Wikipedia

Talk:KCLA (Arkansas)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by StraussInTheHouse in topic Defunct radio and TV station disambiguator changes (consolidated)
Learn more about this page

Update needed — KCLA deleted

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The FCC canceled KCLA's license on May 2, 2011; ten other radio stations also lost their licenses that same day. These eleven stations (KZEY, KPBQ-FM, KZYP, KOTN, KCLA, KRKD, KZYQ, WRKG, WDTL-FM, WZYQ, and WDSK) were all owned by Jerry Russell, and, according to Russell himself in a letter that probably led to the cancellations (PDF), have been dark for several years due in part to his health problems. (Two other Russell stations, KOFY and KWRD, are not impacted by this, though a sale of KWRD has been pending FCC approval for a few years now but (as he indicates in the letter as well) is otherwise still on-track.) A side effect is that he was unable to determine how long his own stations have been off-the-air; he estimates 2006–2007 (and best as I can gather 2007 seems closest; however, reportedly KCLA briefly resurfaced a few months ago, still with an all-sports format, but had again left the air by the time of the license cancellation), and the apparent end of a local marketing agreement involving KCLA and nine other stations (an arrangement mentioned in the article in a way that implies that it's still in place) ties in to this somehow. Not being anywhere near the eleven stations' coverage areas that's all I can say here. Obviously an update is warranted, but more information is needed too… and so I put this out there. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:KAPY-LP (defunct) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Defunct radio and TV station disambiguator changes (consolidated)

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago38 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Overall consensus is that (defunct) is a poor disambiguator, rough consensus to move to the proposed names. Note there has been a recent RfC about this, if you want to change the rules, please start another centralised discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply


– This RM follows from a recently concluded RfC. It proposes 94 page moves to change (defunct) disambiguators to more specific ones for radio and TV station articles in the United States and consolidates three previous RMs that led to fragmented discussions. (One article, KSGC (defunct), is new because it had not previously been part of a relevant category.) The goal of the changes is to replace the (defunct) disambiguator with more accurate, MOS-compliant disambiguators, or to remove it where possible. A further procedural and discussion history follows, as will a ping of all editors involved in the RfC and RMs. Raymie (t • c) 03:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Procedural history

edit

On February 11, I was made aware by SounderBruce of potential issues with defunct disambiguators while nominating KXBR (defunct) for DYK. I opened an RfC to gauge interest in changes, initially neutral but changing to favor the position as I learned more and discovered some particularly different disambiguators. Notably, I failed to advertise the RfC to relevant projects. The editors from outside the topic area supported the change, the RfC was closed, and I proceeded to open four RMs based on the type of article (radio and TV) and the type of disambiguation needed. (One, at Talk:WLQR (AM), relates to two specific stations and is being left open.) The RMs attracted topic area editors, more used to (defunct) being used in broadcasting, who had different opinions from those expressed in the RfC, and they also fragmented discussion. Three of the RMs have now been closed. This request is an attempt to unify discussion into one place and one RM.

I am also pinging all editors and other involved parties from the various discussions and would like to hear from all of you: @Netoholic, Gonnym, SMcCandlish, Bearcat, Stereorock, Xenon54, Imzadi1979, Bkonrad, Trystan, Tdl1060, Neutralhomer, Amakuru, Born2cycle, MB, Levdr1lp, Thomas H. White, and MSGJ. Raymie (t • c) 03:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
  • Support. As noted previously, there is no need for custom title conventions (using "defunct" to distinguish inactive from active stations) for this or any area of articles except for when disambiguation is necessary. Even then we follow WP:D unless that's inadequate. In this case it is quite adequate. --В²C ☎ 04:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support moving stations that are proposed to be moved from "(defunct)" as the disambiguator to "(AM)", per the naming convention for stations with call signs. Oppose move from "(defunct)" to new disambiguators. Detailed explanation will follow in discussion section.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose doing away with the (defunct) within the name (ie: WXXX (defunct)) of the defunct stations, but I do Support the idea of renaming the pages in a way (to not confuse with current callsigned stations/pages) and have them be on Disambig pages, if available. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:41 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per guideline - and more to the point, I'd like to remind any person that is going to close this discussion, that no matter how many "opposers" there are to this or any other RM, if they wish to change a guideline, they should start an RfC, as was previously done. Any oppose on the ground of wanting the defunct to stay is a WP:LOCALCON which should be disregarded. