Talk:Student television in the United Kingdom

NaSTA
Nasta is there because its the organisation that is the leading orgabisation in student TV and it plays an imporant part as such. There is only 1 source i can get my material from and that is the nasta website... im sorry if thats not a good enough source for you but that page has a right to be there and why when you type in nasta should you be redirected to something thats a completely different subject? This makes the nasta wiki page almost inaccessable which doesnt make sense seem as though there is so much information on there that is relivent and you wont find anywhere else in the future as nasta doesnt have a history section... So please dont remove the page again or i will have to report you for valdalism... because thats what it is the removing of suitable descriptive material Xrateddan (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles require reliable 3rd party sources, without such are they are not suitable for wikipedia I refer you this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_student_television/Archive_1#rewrite_and_possible_re_name NaSTA lacks notability. Sherzo (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep NaSTA Where It Is
NaSTA is the pinicle of what students and trying to reach and therefore it is important that we know what has come before us and what is going to come after use. Is NaSTA is to become a better orgainiation that it needs its own page that works when you type nasta in rather than been directed to some crappy page that gives no indication to what NaSTA actually is... Xrateddan (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

do you have a source that its the pinnacle? do you have any sources at all that would warrant forking off? It is not wikipedia place help NaSTA be a better organisation it is not a resource, if you want that create a NaSTA wiki. The British student television is far better in a quality, because it is a prose rather than list form and relies on 3rd party sources. This article also encompass the wider field of student tv not just that limited to an unsourced prep piece about one organization. Sherzo (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes bu british student televison is NaSTA... there is no other organisation other than that, so therefore what use is a british student televison page, it doesnt tell you anything about whats going on now. I am aware that wiki is not here to promote the organisation but the organisation exists and is the ONLY organisation that excists within british student televsion therefore is more relivent to whats going on now. Right wikipedia is about 3rd party sources otherwise your content gets taken down... i don't understand why you think that sourcing material is a bad thing... but anyway unsourced you have 6 sources i have much more than that. I can't source material from anywhere other than NaSTA itself because no one else bothers to cover it. One thing that also bothers me your content is about the history of student televison it has hardly no information about anything thats going on at the moment where as the NaSTA article is more up to date with what is happening now, which is as important as any history otherwise if i read the british student television page it looks like all student television has been swollowed up into a black hole. It is important that the NaSTA article is kept... So what is it you want? just the redirect back? or what? Xrateddan (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

if british student television is nasta you need reliable 3rd party sources to back that, whereas there is clearly evidence its not given the wealth of material outside of nasta, the admission of its own members in the archived talk i linked, and the fact Nasta apparently disappeared for some time hence its deletion from this article. you assertion that there is no other organization other than that would again require sourcing as the NUS and RSC both have awards for it, and the scholar channel provides a platform for much such content. the use of the british television page is that there is a consistent student television culture that can be reliably source(more than can be said of nasta) much of which exists outside of nasta so you claim shows POV bias can i also remind you really shouldn't create articles about yourself or groups your involved in. As for whats going on now, its not wikipedia's place to be any organizations news bulletin board that is what its own website etc should be for. Reliable 3rd party sources establish notability and are verifiable, please familiarize yourself with Notability. "but anyway unsourced you have 6 sources i have much more than that." No you have one source cited repeatedly. "I can't source material from anywhere other than NaSTA itself because no one else bothers to cover it." then it doesn't fulfill notability and doesnt belong on wikipedia. "One thing that also bothers me your content is about the history of student televison it has hardly no information about anything thats going on at the moment where as the NaSTA article is more up to date with what is happening now," that would be why its a history, as mentioned before this is an encyclopedia entry not a new service thus it's history is an important part, as for what's going on now if you can provide a reliable 3rd party source feel free to add it to the section. As for being swallowed into a black hole it makes clear that student television has grown extensively to point that any student with a laptop and camera can now create content. At present I see absolutely no justification for forking the nasta section off into its own article Sherzo (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You may not see the justification Sherzo, but this is a relatively new debate. You are quoting one that is two years old. Don't get me wrong here, but point of views change. You are acting as if you own the articles in question, which you don't (WP:OWN). You're reverting decisions without consensus. I understand your point of insufficient independent evidence, but you can't justifiably use an old debate to justify your actions. Xrateddan has a different point of view to yourself and needs to to more work in citing NaSTA in independent sources, but he can't do that methodically if you are just marking his edits as vandalism and reverting them. This is the same with the Glasgow University Student Television debate. There wasn't a consensus there, just inactivity. You said yourself that that was the reason you did the redirect. This was followed by the large debate against your decision and your RfC on me and all of the editors who opposed you. People have different point of views to you. Please respect them (Copy to all parties on their talk page, but please reply here) TorstenGuise (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First as far as the RFC that was because one of your group of editors created a sockpuppet named similarly named to me, impersonated me and started posting legal threats to admins.
