Talk:KSWB-TV

KSWB-TV has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2025	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 23, 2026.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a San Diego TV station was described as "a laughingstock—bankrupt and virtually bereft of watchable programming"?

Baseball Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

San Diego Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject San Diego To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate San Diego related articles from Category:Unassessed San Diego articles and Category:Unknown-importance San Diego articles with the {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner.
Cleanup : A cleanup listing for this project is available: clean-up listing for San_Diego
Expand : San Miguel Mountain, Most articles from Category:Stub-Class San Diego articles.
Photo : Request photos that are needed from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Diego County, California to include in each article.
Stubs : Work on articles in Category:San Diego County, California, geography stubs.
Other : * Add {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner to related articles' talk pages and assess.
- Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality.
- Get San Diego into Featured article status.
- Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic.

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

How is it known that this station will become the The CW Television Network? This is like 8 months from now and anything can happen. Just a thought. James084 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This station, as a Tribune-owned affiliate, has signed a 10-year affiliation deal with the newly created CW Television Network. XHUPN, the current market UPN affiliate will likely revert to independent status, since its affiliation will end. XHUPN is not owned by either CBS Corporation or Tribune Company, so it made sense to have Tribune's KSWB take on The CW Television Network affiliation. D2001dstanley 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was confirmed by Tribune during their conference call announcing their participation in The CW yesterday. There are a handful of markets whose Tribune/WB stations will not join The CW, each of them is located in markets where Viacom already owns the current UPN station (WATL Atlanta for example). A full list, as released by Tribune and Viacom yesterday can be found on Wikipedia at List of CW affiliates. Mhking 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contrary to the article "everyone from the station" was not let go when the station ceased their *news* operation. The news department and the anchors departed, which is hardly "everyone from the station". The morning show anchor is still there as well, for what's it worth.

Fair use rationale for Image:Kswb-cw5.png

Image:Kswb-cw5.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kswb-cw5.png

Image:Kswb-cw5.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:5499.jpg

Image:5499.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ktty6987.jpg

Image:Ktty6987.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:D30b.jpg

Image:D30b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KSWB-TV logo.png

Image:KSWB-TV logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Cruft" edit, 6 July 2012

On 6 July 2012, Drmies made an edit, [1], summarized by the user as "trimm(ing) unverified, crufty, excessive detail, directory information". "Cruft" is a term I encountered only recently. As is usual with such ill-defined Wikpedia slang, I've found one essay characterizing cruft as an uncivil argument to be avoided, and yet another claiming that cruft is a real problem, not a dirty word.

As to "unverified", the specific claims in the prose could be tagged for "citation needed". "Excessive detail" is probably in the eye of the beholder, as I personally find the removed prose to be an interesting discussion of the historical state of TV news competition in the San Diego market.

"Directory information" most likely refers to on air personnel and their assignments. This, plus titles and slogans, is standard verbiage within Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations. I, and others, have argued that this is "a way of tracking news anchors in various television markets and ... what anchor position they hold" and to "compare a station's news offerings to others in the market and to stations around the country". We hold that this usage does not violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Perhaps this type of information could be presented in another way, but that's a discussion for another time.

For these reasons, I am (mostly) reverting the "anti-cruft" edit. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed is the kind of cruft (yes) that we are trying to clean up from all those TV station articles. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies is right, that is definite fancruft and stuff that can be considered unsourced, unverifiable or unencyclopedic. Some of that would violate WP:NOT#DIR, while the other stuff would go against consensus. But, yes, it is fancruft and should be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...no. Please be more specific than just throwing out the word "cruft". Which elements are unsourced, unverifiable or unencylopedic? Which violate NOTDIR? Which go against whose consensus? The TV Project's? Who is this "we" who are "cleaning up" these articles? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question--who is the "we" in "We hold that this usage..."? Whoever they are, they don't really appreciate the difference between an encyclopedia and a TV guide. I have undone your revert, one step at a time. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Quite clever of you, Drmies, to twist my use of "we"! Mine refers to "I, and others", who I quoted. Which does not, of course, answer the question of who your "we" includes. Not, it would seem, Neutralhomer - who states in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#Style and formatting issues: "This is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit and everyone has a different writing style. We don't do uniformity on really any of the articles here because it would create something that isn't "free". It would require everyone to write in the same style...and since we aren't all little gray blobs with the same personalities, styles and everything, we are all different, a uniform version of anything will never happen. It would be nice, but with so many different writing styles, it would be impossible. Plus, I am pretty sure it would violate a couple WP:NOT rules. Unformity would change this project and Wikipedia itself to a point it would no longer be "free". So, a uniform television station article (or any article) is 'not a good idea."

