Talk:K-LOVE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject Radio Stations 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

[edit] Transfer rate

Are we sure about that 21kb/s transfer rate? I know when you first set up their player, you can choose a connection rate up to 300 kb/s. Kc8ukw 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

21kb/s is correct. That 300kb thing is your connection speed. 21kb/s is the default transfer rate for high speed. If you support K-LOVE financially, you can get up to 64kb/s or something close to that. I didn't see where it was on the page. Is it? 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Transfer rates stated for KLOVE online are correct: 21kbps or 64kbps for financial supporters. Should this be in the article? --Dymaxion 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed some Kansas City radio thingy. I don't think its relevant to this article. Microbyte 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:K-LOVElogosmall.png

Image:K-LOVElogosmall.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 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging translators to main page

Considering that the EMF has at least a hundred translators each for their K-LOVE and Air 1 networks, it would be cumbersome, if not impossible, to list them all. Therefore, I oppose this. -- azumanga 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Azumanga if it is a matter of listing each translator/repeater transmitter as separate articles or adding a section to this article. For clarity, separate articles would be best. --Dymaxion 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

K-LOVE Radio Network → K-LOVE — Official name of the network is "K-LOVE." No disambiguation is required, and move was made with no discussion/consensus. —JPG-GR 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nominator. No discussion/consensus. Dabpage features links to (a) one thing that would never be abbreviated as K-LOVE and (b) two radio stations already dab'd from the article. Additionally, there are two non-links which are unlikely to be found by a search for "K-LOVE". JPG-GR 07:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Paranormally strong support - this is no more a radio network than NPR, and should not be listed as such, and is many times more notable than any of the listings on the disambiguation page. To make a disambiguation page out of the previous page was not a good idea. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] merge proposal

It has been proposed that all station specific articles for K-LOVE stations be merged into K-LOVE. Stations which provide no local programming or other content and carry nothing but network provided programming lack sufficient notability to warrant an article. However, any station that does provide sufficient local programming or has a history (such as ownership changes) which warrants coverage, should not be merged. See WP:WPRS for more information. Any opinions or suggestions would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support If we create the list in a table, with appropriate links (stations with local history, etc), I think it would be manageable. As you stated above, stations which are simply the local outlet of a satellite feed don't warrant articles of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigFish (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I would second retaining articles for those stations that have a notable history prior to becoming K-Love stations. There may be some debate on the individual stations' pages as to whether they are notable enough to continue to have a separate article, but that is still preferable to the alternative.--LoadStar (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Making the wikipage of my nearest affiliate (KLVM) redirect to the network's page would show a lack of concern for the local purpose that the station is supposedly meant to serve. The station consumes a significant chunk of the local spectrum, and the FCC wouldn't have granted the license if it did not believe the station would benefit us the public in the station's listening area. So the station is theoretically important enough that it should be free to have its own wikipage, which I've produced, and the same should go for other stations, with the exception of translators. Michael Patrick (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this idea does have some benefits, it would be better as the exception, not the rule. For some stations without significant information, it might be okay to do this, but with others, merging it in with the main K-Love article would remove any place for that info. Also, basic information such as transmitting info would lose its place as well. Microbyte (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flagship Station question

What designates KLOV as the "flagship station?" While the call sign would make this a reasonable guess, I can find no secondary supporting documentation of this, and in fact, the FCC license for KLOV indicates that it is simply "a satellite operation of KLVR-FM(NCE), Santa Rosa, CA" (now Middletown, CA). Additionally, all new K-Love full-power stations request permission from the FCC to relocate studios to those of KLVR-FM (for example, the application for WFZH Mukwonago, WI). Is there a maintainer for this article that can explain the flagship mention, or should this be changed? LoadStar (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)