 * Isn't the GUST deletion debate equally old? and just because its old doesn't make it invalid has it significantly changed since then? also I'll remind you wikipedia is not a democracy.
 * On the topic what justification is there for forking it off into a separate article from the section thats in this one article?Sherzo (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On the RFC, Bluecord's case was very different to my own, you didn't even cite him in the RFC. In fact, your accusation was:- most likely meatpuppets or though possible some sockpuppets in order to keep non notable articles like Articles_for_deletion/Glasgow_University_Student_Television_(second_nomination) ; none of those voting had editing the page or been involved in previous discussions. Sherzo 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) The community had challenged your decision, not just me. This was no reason to take your vengeance on us. Secondly, you are acting as if you own the articles. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there is some consensus that there is notability here and consensus can change per WP:CCC Thirdly, it is not your right to decide the justification needed to resurrect the NaSTA article. Let the community decide.Student Radio is already represented through the UK_Student_Radio_Association. There is no reason why student television should not be. Before you quote WP:OSE that is not my justification. Allow some due process and the articles to be developed instead of repeatedly edit warring (which is really going on here). For once, admit you are wrong and let us get back to the business of the day!.TorstenGuise (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Really you want to bring your groups actions that had at least 2 sockpuppeteer working in support of your agenda i thought you'd be too ashamed, How are bluecord and wongch? still pushing POV? as for vengeance lol, you actions and comments had generate a bad reputation so i wanted to check your group wasn't up to its old tricks again, but safe than sorry, if you had nothing to hide why does it scare you so? do you really feel this is the appropriate place for your petty complaints? or would you like to get back to the matter at hand? I know your personal agenda is that every minute of every day of every person life ever deserves it's own article but beyond that you have not answered why this article needs to be forked, You obviously do need to refresh yourself on OSE otherwise you'd have not brought up another article as your justification. Why exactly can't the existing section in the current article be expanded that is after all due process? not simple create a new article because a member of that group wants to promote it? reverting vandalism or push articles isn't edit warring, and you know that, as for being wrong? perhaps you don't remember what being right since i can't remember the last time you were, and you were such a nice boy when i first met you Sherzo (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, I am not in a group and I am not in a cabal! Those editors that were against your agenda were nothing to do with me - the RFC proved that! As far as the bluecord and wongch case, I condemn the use of sockpoppets and I even reverted vandalism on your talk page done by bluecord! Again, back to the matter at hand. Nothing deserves an article by right on Wikipedia just because they exist. Having said that, it was you that combined them in the first place (and I think that a community decision needs to be made here as your 100% biased against it). If you read carefully my previous reply I was not using the student radio article as my justification:- Before you quote WP:OSE that is not my justification. This is edit warring. You have decided the current concensus of notability of NaSTA yourself. If you hadn't have done, then you wouldn't keep marking the changes as vandalism. When I was a new page patroller I'd mark something for deletion if I didn't think the notability had been made and let the community decide. I didn't go round as if I was judge and jury making decisions myself. As for vandalism, I'd mark vandalism and not a change in opinion. That is not our place either. You seem to think it's your place though!! TorstenGuise (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My agenda? that i reverted POV pushs, vandalism and ego pieces? the only person wit agenda here is you, yu believe everything with the word student in deserves its own article. If it wasn't your justification why mention it? I'm not against anything (you seem to forget Jmalky and Tominsaac), i appreciate time has passed had things may have changed, but what i'm saying is if there is new 3rd party sources expand the Nasta section here with reliable sourced useful information, then if it gets to the point that its weight and sources warrant its own article then thats the point we discuss forking not before. Sherzo (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They are POV pushes, Vandalism and ego pieces in your opinion. I have no agenda except to stop the filibustering and preventative edits that you are making in order to prevent development here. I don't believe that everything in the student world deserves its own article, I also haven't forgotten the earlier debates. However. Just marking new edits as vandalism are counter-productive. You've condemned the work before any discussion has taken place. That's my point. That's why you've got Xrateddan's back up. You haven't given him the opportunity to discuss. Let's discuss it then. Start a new section. Lets talk about it! TorstenGuise (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really fruitful, or helpful to the topic at hand? I believe you have an inclusive agenda particularly when it comes to student groups you deny it, you claim i have some agenda against them, i deny it, how is it relevant or helpful to this question? if its a discussion you feel the need to continue perhaps our talkpages would be a better place? As for the earlier debates you mean like this one? or perhaps the entire archive would prove fruitful reading, as would this. Self Promotion articles and the like are vandalism, and all we have been doing here is discussing it, so he has all the opportunity in the world to discuss it, and if wants to expand the nasta section and discuss those expansion here i am more than happy to discuss those too.Sherzo (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