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    More interest has been garnered here in these past few proceedings than the original RfC, which did not let the projects know was taking place, therefore the original RfC was defective, and should be disregarded.Stereorock (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The doesn’t work in either case as it looks like both are referring to specific time frames for the stations that currently hold those callsigns. Both WSM-FM & WHDH are recycled callsigns & should not be confused with one station that held the callsign in the past versus the current holder as they are in both cases 2 separate licenses.Stereorock (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • If we are disregarding !votes, let's close the whole thing now and call it a day. Drinks? We don't disregard !votes in a discussion asking for those very !votes and you are not in a place to order the discussion closer around. He or she will make the decision based on Wikipedia rules, not by a !voter's wishes or demands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:20 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as the guideline you reference is concerned, the guideline only states: For defunct stations, a title containing some form of disambiguation, such as WVUE (Delaware), may be advisable. It does not say that the example given is the only type of disambiguator that can be used, as there are many cases when that kind of disambiguator cannot be used. As such it does not explicitly prohibit the use of "(defunct)" when that is the most accurate, effective, and concise disambiguator available.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose changing the disambiguator from (defunct) to something else unless the need arises (i.e.: 2 or more defunct stations in different areas that used the same callsign). All of the other disamiguators proposed do not adequately work.Stereorock (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Disambiguators should be as clear as possible to the reader, and the geographic location is the most helpful piece of information for identifying the station you are looking for. Use of "defunct" as the standard creates an inappropriate assumption that the current station is the primary topic and the previous one is not.--Trystan (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak support. We should first apply WP:NC-BC. Thus the WEAG (defunct) → WEAG (AM) is correct, while others do not follow NC-BC. For example, KROY (FM) → KROY (Palacios, Texas) lead to a KROY disambig. page KROY. The stations there are KROY (AM), KROY (defunct), KROY (FM). KROY (FM) is OK as there isn't another FM station. With the other two being AM, they should both have the AM tag. Thus KROY (defunct) should be KROY (AM defunct), there being no other defunct AM, or KROY (AM California). In say the case of KWEM-LP (defunct) → KWEM-LP (Oklahoma), KWEM indicates that one is a LP FM and other a LP TV stations. Thus the two broadcast station (there is an internet radio channel KWEM related to the LP-FM station) should be KWEM-LP → KWEM-LP (FM) and KWEM-LP (defunct) → KWEM-LP (TV) unless a primary topic of KWEM-LP is recognized. Spshu (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY policy and all the other points in the previous discussion and its unfortunate WP:TALKFORKs. There is nothing whatsoever special about this topic; all the special pleading going on these discussions is simply ignorance of how WP addresses titling – which is never, ever, ever by indicating whether something is defunct/dead/obsolete versus active/living/current – not only is that a moving target, it's knowledge that many readers will not possess, so it does not work for disambiguation anyway. It's important to remember that our article titles are not a categorization system (for that, see WP:CATEGORY).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support—per project-wide standards. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, no convincing reason to do differently from the rest of Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per above. "Defunct" is not an appropriate disambiguator. MB 15:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit
  • First of all, I do not believe that all defunct stations need to have the "defunct" disambiguator, nor do I believe that defunct stations are automatically less notable than active stations. It is true, that the title does not need to inform the reader of this, as the article itself should inform the reader of this fact. As such, I support moving the stations that are proposed to be moved from having "(defunct)" as the disambiguator to "(AM)", per the naming convention for stations with call signs. Along that line, WCFJ (defunct) should be moved to WCFJ (AM), as the only station that currently holds that call sign is on the FM band. There might be similar cases, as I have not yet had time to look at each station individually. I do however oppose moving every station with "(defunct)" as the disambiguator to a new method of disambiguation, as each of the proposed alternatives has its share of problems, which would prevent them from being used consistently and effectively for all defunct stations.
Qualifying by date range is the most problematic. The articles for defunct stations, as with currently operating stations should be about the station's entire history, regardless of how many call signs it has had, with very few exceptions. As such, in order to properly convey what the article is about, the date range should include the station's entire history of operation. If this method was used there could be overlap with other stations that held the call sign used as the article's title within that period, making it rather confusing for readers. Using only the years the station held the call sign used as the title is even more problematic, as creates the false impression that the article is about the period the station held that call sign, rather than about the entire history of the station, leading readers and editors alike to believe that the main content of the article should be confined to the history of the station that is within those years. It effectively changes the article's subject in the minds of many of the readers. If a defunct station only held one call sign during its entire years of operation this would not be a problem, and I do not see any problem with the specific articles that are being proposed to be disambiguated by years here.
