Talk:4 Digital Group

Comment
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 -

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)

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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

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 a company that actually exists.  ••Briantist••   talk  08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but... - although I agree that there should be some coverage of the licensing application process for DAB, I don't think it has been done in the right way. I agree with Fursday's concerns with the 4 Digital Group article and the fact that no mention has been made anywhere of the National Grid Wireless application, which cause me concerns of WP:NPOV violation for a start. I think the best solution would not be to move this article anywhere (rather, it should be deleted), but to mention anything about the DAB licence application process as well as a background of the development and history of DAB in the UK in a specific article, like there is for Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom, where multiple reliable sources are attainable. I wouldn't agree with a separate article on the "UK DAB National Radio multiplex licence application", because it wouldn't be notable enough or have enough reliable sources from independent sources in my view to warrant inclusion. My other concern is the lack of sources aside from the 4 Digital Group application, which help to assert notability to the inclusion of an article in Wikipedia. At the moment, I believe that there isn't enough to meet notability guidelines for Wikipedia. I am considering a proposed deletion for this article, but will wait for discussion on this issue to finish beforehand. --tgheretford (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bloody good point. Why am I proposing an article on this tendering process when there isn't even a UK Digital Radio article? I am inclined to support a deletion proposal, with the provision that such an article be created to cover various aspects of UK Digital Radio, though I too will wait for further discussion on this matter.


 * On an aside, I propose that such a new article be something along the lines of "Digital Radio in the United Kingdom", rather than being specifically about 'DAB', this way we can 'future-proof' ourselves against certain developments in this field, such as DRM which is already being trialled. -- Fursday 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with your comments and believe that there isn't anywhere near enough coverage of digital radio (good point on other technology aside from DAB in the UK) in Wikipedia that could be placed in an article like the UK DTT article has done successfully. There is a bit about DAB in the UK at Digital Audio Broadcasting with a good few citations that could be expanded into a new article along with the expansion of radio on digital satellite, terrestrial and cable as well as DRM. There is an article on FM broadcasting in the UK (FM broadcasting in the UK) but it is an extreme stub that needs a lot of work to do. As well as this, there is also a Radio in the United Kingdom article, but again, it needs expanding, for example, a lot of the history of the BBC and commercial radio is missing completely (this would cover analogue radio in the UK's development up until the launch of digital radio services) as well the development of Independent Local Radio, the different authorities which oversaw commercial radio, international frequency changes which affected the BBC and stations on medium wave (on November 23, 1978), the trials of DRM/DAB+ in the UK and I could probably go on all night at what is missing. There is a lot of work to do that will need the expertise of a few Wikipedians to do and probably a weekend too, but I think the development and current implementation of "Digital radio in the United Kingdom" as well as expansion/merge of the existing articles as I stated above would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia, where hopefully the effort and work which has gone into the UK television articles can be repeated for UK radio articles. And, for what I must also add, the idea of a UK radio stations WikiProject/task force could cover (but doesn't exist at the moment). --tgheretford (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I started a skeleton template of the proposed article, alongside a proposed article for the history of radio in the United Kingdom on this page: User:Tghe-retford/Sandbox 2. It is basic, but it gives a good idea as to how the articles could be spread out. Feel free to edit it or improve it or even turn them into fully fledged articles in their own right! --tgheretford (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of an article about digital radio in the UK doesn't really mean this article need moving.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think, however, articles on the history of British radio and digital radio in the United Kingdom would be a good addition to Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Unfortunately, this request was removed from WP:RM, apparently by accident, which is why the request has remained open for so long. --Stemonitis 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Digital+group+logo.jpg
Image:Digital+group+logo.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 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 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely out of date?
Doesn't this and associated articles need a complete rewrite to note that none of this ever happened? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so much a complete re-write, as a short note to explain the outcome, and the text to be placed into the past tense. DONE Personally, I would have limited it to the first two paragraphs as the rest, was all speculative. --Keith 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 4 Digital Group. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614133855/http://www.ofcom.org.uk:80/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329a to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)