O right so he's respecting my opinion by citing my material as vandalism is he? The information on british student televison is at least 5 years out of date there is no mention of anything that has happened resently... I found the eveidence for what has been happening for the last couple of years and this years nasta will be up once it has taken place. I'm not acting at all like i own the article, this reeks of double standards mate how can you accused me of acting like that and ignor that the other user has done exactly the same thing, as you see in my previous post (on the sherzo's personal wiki) i was willing to comprimise and just keep the nasta page but it have links from the british student page but obv if i put that change into affect it will be deleted by the afore mentioned member, now if that isnt acting like he owns the page i dont know what is. But yeh whatever nasta has a right to be there as it is the only organisation that ha anything to do with british student TV... whatever can't be bothered anymore whats the point in doing anything on this site if its just going to get reported for valdalism... Xrateddan (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No article is here by right, its here because it fulfills notability, you claim its the only organization that has anything to do with British student tv but this is clearly an error since the scholar channel, NUS, RTS and certainly the University and their Unions are all organizations that have something to do with student television. It certainly doesn't warrant a new article being forked from this one.Sherzo (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I recommend the GUST article me merged into this one, as it lacks independent notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.43.55 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to say with this as I don't really know anything about either of them ;), but I suggest you be bold ;). Unless you get a reply in a few days I'd say go ahead. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that the GUST article is independently notable. Its not pretty and certainly needs more references, but the vast tomes of debate about the subject's notability (and indeed the forking of this article from that debate) would warrant another AfD instead of an unprovoked merge. A previous editor created a similar situation of a merge without debate, resulting in my recreation and second AfD nomination. Best if you get all the parties involved (i.e. leave invites on their talk page). TorstenGuise (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is the GUST article notable? I read the AFDs the 2nd one wasn't useful, but in the first several of the keeps:
 * "Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * Which is what this article does, and it is at least better referenced(not by much). TC Murphy (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh i created an account, but i'm the same person who place the tags, just so you don't get confused.
 * If you are that passionate about getting rid of the GUST article, AfD it again then. Let the community decide. That's what I did last time. Make sure that ALL parties that have been involved in the debate are informed so they can state their case. Point of views change, including the period of time between the first AfD. The second one proves that, at the time of the poll, all of those taking part in it thought it was notable. That sounds like a useful result to me and the rest of the community. TorstenGuise (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Passionate? it's an article not my girlfriend, chill out. I didn't find the second AfD debate useful because it had no arguments in it just a vote. Anyway this is a merge, but what exactly is your objection to it? you haven't actually said, are you the article's author? TC Murphy (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge it, it's always had weak notability at best, but be careful of tortenguise he likes to game the system, a quick look at his edit history shows the only people he chose to contact were ones he feels would support his argument which is a clear case of votestacking and as you can see from his talkpage its not the first time this has happen. Sherzo (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do what you like. I can't be bothered with it anymoreTorstenGuise (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

After two AfD discussions (one, two) it is pretty clear that GUST is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, a merge here would not benefit either article or the encyclopædia in general. pablo hablo. 12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was in favour of a merge, and its disengenious to declare yourself in the right, as for its 2 AFD the first was on the premise that the sources would improve, they haven't, the second was orchestrated by Tortenguise a user with a history of vote stacking. Sherzo (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit other people's posts.
 * I don't think you could call it disengenious. Well you could, but I certainly wouldn't. If you want to make allegations against an editor or editors, there are other venues for that purpose.
 * Please summarise how you come to the conclusion that there is consensus for a merge. pablo hablo. 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see your summary that there wasn't, other than your own, there was no argument in against the merge, so it seems to me you have declared your opinion first among equals as it were. Sherzo (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See here and here for a start. Doesn't help that this merge has been discussed in two places. See also here and here.  pablo hablo.