I eagerly await your answer on what members of the TV Station Project (or other editors) are involved in this uniformity/cleanup task.

Meanwhile, in edit 1, which WP or Project policy or guideline holds that slogans are unencyclopedic? As for unverified 12 year old information, just slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Edit 2: You state a personal opinion about excitement level and refer WP users to TV Guide - where listings are non-existent in print form and beside the point online. Edit 3: Another "citation needed". Edit 4: Once again, "citation needed"; by what authority is info not encyclopedic?; saw the template in markup but did not see a video. Edit 5: This content does not, IMHO, constitute a "directory" & your suggestion to "check your local listings" would be fruitless, as only on rare occasions do listings include on-air staff.

But if you're serious about your view of TV station content, I'll make the same suggestion I've made previously to editors with similar ideas: Make equivalent edits to WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC, KABC-TV, KCBS-TV, KNBC, WBBM-TV, WLS-TV, WMAQ-TV, et al. Your response to this suggestion, and any subsequent reverts of these hypothetical edits, will speak volumes. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on KSWB-TV. 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:

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) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Fox Getting some of the Divested Sinclair Stations

http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/sinclair-tribune-fox-station-deal-seattle-1202707565/ KSWB along with KTXL Sacramento are rumored to go to Fox because of the Sinclair/Tribune deal --Special:Contributions/2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:3AD 02:16, 23 February 2018

Short description

@Mvcg66b3r: You reverted my edit to the short description of this article stating that it was "non-constructive", and this discussion is to follow WP:BRD.

I made the edit (for which the Wikipedia mobile app did not permit an edit summary) because the short description does not meet the requirements of WP:SHORTDESC, in particular WP:SDJARGON's requirement that it should "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject".

I don't know what "Fox affiliate" means: it seems to be technical jargon with no meaning in the part of the English-speaking world I am in; I believe its use fails WP:COMMONALITY. I suggested "Television station in California, United States", which is what the article's first few words state. I'm happy to have alternatives suggested which encompass that non-technical definition. Bazza (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r: Thanks for promptly restoring my edit to the short description. Much appreciated. Bazza (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7 Coming in a little late here... I've come around to this in my work doing short descriptions. I'd like to suggest "TV station in San Diego, California, U.S." instead.

Like with titles, short descriptions for call sign–titled broadcast stations can be very tricky because the topics can run together. I've improved KSHB-TV and KSNB-TV (and radio station KSUB) in addition to KSWB-TV, to give you an idea of how tough this can be. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sammi Brie. I only picked this article to edit because it appeared in my morning selection of "random articles".

Most of what you have said is foreign to me. I live in the United Kingdom, and the concepts of "affiliations", "call-signs" and "broadcast stations" are alien. I expect you could say similar things about what I take for granted.

I don't think cities-within-states in short-description locations are particularly useful for non-US people, but I have no problem if you decide to update the article to show what you propose. Bazza (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7 I readily appreciate that. The entire structure of regional TV in the US and UK are completely different. And I think you're right to say "that short description is too much". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Zzz plant (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 01:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sammi Brie, thanks for your work on this article. Picking this up for review- I'll have some preliminary comments up in the next day or two. Zzz plant (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've done a first pass and source checks. Before I get into the more stylistic elements of the article, I've flagged a few concerns, mostly with criterion 2, below. I'll be placing this nomination on hold for seven days to allow for any necessary changes or checks. Since some critical sources are hard for me to verify online, I would suggest double-checking them to ensure all statements match up. Thanks, Zzz plant (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast response! "Perceived to be" is a good fix for that one sentence from the lede. I'll review your sourcing updates in the next day. Zzz plant (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your fast response to my initial notes. I’ve done a closer look and at this point, I’m seeing enough source-integrity concerns between spot checks 1+2—some minor or partial, a few more significant—that I’m concerned about verifiability across the article. This is especially tricky since many of the sources are offline or otherwise inaccessible to me. So here’s where I’m at:

