Talk:Nova 106.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Nova 106.9 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Brisbane.
Assessment comments
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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nova 106.9 article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Interesting Facts

"The Nova News Beat Theme Music is based on"

Anyone know what it was based on? :) Pursey 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic content

This article has accumulated a lot of unencyclopedic content, such as silly trivia-like pieces about show competitions and the like – hardly worthy of an encyclopedia I'd think (WP:NOT). Discussing the permanent hosts/DJs is worthy, but keep it relevant and notable.  SEO75 [talk] 15:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring Permanent Program Details

Following severe removal of content by one of the Administrator's without prior discussion, I've restored the permanent programming to the article. I've left out the schedule tables, non-permanent programming, and the bio's of the Breakfast Crew which read like advertising. Pursey 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substantial Changes and Content Removal

Hello,

In approximately 24 hours I will begin a substantial set of edits to the Nova and DMG related articles on Wikipedia to remove sections that:

  1. Contain changing schedule information.
  2. Remove unreferenced information if a reference cannot be found.
  3. Remove sections that read as advertisements.

I will also be doing the following:

  1. Introduce a common format across the Nova FM Stations articles.
  2. Write up new sections on the stations permanent programming.
  3. Provide external sources for unreferenced content.
  4. Requesting DMG Radio's assistance through staff at Nova 106.9 in Brisbane, in finding external sources for content.

If you have any concerns about this, please let me know either here, or on my talk page, or both. Pursey 15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! :) I have suspected that Nova 106.9's staff have vandalised this page on a number of occasions, going by the way some certain edits (vandalisms) have been worded, most of it utter nonsense. How will you ask for DMG's assistance, and is this a usual practice? Can't external sources for content (references?) be found easily enough without contacting the topic's subject?  SEO75 [talk] 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We have contacted Pursey to offer our assistance in the editing andresponsible management of the NOVA 106.9 Wikipedia page. We understand that this is not an tool for promotion and or advertisement BUT an Encyclopedic article for factual information only. Nova1069 14:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I've received no such contact. I'm familiar with many of your station staff, so perhaps you could privately let me know who you are and I can contact you through reception on Monday. I've left a message on your talk page. I understand the desire to protect your image by ensuring the information is accurate and factual and written from a Neutral Point of View. So, I'm happy to be the go-between to work on this article. The issue is, there's generally a problem or two when a company goes ahead and edits its own article. I'll point out though, I'm well satisfied that you've done it in good faith, and have made it clear it is the company editing it, rather than using an anonymous IP. Pursey Talk | Contribs 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Just noting to everyone else, I've located that email mentioned and received further communication from Nova/DMG. So I'll be speaking with a contact person there tomorrow to see how the subject of the article can constructively contribute to this article, whether it be themselves, or by providing information to another editor such as myself. Pursey Talk | Contribs 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this kind of 'co-operation' normal?  SEO75 [talk] 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Seo, the issue here is someone in the community (you) has raised a concern, so I've stepped in as a "third party" to resolve that concern. You can look at my contribution history - you should be able to confirm my belief that I make edits from a Neutral Point of View and participate in discussion regularly. Third party sources will be used, I'm simply co-operating with Nova to ensure that the article remains: a) Neutral, b) Stable, c) Encyclopedic, d) We can get permission for images! Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. Pursey Talk | Contribs 04:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Seo, I'll also note that you should remember to assume good faith in regards to participation on Wikipedia. I can't see anything in the article that remotely constitutes Vandalism. Particularly check out 'what is not vandalism'. Instead of accusing the staff at Nova 106.9 of vandalism and adding nonsense, I'm working with the staff to assist them in constructively contributing. Much the same as you do in a content dispute with another editor. Pursey Talk | Contribs 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
My asking if it "normal" was purely a curiosity if similar co-operations have been orchestrated in Wikipedia before. One thing that I keep questioning to myself is that information on here must be verifiable, by citing on-line news sites, for example, so such information must already be out there for others to click-though and check for themselves. Otherwise, there is the risk of original research. I'm not trying to aggravate you whatsoever; I'm just interested in how it will work (and willing to assist in any way I can (am currently in Brisbane)).
Also, I always strive to assume good faith with edits. I have been watching this article for some time, and in its worst weeks/months amongst a barrage of vandalisms, one in particular raised my eyebrows the most.  SEO75 [talk] 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Seo, just so you know, we are aware of such eyebrow raising comments that have been placed on the article. We have addressed editing and additions to this page with staff and they are now ofae with the current Wikipedia usage policy. We understand this article is not a promotional tool and or for marketing, it is purely for fact and information. I will be working with Pursey to add verifiable links to some of the info that is in question(if any). We want to make the article true and correct and abide by the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks for your keen interest
Nova1069 Talk | Contribs16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite

The major rewrite has begun!

This article is now referenced... oh my! Citations :)

Trying to get a hold of some images of the Nova 106.9 Studio's, because they really are quite unique studios. Other than that... I'll be rolling out this format across the other Nova Stations shortly, and providing sources for all of the unreferenced statements. Pursey Talk | Contribs 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice. One remark though, I don't think that including a list of execs is all that useful, since such teams change all the time (and since I doubt there are external sources on that). >Radiant< 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge request - from Nova 106.9 Programming

I found this article tagged with the {{schedule}} tag. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines, but rather than ask for the article to be deleted, it may be better for someone (with knowledge of this station) to integrate the contents of this article into this one. The only exception would be the schedules, which violate WP:NOT#DIR. ----tgheretford (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Support The page is full of mostly non-notable (nonsense) material, the likes of which was in the main article last year, and a user went to a great effort to eradicate and in-turn improve the 4BNE article. The little that is notable enough can easily be merged.  SEO75 [talk] 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)