Disambiguating by frequency shares a similar problem. Plenty of stations that have operated on more than one frequency over their history, and the article should be about the station's entire history, not just the time that it operated on a specific frequency. If a station has been on more than one frequency in its history, this method should not be used, as it would be misleading to readers and editors alike.
As far as disambiguating by location, call signs are frequently reassigned in the same general area, making it likely that a defunct station will share the same call sign as an active station in the same area. Many stations that are licensed to suburbs are not primarily known to listeners as a station from their city of license, but as a station from the major city they cover. WVAZ is known today primarily as a Chicago station, not as an Oak Park station. If it had become defunct when it held the call sign WBMX, the disambiguator Oak Park, Illinois would not hold much relevance to someone unfamiliar with the station's entire history who is trying to distinguish it from the current holder of the call sign, a station licensed to Chicago. Even more problematic would be if the situation was reversed and Chicago was used as the disambiguator to distinguish a defunct station from an active station licensed to a suburb. In these cases disambiguating by frequency is preferable, as is being proposed for WCGO (defunct). However, there should be one consistent method for dealing with defunct stations and "(defunct)" does do that effectively. "(defunct)" may not be effective 100% of the time, but the fact that there needs to be three different alternatives to replace one method of disambiguation does show that it is more effective than any of the alternatives that are being proposed.
I apologize for the long windedness, but there were alot of issues that needed to be covered, as there is alot that is being proposed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your objection to changing the (defunct) disambiguation to some other form of disambiguation is stated thusly: each of the proposed alternatives has its share of problems, which would prevent them from being used consistently and effectively for all defunct stations. You then proceed to explain how each of the proposed alternative has "its share of problems". But you explain all this in very general terms, as if choosing an alternative means using that alternative as the disambiguator in all cases. You seem to think "there should be one consistent method for dealing with defunct stations". Why? Why not disambiguate each on a case-by-case basis, using whatever disambiguator is most appropriate for each situation? That's how we disambiguate almost every other title on WP. Why should this group of titles be treated differently? There is no issue with using date, frequency, location or anything else for the disambiguator, if that makes sense for the case in question. Consider how we disambiguate people, for example. If the name is ambiguous, we use the most notable and concise characteristic that distinguishes that subject from all others with the same name. Usually, but not always, that's the person's occupation, but that's not by convention, it's because a person's occupation is likely the best disambiguator. We should do the same with these. And being defunct is unlikely to be a callsign's most notable distinguishing feature. --В²C ☎ 06:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
At the end of your argument you state that: being defunct is unlikely to be a callsign's most notable distinguishing feature. The problem with that argument is that these articles are not about the call sign, they are about the station. The fact that a station's license has been deleted is an important distinguishing feature. "Defunct" usually would be the most notable and concise characteristic that distinguishes that subject from all others with the same name. Of the alternatives proposed, disambiguating by frequency is the only other that meets the criterias of "notable and concise", but I already explained the reservations I have with that alternative. As far as the need for a consistent method of disambiguating defunct stations, it is the same reason naming conventions exist for broadcast stations in the first place. There should be some level of consistency in article titles. That is not to say variations from the standard are never appropriate. Nor am I saying that the proposed alternatives are not appropriate in some cases. However, none of the proposed alternatives to "(defunct)" are as consistently effective in being an accurate, effective, and concise disambiguator.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
But that's not its most distinguishing features. Seriously, if the most important thing we can write about a station is that it is defunct then it is obviously non-notable and needs to go to WP:AFD. That is actually probably the case with some of these, but we need not get into that right now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The most notable thing about a station is not that it was in Missouri or operated on 1240 kHz either. There is a difference between what makes a subject notable and what effectively distinguishes it from other subjects that share the same name.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Exactly right, Tdl1060! Disambiguation for people is different as they are known for something they did. Radio & television broadcasting stations ultimately do one thing: they broadcast. So, there must be another way to disambiguate them, which we have developed over the past decade plus. The disambiguator (defunct) is extremely relevant because it is the ultimate fate of the station! This also keeps the name away from being confused for a currently operating station with the same callsign!Stereorock (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The parenthetical term should, as best as possible in a word or two, answer the question, "Which one did you mean?" If I have a particular radio station in mind, surely the first thing I can tell you about it, even before its callsign, is its location. It is not helpful to ask, "Which KROY did you mean, the AM one, the FM one, or the defunct one?", when two are AM and two are defunct. It is much more helpful to ask, "Which KROY did you mean, the one in San Saba, the one in Palacios, or the one in Sacramento?"--Trystan (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is an interesting case, as the “historic” KROY (Sacramento) is still operating on the same license, but under a different callsign. The information here should be moved to KROY (Sacramento), or merged into KCVV (the current callsign). The deleted KROY (FM in Texas) should get KROY (defunct) as its license has cancelled, with hatnotes to the Sacramento KROY & the current KROY (AM).Stereorock (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
WPNT (defunct) poses a distinct problem. WPNT was only warehoused on 1490 while the station was silent, before the license was deleted. The station never actually broadcast with the callsign WPNT. Furthermore, WPNT was also the call sign of 1620 WDND, also in South Bend, Indiana, and also likely to soon join the category of defunct stations. I would argue WPNT (defunct) should be moved to WNDU (AM) as this is the call sign that the station held over most of its history. Frankly any of the call signs that it held when it was actually on the air would be preferable than having it titled WPNT.