If you’re willing and able to do a full source-text audit: verifying each claim against its cited source and editing as necessary, we could keep the GA review open while that process takes place. I can circle back in a week or two and start basically a fresh review.
Alternatively, we could close this as unsuccessful, and the article could be further developed outside of the GA review process. I would be happy to take another look

I want to make sure this is manageable and fair for you while keeping GA requirements in mind, so please let me know how you’d like to proceed. Zzz plant (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woof, @Zzz plant, this is not like most of my pages. This article had problems, particularly in the stretches I did not completely rewrite. I actually found some more material that did not meet text-source integrity requirements. All of the issues you spotted should be gone.

I've gone ahead and

Clipped as many citations from the SD papers as possible (not possible when I wrote this page, now is; I used a full-text search database, but they are available as clippable scans) which should facilitate source verification. This actually turned up a misattributed publication (thanks to shortcomings in the database system; material from San Diego's two daily papers prior to 1992 was commingled, and I had not yet done enough articles in SD to know by author that the article in question was in The Tribune and not The San Diego Union).
Added some new material, which has new citations.
Removed additional claims that failed verification.

A few comments:

I usually consider linking publication names on first mention except when using NewsBank, but since I was making as many changes as I was, I have linked publications for more refs than normal.
The San Diego Union-Tribune article does not indicate that The Evening Tribune in its later years published as merely The Tribune, which it was for the 1984 reference.
I've removed a bunch of |publisher= entries for newspapers and magazines that are discouraged.
I've added inflation calculations.
[3] is an automatically generated source at the infobox level. rei should mirror the technical data but is less intuitive. This site should be up tomorrow after a 49-day absence. I likely need to consider some sort of code structure to switch to a mirror site that can provide the same information during government shutdowns.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going through the article and making these changes. It looks like verifiability concerns I flagged (and some that I didn't catch) have been addressed. I’m going to do another light source spot check - which should be posted in the next day - just because of the earlier problems, and if that looks good I’ll proceed to prose/MoS. Zzz plant (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Hey just checking in about this nomination Zzz plant (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I missed some of the comments here and thought this was just awaiting final approval. Let me take a look. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzz plant: Take a look now. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: The text/header re-org is a really nice change, and I have no c/e notes for the added text. Since all my comments have been addressed or are not barriers to GA, I will be promoting shortly :-) Zzz plant (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text

overall the prose is good. article is readable and engaging. I have mostly minor comments, will organize them by section below:

Lede

"Stronger programming, including The WB, and the start of a new local newscast, which ran from 1999 to 2005, dramatically improved its on-air product." I think this sentence is trying to do a bit too much at once.
- It sort of implies to me that The WB is programming by KTTY, rather than an affiliation - which was my understanding from article body
- "which ran from 1999 to 2005" may be an important descriptor for "new local newscast" but as-is kind of buried / tacked on
suggest something like "A new local newscast, stronger syndicated shows, and affiliation with The WB in 1999 improved the station’s lineup and reputation."
the lede is concise yet provides a nice overview of the article as a whole. optional suggestion, I would say it could maybe provide a tiny bit (like maybe a sentence or two more) about the history/origins, since that makes up a pretty significant portion of the article. it also has some human interest factor- sort of an underdog story.

