Talk:4 Digital Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There appears to be no reference to the the main competitor for this bid, National Grid Wireless, and in particular that this rival bid proposes to include two Channel 4 services under its proposal - [1]

Also you seem to be confused between this consortium created for the sake of this bid, and 4Radio itself, or at least I assume you do given that you have you have removed all reference to 4Radio from the Channel 4 article and replaced it with a link to this page, which I will revert in the absence of a 4Radio article.

Oh, and I'd probably get some references in the article somewhere too.

-- Fursday 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone, balance and appropriateness of this article

Upon further reading, I have grave reservations about this article:

• The tone is very concerning; the whole thing sounds like it has been entirely lifted from Channel 4's press office, and is singing the consortium's praises at every single opportunity. The language lacks objectiveness and balance, and is in no way critical or objective about the intentions about the bid. Rather than being an encyclopaedic account of a DAB licence bid, it instead comes across as the sales pitch for the bid itself, singing the praises of everything the consortium sets out to do in practically every paragraph.

• No reference whatsoever is made to the alternative bid (or bids), the principle competitor being that of National Grid Wireless, for which a counter-article appears not even to exist. In the interests of objectiveness, one would assume that a balanced comparison between the intentions and objectives of both applications would be vital in any account of this matter.

• Finally, the above points are compounded by the fact that no references or sources are cited in the composition of this piece.

I therefore propose that this article be either deleted, or moved to something along the lines of "UK Commercial DAB Application" and be significantly modified to contain a description of the licensing process itself, alongside objective details of all intended bids.

I shall research this matter further, and go through the appropriate proposal process for this to happen shortly.

-- Fursday 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's largley from information supplied by Channel 4, I thought I would get the information in here (it's edited and wiki'd already) and sort out the POV when I had some time. I can't see any reason to move it to "UK Commercial DAB Application", it's a consortium in it's own right. ••Briantist•• talk 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got rid of most of the marking waffle, tried to keep the core information. ••Briantist•• talk 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There does not have to be an individual Wikipedia article for every discrete subject in the universe! Yes, it's a consortium in its own right, but the overall process is of more interest as an on-going event than a mere aspect of the process, which is all an article about one of the applying consortia amounts to. If you make a 4 Digital Group article, then that means there ought to be an article concerning the National Grid Wireless application, and an article about the application process in itself. One of the applicants is going to fail, which means that straight away one of the articles then becomes redundant. Furthermore I see little reason why there ought to be three articles on what is effectively one subject. I therefore propose that this article be moved to UK DAB National Licence and expanded to include the entire application process -- Fursday 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I am requesting the following move for the reasons explained above. An article about the whole licensing application has more relevance than an article about one aspect of it, namely one of the consortia making a bid. There is not enough information and too much overlap to justify multiple articles in this instance. The choice of name and choice of capitalisation cones from the application page on the Ofcom website. Move request added to WP:RM. -- Fursday 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the move, if you want to make the other page and link it to the two bidding consortiums you can. ••Briantist•• talk 07:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"UK DAB National Licence" is unencylopedic and could refer to the two existing ones also, and is singular when there is three of them. ••Briantist•• talk 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest? UK DAB National Radio multiplex licence application would be more verbose by refer to the application process, nonetheless.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fursday (talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Support a move as a method of reducing the POV and advertising in this article and also to provide a greater degree of notability - if C4 don't win, this article will need to be deleted (not good for an encyclopedia; we're not Wikinews), whereas an article about the licencing process and the winner and loser would stand the test of time.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Simple "UK DAB National Radio multiplex licence application" is unencylopeidic, whereas this current page refers to an company that actually exists. ••Briantist•• talk 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)