I also support the fixes proposed to articles where multiple defunct stations share the same callsign, like WGTM (AM), WGTM (defunct), and WRAP (AM).--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
B2C, yes, it should be on a case-by-case basis, but in most cases no disamiguator or (defunct) work. The reason being that it is the most relevant part from a current standpoint, i.e.: this station no longer exists. In the case of station KFC, we wouldn’t want to use either because of confusion with the well-known fast food chain, so something else has to be used. Where some confusion may be on your Side is that nobody on my side is saying we may only use (defunct) as the disambiguator. We wouldn’t want to argue such a point as it is too limiting in some cases, but want the option of using it when it is the clearest, most sussinct way of marking a station.
In regards to disambiguating like we do with people, this is apples and oranges, there could be a hundred different John Smiths, for example, all deceased, but each known for something else. A broadcast station is really only known for that;”: broadcasting, and nothing else. The people analogy only works one level above when you need to disamiguate radio station KFC from the fast food chain, for example.Stereorock (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Stereorock, thank you for that explanation. I agree people article titles is not the perfect analogy, but I still think it illustrates a relevant point here. And I'm just not sold on the notion that a station being defunct "is the most relevant part". Take the first one in the list as an example, KCLA (defunct) → KCLA (Arkansas). It needs disambiguation from KCLA-LP. Not only do I not see how being a defunct station is more relevant than being an Arkansas station, but why should we adopt a convention that requires changing the title of radio station articles whenever the respective station goes off the air? For example, what happens when KCLA-LP goes off the air? We have to move it to KCLA-LP (defunct)? Or does it stay at KCLA-LP even after it goes off the air? --В²C ☎ 17:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
It should stay at KCLA-LP. Unless another station takes that call sign, no disambiguator is necessary. That hasn't always been the way it has played out, and that is why I favor moving some of the nominated articles.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Born2cycle, to answer your question, I’d say 9 times out of 10, KCLA-LP would remain named as-is after it were to go defunct, until a new KCLA-LP conflicts with it, as a KCLA, KCLA-FM, KCLA-TV, or KCLA-LD would count as separate callsigns & would be covered under a main KCLA disambiguation page. Having KCLA (defunct) & KCLA-LP (defunct) may not even create the need for a disambiguation page of defunct stations with the callsign KCLA because a hatnote about KCLA-LP (defunct) on the KCLA (defunct) page would serve the same purpose.
The difference between (defunct) & location is that, in my opinion, a callsign could show up on more than one location in a given state, or even city, over the course of history than the callsign being on a defunct station. So, KCLA-LP (Arkansas) could become KCLA-LP (Jonesboro, Arkansas) because of KCLA-LP (Little Rock, Arkansas), for example. Sometimes stations will do that as a tribute to the former callsign holder (I think KISN-LP does that to honor KISN), which are both in the same area. There are quite a number of variables. We just want the leeway to disambiguate as best as we see fit with all available options & view this as preserving the “best” option in most cases. We don’t want to limit ourselves from any option, including by community or time frame if the need arises.