History

I think overall the early years bit could be improved by just a bit of context about what the media landscape in San Diego looked like before the 1978 proposal of another channel. I think I remember reading about it during source spot check.
- That's not common here, and in any event the picture actually changed while 69 was proposed/awarded because KUSI-TV went on in 1982. That station had been in the oven, as it were, since the 1960s.
"The insertion of another television station into the San Diego area was proposed by Center City Complex Inc., owned by businessman Charles Woods, in 1978." this sentence reads a bit awkwardly to me; "inserted" seems like an unexpected word choice. suggest something like "The establishment of a new television station in the San Diego market was proposed in 1978 by Center City Complex Inc., owned by businessman Charles Woods." or "In 1978, Center City Complex Inc., owned by businessman Charles Woods, applied for a new television station in the San Diego market."
- There is a slight difference between "applying for a new station permit" on a channel that already is assigned and, in this case, applying to add a channel to this place.
"...however, a revised agreement with Mexico gave that country channel 27 for Tijuana, and channel 69 was proposed in its stead." "in its stead" feels a bit archaic, and I don't think "that country" is needed right after mentioning Mexico. suggest rephrasing to "...however, a revised agreement with Mexico designated channel 27 for Tijuana, and channel 69 was proposed instead for San Diego."
"In its first year, ratings were low; even some Los Angeles independent stations, seen on San Diego cable systems, surpassed it in the ratings." this might just be my own ignorance of local TV systems, but I'm not super clear on the implication of this - is this basically saying that it was so unpopular that LA coverage was more viewed in San Diego than their own San Diego program was?
- Correct. The Los Angeles independent stations (of which there were four) were all on cable in SD.
"Tribune assumed control of KTTY on April 19, 1996; 20 people lost their jobs, as the new owners only rehired 34 of the 54 employees of the station, and new programming started to debut." I don't think you need "20 people lost their jobs" it feels a bit repetitive
"The switch was met with an open letter from XETV management, stating in part, "Unfortunately, in these troubled times, it seems as though there is no honor or loyalty anymore." - I think anecdote - who knew local TV had so much drama! - could use some more explanation besides the quote. It's punchy, but would benefit from a sentence or two of big-picture story to orient the reader.
- I've added a bit more here. There is no big picture because XETV was essentially a one-station group. (XETV is unique. 'Nuff said.)
Given the existence of a very well-developed main article about Attempted acquisition of Tribune Media by Sinclair Broadcast Group - I think this maybe deserves a bit more explanation. Although I realize it's not only about KSWB-TV, I think it'd be good if the reader gets more of a general sense of how/why the deal fell through.
- There's a bit of philosophy here. Years ago, seemingly every station involved in this transaction had a big multi-paragraph chunk about it. That seemed undue, particularly because the deal did not take place, it has its own article, etc. There were huge reference trains that were undue in the article.
the final two paragraphs of this section are both quite short, I would recommend merging the one starting with "Following the merger's collapse, Nexstar Media Group announced a $6.4 billion..." with the preceding paragraph, as it seems like a natural continuation - discussing the fallout of planned merger.
- I've gone the other way to facilitate restructuring from the news operation side.

News operation

some of this feels either a) slightly repeated from the history section (i.e. better site in Kearny Mesa) or b) like it belongs in the history section exclusively. Section split-up is tricky with a sprawling company with multiple decades of history, but generally I would think that the news operation section should cover their current situation/operations, and info about their past should primarily be featured in history.
the average age of on-air presenters seems like a very strange detail, unless 29 is particularly unusual or noteworthy?
"On March 7, 2005, the station debuted The WB Morning Show, a simulcast of Los Angeles sister station KTLA's weekday morning newscast interspersed with half-hourly local news inserts presented by a solo anchor from KSWB's San Diego studios." I think this sentence is doing a bit too much, mainly because of the very long compound noun "Los Angeles sister station KTLA’s weekday morning newscast." I recommend splitting up, something like this "On March 7, 2005, KSWB debuted The WB Morning Show. The program was a simulcast of weekday morning newscast from its Los Angeles sister station KTLA, with half-hourly local news inserts presented by a solo anchor from KSWB’s San Diego studios."
- Done and even stripped down.
I wonder if the "News outsourcing to KNSD" info would be better suited to history section. Overall, I do feel like the division of information isn't super intuitive - at least to a non-expert.
"facilitate the news revival" feels a bit editorialized in comparison to the source
- Common response here. There are some articles where stations had multiple news operations that are what I call through-written, where news and history are written together. I first did this at KDAF, which has more than one similarity to this. I've decided to go with a through-write at your suggestion, so a lot of material has moved around. I added one sentence to the end of the history side, but right now no further material on the Nexstar-Tegna merger is advisable because it's so up in the air.

