "after writhing in head-bangers' mosh pit agony for several more years until 2004, finally suffering sufficient brain-damage to have lost any fluency with the English language." and needs to be cleaned up by someone more familiar with it. the article needs some polish too. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Happened across this article, and was shocked by how badly neglected it's been. I got rid of all the POV stuff and made it into something somewhat worthwhile. I also added some logos (YAY!). The list of former personalities could use a little cleanup, or perhaps it could just be deleted. --Fightingirish 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes and No

No time nor inclination for a flame war here (I tired of that back in Unix LISTSERV daze)...but I can't resist one salvo: Yes, the article was a mess that I wasn't prepared to fix wholesale, and I know (nor care, frankly) little internal info after Infinity; No, it was not "badly neglected"--quite the opposite was exactly the problem: too many disparate "patches". Yes, the sentence "...This transition closed the KOME chapter in the South Bay Area's rock scene [2]; KSJO met a more ignoble rock demise, after writhing in head-bangers' mosh pit agony for several more years until 2004, finally suffering sufficient brain-damage to have lost any fluency with the English language." might appear to be POV to someone in GA or otherwise not listening to the two stations at that time. Whilst receiving that "lightning bolt" inspiration for one of the best sentences (after semicolon) I've ever written (as a, sometimes pro, writer of various types of prose), I neglected to consider those non-listeners. Perhaps it wasn't clear on a fast read that this refers to KSJO, not KOME. Yes, it should be in the KSJO article, however, that now-Spanish-language Clear Channel station, sadly continuing to use that venerable call sign, would get upset about what they would see as an inflammatory criticism, which it absolutely is. There needs to be a "KSJO-pre-Spanish" /vs./ a "KSJO" article; perhaps the former could be in the "defunct stations" category?...by all means, some Wikipedian should set one up.

Back to KOME: altho I would be (was?) the first to insist that this article needed a "massive rewrite", I take exception to the suggestion that many previous contributors are not "more familiar with it". There was a gross error in first ownership change in a recent edit. Who are you guys besides Wikipedians? I have identified myself, and my credentials used to be cleary visible. Jona has identified herself. Dennis Erectus is probably using the "...Neanderthal..." handle. Unless you two are Mel Karmazin, Dan Tapson, Ron Cutler, John Higdon, etc. (Ben Fong-Torres, Brad Kava and other journalists are sometimes a little off the mark and POV) then I doubt that you are "more familiar with it" than I (before Infinity) or Jona (thereafter) or, probably, some previous unindentifiable contributors. Yes, there was excessive POV before, altho to anyone listening to the two stations at the time, the "...head-bangers..." was NOT, it was just an especially picturesque description of the format facts then, which needed some "In other words..." for the non-listener. Yes, the added logos were needed and appreciated; I had wanted to add some (especially my almost complete KSJO collection), but don't have the time to study this Wikipedia mechanism (to where to upload them?).

Originally, I wasn't thinking about my own image, Google-searchibility, or any ego-tripping...just the facts (again, the "...head-banger..." being a fact). Then I noticed the Google results, and so spelled my own name both ways. There are a great many people, whether alumni or listeners, interested in these details which might be lost forever without the gradual improvement of alumni input, including especially owners, managers and program directors (that chronology should be restored forthwith). There are hardly any archived citable publications with this info. Where there are, you find such inaccuracies as /Gavin Report/ showing me moving to KSFO (typo of KSJO). Now...I realize that what is needed here for this purpose is something like:

 http://www.KNOWReunion.com/

...one of the best such sites. However, until such time as someone coughs up the bucks for such a Website, Wikipedia will have to suffice for both KOME and "defunct" pre-Spanish KSJO. Kindly bear with us all who are attempting to embellish and preserve these details in the meanwhile.

I have been awaiting "Bubba73" to EMail or, better, voice phone to identify himself, at least somewhat. I almost agree with him that Wikipedia "editors" should be "registerd", but only to the extent that they should better identify themselves. I invite "FightingIrish" (or just about anyone else) to EMail privately in order to converse on voice phone and ascertain some form of identity. ("His" herein may refer to any gender, per long-establish English usage; PC is as bad as POV, IMNSHO.) Yes, I am chauvinistic about date and time format: The US needs to learn to conform to low-order-to-hi-order US military, genealogical and most of the rest of the world's usage: 27 Aug 2006...when is 9/11?...in Sep or Nov--no way to tell without context containing numbers greater than 12: whatever format one uses, month MUST be alpha, NOT numeric. Anyone who wants to change this should use the Wikipedia "user preference" coding. Yup, I personally believe that a benevolent dictatorship has certain advantages.

As I pointed out to "Bubba73" in private EMail, the format and programming aspects of such articles (someone: PLEASE condense the unwieldy number of radio formats) on radio involve ART, albeit the "gutter of show business", often no more than a juke box. Yes, there ought to be the technical and ownership details found in Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook--on all radio and TV stations; e.g., antenna lat-long, height above average terrain, ERP, etc. In telcon with FCC, it appears that they do not conserve archives beyond about five years. Of course, these papers are likely lovingly protected by NARA, but unearthing them is not a quickie, simple matter. Worse, too many reference librarians are clueless on "DON'T toss last year's /Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook/", San Jose State U being a notable exception, but still missing a few years.