This was written in 2 parts, so I hope I covered everything you asked! If not, please do!Stereorock (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Length chain of responses to !vote by SMcCandlish (refactored out of the !vote section):
    You can’t say never because it is the way we have handled it for at least 13 years. There has not been a problem, & I haven’t yet found any specific ban on (defunct). As I’ve said elsewhere, comparing defunct radio stations to deceased people is apples & oranges. As for our readers not possessing knowledge, this is precisely why we have done it this way: it’s the simplest way to convey pertinent information while removing as much confusion as possible. The way we have done it is simple, & elegant. We add disamiguators as the need arises, & where confusion may arise sooner is by going immediately to a community of license, or years of operations. Others have explained it here too how that may confuse the casual reader.Stereorock (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Don't be a pedantic twit, please. Even a child understands that when someone says "I want to keep doing X because I've been doing X for a while" and the answer is "No, we never do X", it means "No, we never do X except you've been doing X and need to stop doing it". FFS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    There is a phenomenon on WP in the area of titles. There are title specialists like SMcCandlish who have years of experience with WP:RM, WP:AT, WP:D and many of the naming conventions to specific groups of articles. And then there are editors who specialize in particular topics, say "area specialists", but don't have much experience with titles in general. And the phenomenon occurs whenever these two types of editors clash about titles in a particular area because of their different perspectives and experiences. That's what's happening here. That's why you have simple support !votes like the next one below here - "per project-wide standards". I see it all the time. It happens because the area specialists essentially have blinders on with respect to general conventions regarding titles, and just come up with what seems to make sense for their particular area, and the title specialists are either unaware or don't notice when conventions are adopted that are out of the norm. Until they are noticed. So just because this convention has been adopted and deployed for years doesn't mean it's consistent with our policies and how we choose titles for all other articles. In fact, it's not. It's a unique approach the rationalization for which does not appear to be sufficiently persuasive to warrant an exception. --В²C ☎ 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    This is one of the best explanations I've seen of this entire process so far. I failed to advertise the initial RfC enough to get editors from the topic area specialists, and so the people with expertise in titles chimed in. The initial RMs got the area specialists who had their own opinion and were taken by surprise. I have written broadcasting articles on Wikipedia pretty much since I joined the encyclopedia in 2005 (believe it or not, I was 10). I would not have had any idea about (defunct) being out of line if not for an uninvolved editor catching the issue at DYK. Raymie (t • c) 04:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    But there is a good reason: to avoid confusing the reader. We haven’t used a community of license as a disambiguator until after (defunct) because it makes it look like an active station, or part of a network. We match the callsign up exactly when the need to disambiguate arises. If there has been no other station to take the callsign after the defunct station, typically it gets kept as-is. If there is a small difference, say a suffix is on the new station, the disambiguation page (being the base callsign in most cases) will have the current & former stations, the latter which may or may not have to change. We have shown that other proposed alternatives for disambiguation are not as good as the current methodology because they both lead to confusion sooner than the current way. You have 2 stations with the same callsign: WAAA (defunct) & current WAAA. Not too much there to confuse them for each other. You change it to WAAA (Anywhere) & WAAA (Nowhere), for example, then they look like they both have that callsign currently, which cannot happen. You bring up an important point about both sides having their respective blinders on. I take the opposite view, in that the “topic specialists” should be in charge of the naming convention for their topic as they may understand something the Wikipedia specialists do not.Stereorock (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    B2c's explanation is missing a key point, though: RM regulars are entirely aware of topical "standards" invented out of nowhere in some wikiproject, against site-wide guidelines and policies and the entire rest of the encyclopedia's practices. We're well aware of them because the same crap comes up over and over and over again from the same handfuls of topically immersed editors with low Wikipedia-wide experience (there are about a dozen recurrent-problem wikiprojects, and the total number of editors causing this recurrent WP:IDHT problem are probably three dozen or less, just really noisy and perpetually hoping to get their way by re-litigating the same stuff endlessly – the very definition of WP:TE). They seem to be utterly unaware that WP:CONLEVEL policy exists and that multiple ArbCom decisions have backed it up as enforceable policy (or sometimes they seem aware and just angry and WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish and activistic against it). It's simple: wikiprojects cannot make up their own rules in defiance of site-wide ones. If you want a topical variance and can prove that one is needed, you do that at the talk page of the relevant guideline or policy and get your proposed exception/variance written into it. You don't write a competing wanna-be guideline (those naming and style pages from wikiprojects are just essays and have no more authority than one – see the WP:PROJPAGE guideline).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KCLA_(Arkansas)&oldid=1199965710"