Sports programming

Short section, prose is fine. Optional suggestion- I feel like this doesn't necessarily need to be a standalone level 2 section- maybe could be integrated to "News operation"?, where there is already a bit of discussion about sports programming
- Remediated by reorganization.

Technical information

"KSWB shut down its analog signal, over UHF channel 69, on February 17, 2009, the original target date on which full-power television stations in the United States were to transition from analog to digital broadcasts under federal mandate (which was later pushed back five months to June 12, 2009)." this sentence, specifically the first part - shutting down "over" UHF channel 69 - confuses me a bit. it's also a bit long, could maybe benefit from being split up or simplified.
- This prose is in probably a couple thousand US TV station articles, and I actually streamline it in new projects. I've done likewise here. At some point it really needs to be expunged from every remaining page. It's super dense.

Sourcing

EW 10.7% due to a properly attributed quote, no red flags for copyvio
several of the San Diego Tribune links (including archives) just go to the homepage
suggest linking to publication names in references (i.e. The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Times. You can also link to Newspapers.com. Since each citation stands alone, this is permitted under MOS:DUPLINK. I think it’s helpful to the reader, as they can quickly evaluate an in-line citation by hovering over the #, and click to view the publication info if they want to learn more.

Spot checks 1

in-line ref #s all as of this revision

[4]: "The insertion of another television station into the San Diego area was first proposed by businessman Charles Woods in 1978." vs. "Woods' Center City Complex Inc. of San Diego previously proposed the assignment of a Channel 27 to San Diego." ? this strikes me as a bit interpretative. Source is from 1978, but from my reading doesn't explicitly state that 1) Woods was the first to propose another television station in the San Diego area 2) if he did, it happened in 1978. The source is from 1978, but "previously proposed" could refer to another year.
- I have added another ref indicating the application was announced by the FCC in February 1978. Since the source is also in a shadow library, I don't add new links there, but it is in https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-BC/Broadcasting-Magazine/BC-1978/1978-02-20-BC.pdf#page=70 .
  - Y Rephrase is better supported by available sourcing
[6]: "twelve applications were received. vs. "In response to the offer, about a dozen people applied. Out of the 12..." Y
[8]: "The field of applicants consolidated after the hearing designation by way of settlements and mergers and was whittled down eventually to five. Four of these groups consolidated: a group of Asian businessmen headed by former San Diego city councilor Tom Hom; Black investor J. Bruce Llewellyn and several other East Coast interests; Gil Contreras, leading a Hispanic group; and a White group led by Jim Harmon, the president of Imperial Airlines. Harmon was the brother of former KFMB-TV co-owner Helen Alvarez Smith." vs. "Imperial Airlines said yesterday that it had sold 70% of its stock to a group of investors led by Jim Harmon, brother of Helen Alvarez Smith..." Y/N I believe another source verifies this text, but the citation after it only verifies the Harmon connection.
- This was LosA841030. I found it in Newspapers.com as well. Sometimes the editions the Los Angeles Times did are tougher to find.
  - Y on the second page clipping