"Fledgling" is not an apt description of the proto-Infinity owners whose FCC application crossed my desk at the time; I should have photocopied it. Aside from minority (10% ISTR) owner Michael Weiner of Palo Alto (who may or may not be the same as an announcer using that name), all were New Yorkers with MetroMedia connections, and maybe the shoe business. "Nascent" might be a good word for proto-Infinity? At one point, possibly overall, KOME was their worst-(revenue?)performing station of about thirty; I can't recall that publication to cite.

Even in Encyclopedia Brittanica, you will be hard-pressed to find any articles on any "art" that do not include some POV. Many scholars appreciate the 1911 Brittanica precisely because some of its articles are written by the likes of Henry Ford (on mass production, ISTR) who were actually there, actually doing the thing. It is online free; just Google "1911 Britannica", maybe before checking Wikipedia (ha, ha), where first-person, court-admissible testimony is considered LESS desireable than any old citable publication (which, in this business / art, is all too-often inaccurate)...Huh?.../au contraire, mes amis/, at least as long as the "witness" identifies himself, maybe SMails sworn or signed affidavit?

R.I.P. Great FM Rock Radio of the 60s-80s. Any EMail, flaming (probably to be disregarded) or friendly, is welcome at JxWxWeed@MindSpring.com.

Jay (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Jay. Not sure why you're calling me out, but I guess I'll step in here to defend myself. I got much of the information from a variety of sources on the web (mostly what's already referenced) and added it to whatever was already there (hoping that people who had more info would add to it). I attempted to clean up the article because it was a mess, and didn't even come close to Wikipedia standards.

The only information I got rid of was stuff that seemed to jump around too much, or be too irrelevant. Also got rid of the chronology for the same reason (plus it was too redundant). Otherwise, I moved information around under various headings and subheadings. In short, I like articles that are enjoyable to read, without trying to cram in every little tidbit of information.

As for me? No my name's not Mel. I'm actually Sumner Redstone, and I'm going to shoot a bolt of lightning at yo... Sorry, got carried away. Just kidding. Acutally, I'm just a radio geek (although I worked in radio a while back myself) who spent a few formative years growing up in the Bay Area (early 80s). I remember all the rock stations from back then, including back in 1982 and 1983, when KOME and KSJO were trying to out-metal each other. Hell, I remember when KOME added Michael Jackson's "Beat It" (which sounded weird amongst all the Iron Maiden and Judas Priest stuff), and the DJ announced it was Eddie Van Halen... _{on Michael Jackson's} "Beat It". Funny stuff.

So I'm just an average schmuck trying to pretty up a few articles. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. And thanks for the diss. --Fightingirish 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whew!: a sense of humor

Sumner: I didn't intend to seem to "call you out". Maybe it was your "FightingIrish" handle (a little Irish here, too) that makes it a pleasant surprise that you have a sense of humor. Hey, I AGREE that the article was a mess, full of redundancies (most of which I think I just reduced from the chronology). Originally, I had just thrown in a few little pre-Infinity tidbits and hoped that someone might make the whole a little more coherent.

Again, I doubt that any article including anything about ART could technically meet Wikipedia standards. I have been a journalist, so I'm usually trying to be unbiased (except when trying to be inflammatory with the "...head-bangers' mosh pit..." (now moved to KSJO article to see how much Hispanic macho attacks it); it sounds like you were also getting a headache trying to listen to KSJO at that time. Still, I think that sentence is factual, just odd word-choice to describe those format facts.

"Every little tidbit of" info, I know, doesn't belong here, especially if they can be found in citations and external links. At a glance, one might surmise that the chronology is redundant, as it is based on an external link...but the pre-Infinity history, ignored in the external link, has nowhere else to reside nor be improved upon...yet. There needs to be a KOME Website; when there is, it could have more such detail. On the other hand, the Web is not contstrained by Brittanica's heavyweight paper limits, so why not embellish beyond a page or two?

You did a good job of clean-up, by Wikipedia standards...except for going a little far to cut the chronology, IMO. I just took exception to a few things...not "diss"ing you, just wanted to know if you were Ben Fong-Torres or some such. SMail, EMail or voice phone anytime.

--JWW

Jay 06:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Okay, I cleaned it up a little. Here's what I did:

I Cleaned up the overall sentence structure, for readability.

In the first paragraph, I eliminated the 1979 12,000 watts reference, as it seems out of place and irrelevant.

The KSJO reference (1968 debut) doesn't flow well, better to put that on the KSJO article. I'll attack that later, so you've been warned! (on a side note, I do have logo images for them)

Added Wiki link to KIFR, which is on the same frequency as the old KMPX. I'm working on putting all KMPX stuff there, but may just do a seperate article on KMPX-FM alone.

Got rid of excess wikification. Once or twice for each term (freeform) seems adequate.