[9]: "This cleared the way for the consortium known as San Diego Television to get a construction permit on January 3, 1983. However, nearly two years would pass before KTTY began to broadcast. One complication arose when the Llewellyn group opted to sell, suffering from the difficulty of living on the East Coast and trying to set up a West Coast TV station... vs. "Llewellyn… said he wanted out of the operation because the realities of living on one coast and making decisions for a business on another became overwhelming." Y/N only verifies the last clause about Llewellyn's involvement, does not appear to mention construction permit or overall timeline. maybe just needs a citation earlier in the paragraph for the first bit. If [5] verifies the broader story (I can't access to confirm), then I would recommend putting both citations at the end of those several sentences. As is, the cite placement leads me to think that [9] will verify the whole thing.
- Most of it comes from the LosA841030 ref. I also am dealing with discrepancies between FCC electronic records and Broadcasting, which is a bit odd. LosA841030 uses "right to the license" which is incorrectly worded. They won a construction permit, they built the station, they filed for the license once it was on; that's the way it works in the U.S. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y
[25]: "In making the switch, Fox's executive vice president of network distribution, Jon Hookstratten, cited the fact that, as a Mexican station, XETV—an original Fox affiliate from the network's creation in 1986—had to answer to a different communications regulator, the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, as one reason for the changeover. Tribune had initiated talks with Fox in December 2007; the network had already been talking with McKinnon Broadcasting, owner of KUSI-TV, about a potential affiliation." Y/N mostly verified, I just don't see anything about having to answer to the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, or mention of 1986
- 1986 is going to have to be brought in from another reference, which I have done.
- Reworded to be less precise while still accommodating the source. Among reasons given for the change is that XETV, which is owned by Grupo Televisa, broadcasts from a transmitter in Tijuana. “It's a different FCC than our FCC, so you have a different set of issues you are dealing with,” said Jon Hookstratten, executive vice president of network distribution for the Fox Broadcasting Co. “You have to do things differently and watch out for things differently, so this puts (San Diego) in the same position as our other affiliates.” It's not rocket science, but unfortunately the wording is going to be a bit obtuse at the source.
  - Y I think that's good, rephrase appears verifiable
[29][30]: "In 2017, Sinclair Broadcast Group announced it had agreed to purchase Tribune Media for $3.9 billion." Y
[37]: "The sale was completed on September 19, 2019, with KSWB not subject to any additional transactions." - ? definitely verifies date of sale, but does not appear to explicitly define ‘additional transactions’ in relation to KSWB, so the phrasing comes across as perhaps a bit ambiguous or interpretive
- That looks like a remnant of a much larger text. Fox ended up buying some stations from Nexstar after the sale, for context.
  - latter clause removed, no problem now as the date is verified in source Y
[53]: "Ali Fedotowsky – features/lifestyle reporter [at KSWB-TV]" Y
[54]: "Kendis Gibson – anchor [at KSWB-TV]" - N I checked both the live version and archived versions, I don't see KSWB or San Diego mentioned
- Good catch. Another ref is needed entirely here. It is an offline ref in a news database (NewsBank), but I will supply the primary quote: The 10 p.m. weeknight newscast is awfully jocular for evenings, and while former KFMB favorite Kathleen Bade and her co-anchor Kendis Gibson have a sparky chemistry, their on-set fun can result in some weird, TMI moments. (Like their second-week discussion about throwing up after drinking.) His date of departure is not available in any source but it has to be before 2010 when he apparently joined CBS News. @Zzz plant: Changes to here: Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y looks good now

Spot checks 2

in-line ref #s all as of this revision

[35]: "Both transactions were nullified on August 9, 2018, when Tribune Media terminated the Sinclair deal and filed a breach of contract lawsuit..." Y
[3]: ""KSWB-TV transmits from San Miguel Mountain." - ? seems like this link isn't currently available (maybe due to govt shutdown?). Maybe worth trying to archive this link once it (hopefully) comes back up.
[20]: "After both parties bid in 22 rounds to push the price to $70 million, Tribune bid $70.5 million without United matching it, winning the right to buy KTTY." Y
[22]: Nielsen ratings controversy, source offline but also partially verified by this clipping Y
[24][25]: "With the announcement, The CW signed a ten-year affiliation agreement with Tribune Broadcasting for 16 of the group's 19 WB affiliates, with KSWB-TV named as the network's San Diego affiliate." - ? I can't find the San Diego piece, links send me to home page - NYT piece just verifies merger as a whole, not specs or KSWB detail.
- Tribune Co., which owns 22 percent of the WB, will trade its ownership interest for the right to carry the new network's programming on 16 of its major market stations. CBS will air the CW on 12 of its major market stations. With those markets, the CW will cover 48 percent of the United States. To increase its reach, the network will add other current UPN and WB stations, which is expected to reach 95 percent of viewers nationwide. In San Diego, the CW will air on the current WB station, KSWB/Channel 69 (cable channel 5), which is owned by Tribune. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[26]: "During a seminar by Tribune Broadcasting president Sam Zell on March 25, 2008, it was revealed that Tribune Broadcasting had signed an affiliation agreement with Fox to make KSWB-TV the network's new San Diego affiliate effective August 1." - Y/N verifies August 1 Fox affiliate status, but does't seem to mention seminar or Sam Zell?
[26]: "The news blindsided XETV management, which contended their Fox affiliation agreement ran through 2010, and represented the second time that the station's Mexican location had cost it a network affiliation after an FCC ruling forced ABC to move to a U.S. station in 1973." Y/N blindsided is a bit editorialized, although would be fair to say they weren't expecting it. I don't see the last clause, starting with "and represented the second..." present in source
[54]: "In the years that followed, the station progressively added local newscasts. In 2009, a 6 p.m. news hour was introduced, followed by a 5 p.m. hour in 2011 and newscasts at 1 and 4 p.m. in 2014." - Y/N only verifies 2014 newscasts, not seeing 2009 or 2011
[55]: "A 7 p.m. newscast was added in 2020 and extended to an hour the next year." Y

Changes have been introduced to resolve the issues in [26] and [54] as well. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks 3

in-line ref #s all as of this revision

[18]: "This action was undertaken by Alvarez Smith in order to protect KTTY from foreclosure on the 1986 loan." Y
[22]: "Tribune assumed control of KTTY on April 19, 1996; 20 people lost their jobs, as the new owners only rehired 34 of the 54 employees of the station, and new programming started to debut." Y
[23]: "Ahead of the new television season, KTTY changed its call sign to KSWB-TV as part of a campaign to, per general manager Lise Markham, remove "negative connotations" associated with the station." Y
[24]: "In 2000, a marketing campaign conducted by KSWB in which it mailed VHS tapes to 75,000 San Diego-area homes and urged homes reporting in Nielsen Media Research ratings diaries..." Y
[29]: "...[Zell] reevaluated many aspects of the company. He learned that, under prior management, Tribune had been offered the Fox affiliation for KSWB-TV and turned the network down." Y

Scope

I have some suggestions in prose review for small opportunities for expansion or contextualization, but generally I think this provides a fair overview of everything one might want to know about KSWB-TV.
No excessive detail detours or info that feels out of place.

Neutrality

"It was the third independent station in the market with programming that was generally inferior to its two competitors." this comes off as a subjective value judgement. I would attribute this, maybe something like "Contemporary critics described its programming as inferior to that of its two independent competitors."
Added a "perceived to be" in there. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

Some occasional non-constructive edits but quickly reverted. Discussion about short description on talk page, but looks reasonable and fair- no indication of edit warring.

Illustration

1 fair-use logo and 2 appropriately licensed images from commons. All are relevant, have useful captions, and good alt text.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a San Diego TV station was described as "a laughingstock—bankrupt and virtually bereft of watchable programming"? Source: https://www.genealogybank.com/newspaper-clippings/affiliate-helps-kswb-grow-leaps-bounds/eiamxlppdsctmhzjzgjzuyfvnxtszbqr_ip-10-166-46-122_1763440964037
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/National Unity Committee (Bolivia)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 801 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

This article is long enough and eligible as it was promoted to GA. The source verifies the hook and it is sourced in the article. I can't see any issues with the article. The hook is very interesting! It could potentially be changed to something like "that a San Diego TV station was described as "a laughingstock"" for conciseness if need be. QPQ has been done. Overall this is good to go, well done!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)

"Duopoly" is certainly wrong

A duopoly is two different entities being in control. What's actually described here can't possibly be a duopoly. If those are San Diego's only TV stations, then it's a monopoly - they have the same owner. If San Diego has more TV stations, then maybe it's a nothing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]