Eliminated the reference to the movie "FM". I believe it's on the KMET article, and it seems irrelevant to the KOME article.

What position did Ron Nenni hold at KOME? Was he GM or MD? I left out Nenni's name until a title is found for him. Otherwise, nobody will know or care about him, and may be confused.

I took out the chronology, since it goes against Wikipedia's preferred article approach. I did incorporate some of the information elsewhere. Plus, the list exists in the Metroactive article anyway.

I left in the ratings info, since I think it's good information. Whether or not it concurs with Wikipedia standards, I don't know. Perhaps this could be cleaned up sometime.

And no, I'm really not Sumner Redstone. Like that old geezer knows how to operate a computer! Kinda like Rupert Murdoch on SpywareSpace... er MySpace.

BTW: Got any sticker images, like individual bands or the mid-80s 'digital readout' logo?--Fightingirish 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fightinirish,

At a first glance what you are doing appears to be removing any inconvenient truths that don't fit within what you would like the article to be. (ex.: 12000 watts? FM movie? Nemi?) I think that would be called adding a POV by removing perfectly good information. I can certainly appreciate the fact that you appear to be cleaning-up the article. In fact the first thing I generally look for is to ensure the article uses proper wiki rules when citing and giving information, found at WP:CITE. However may I politely suggest that what you are doing may be frustrating, not only to the editors that have taken precious time to add their information, but to those who realize that bits and pieces of the article appear to have been drastically changed. I also couldn't help but notice that there was a sort of timeline. Yes perhaps this would be good to be on www.wikitimescale.org, nevertheless not everyone is familiar with this auxilary wiki feature. I alway particularly enjoy a chronology and I know that everyone learns differently. Having a different format for the information will be an asset for tactile readers. Furthermore, I can see that this article is in it's infancy, but has some room for expansion. This will require better lines of communications. I was wondering, to avoid cluttering this discussion page, if you could validate your email address. Thanking you in advance for your courteous and effective response. --CyclePat 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio stations policy

It is not Wikipedia policy that radio stations get distinct articles for each call sign change in their history; if KUFX is the same license that once belonged to KOME, then this has to be redirected to KUFX. Bearcat 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tough call. I think Wikipedia prefers entire station histories to be placed in the article of its frequency. But it seems the consensus of many users is that it is acceptable for defunct radio stations of note. Examples of this would be WMAQ, KNAC, KQLZ, KQAK, and KMET. Many people would be searching around forever trying to find any of these stations, since they are long gone. A redirect could also remedy this situation. I do feel that if a defunct station gets its own article, the seperate article should be referenced in the article of the current station. There is a discussion about it here. Obviously, obscure call letters would not fit the criteria, but many feel that KOME is one of the stations that deserves its own article. Problem would be if another notable station (and not some small AM station in an obscure market) decides to use those call letters. Then perhaps a disambiguation page would be in order. --Fightingirish 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, a currently-broadcasting radio station always gets first crack at its undisambiguated call sign, without regard to market size. So if there is a station currently using the KOME call sign (I don't know if there is or not), then it should get the KOME title no matter how big or small its market is. For one thing, a current radio station can't conceivably have any other title, whereas a defunct one can either be merged into its current call sign or go to something like "KOME (defunct)" if necessary. Also, I don't know whether KUFX is the same license that was held by KOME or not; that was part of my question. It seems that way from this article, but KUFX's article doesn't give the same impression. Bearcat 04:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What you guys seem to be addressing is WP:NPOV. In short you should try to incorperate as much information into on article. Nevertheless, at one point you'll have to branch out. This is permited. So technically, you shouldn't branch out but then again you can (once you get enough information!). I think this article has enough information and has a great pottential for exepansion if you guys where more acceptant towards including information.

To summarized what has happened to date my understanding is that there is an escallation of witty comments, perhaps rude and defencive editing. I am not aware of who started what, but I am aware that the situation is escallating. This needs to stop. I want both of you to appologize for any rudness that may have happened in the past. I say this because I know that if you work together and properly express your concerns this article will be great. Also, if you remove this stress and fear of loosing "important" edits (deletions) I think you shall all feel better in properly editing this article. Wikipedia is not a race, it will be here tomorow and probably for many more years. Take your time and add what you want to say in the best wikipedia way you can! And if you think the information is wrong well say that too. History is important even if it is wrong.

Secondly, to be able to say something the best way you can't constantly be berated by frustrating Removal edits. I will assume that some of the information is "conflicting" or even "contradictory." (I can help you that or you could even post the links here so everyone can look at whatever information). Remember, we simply need to state that "so and so believes this... yet so and so believes that." Unfortunatelly we can't put every opinion that everyone believes. (I learn this the hard way) Nevertheless we will need to discuss what the main concerns are for this article. I believe I have a good idea. That is one person has sourced information but the other has conflicting information and removes this information. (or can't find the information or doesn't believe the information). (An inclusion exclusion problem). The best way I found to get around this is to do "small edits" to the main article and properly state what changes you are doing or to list the changes here for further discussion. --CyclePat 04:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)