 * could you sign your comments, it makes life easier, second its not being discussed in to places, that merge on the gust page was for over 2 years ago its a very inactive page. Sherzo (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just indicates that you keep trying to squeeze this merge through though, doesn't it. Oh look, here's some more non-consensus. pablo hablo. 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well no if you'd bothered to read that debate, you'd see that, But exactly what sourced facts about GUST are lost by this merge? Sherzo (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also those are different debates and arent part of this one, so please keep your answers relevant to this debateSherzo (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "This isn't up for deletion, and it seems that he's trying to get support to bully an editor to prevent a merge" that is what A Man In Black wrote of Jmalky attempts to drum up support for the GUST article, it should also be noted he is/was a member of GUST and was asked to save it by the Station, which is self promotion. Sherzo (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also i didn't edit your post, i changed the outcome to be reflective of the debateSherzo (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also you've yet to answer why you felt your opinion should close the debate in your favour?Sherzo (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no input into this page except mine between 23 April and today. Perhaps marking this as resolved was premature, it would certainly seem so. Let's see if reopening it attracts any further comments from anyone else. pablo hablo. 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * you've yet to give an argument against the merge on the article's own merits, That might help the discussion Sherzo (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we already resolve this? as a merge, why was it undone? what was the reason? I really don't understand the problem, no sourced information is being lost, this article even uses the same images! TC Murphy (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are no arguments against the merge can we do it again? TC Murphy (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No one's objected so i'll go ahead and merge them again TC Murphy (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Independent source
The Independent article reads like a push piece and is quite similar in content to the old Nasta article so it could well be an incestuous source, which British papers are famous for. Sherzo (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is their a wikipolicy for dealing with stuff like that? TC Murphy (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was around glasgow uni media /src when that piece came out. The Independent basically phoned got the information from the vp comms at the src at the time. It will be near impossible to find a solid source for this sort of thing unless someone from GUST or the uni goes to the university archives and pulls some stuff out.--cloudo (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So really its nothing more than a Uni myth and it could of been founded at anytime, whats the oldest record available for GUST? TC Murphy (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a myth just because the verification only exists in the archives of the uni or at least doesn't exist online. There are tapes from the 1960s in the gust archive that I have seen, they used to be on their website before it got "upgraded". I'll have an ask about some people I know to see if we can dig something out. I'd heard at some point that it may have started as a TV society and then become a station so it would be good to get founding dates for both if that is the case. --cloudo (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By myth i meant that the start date is a fact essentially handed down from student to student, with most of the other facts being lost to the sands of time, I do find it odd that GUST doesn't have any mention in 3rd party sources both contemporary to its creation or in histories of TV if it as notable as claimed you'd think it would receive some recognition. Also how do you know it was the first in the UK just looking at this list and half the stations on it aren't in operation any more, how did they know that they were the first that some students at a polytechnic hadn't set up a station for a couple of years before them but when they left the station disappeared, at best you could claim its the oldest station still in operation but at present there is no 3rd party source to prove its older than YSTV. To be honest this whole article needs to be much better sourced. TC Murphy (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nasta Edit war
Does anyone know what this flurry of edits is about, it seems reading the "source" its a mixture of infighting and an attempt to hid this for fear of damaging nasta image, though Wiki doesn't censor if this problem isn't notable or 3rd party sourced then it shouldn't be on wiki anyways Sherzo (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for this article
There are very few secondary sources for this student TV article, mainly because no one generally outside the students really bothers with student TV. So really other than sticking to material that can be referenced, there would be no article for student TV. Is there vaildity to having an article? Because when FACT is put in this article it gets deleted because of no secondary source, well all the article has hardly no sources on it, so is there a point in having an article? Xrateddan (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * short answer is yes. Just because there are not very many secondary sources doesn't mean it doesn't belong in wikipedia. Infact I'd say that it is important for wp to have articles on subjects generally not covered elsewhere. --cloudo (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but whenever i put stuff up it gets deleted, i know for a fact that Ore Oduba was NsSTA best male in 2008 now he presents newsround. But if i put that in the article it will be deleted, so what is the wikipedia stance on things that are known as fact by a number of people but there is no eveidence on the internet... My feeling is that the article needs expanding as student TV is expanding but any expansion is held back by people deleting none sourced content. Xrateddan (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there really no sources for this stuff? Royal Television Society an article by him in a student paper about loughborough uni a blog mentioning the nasta win. I would imagine that even if there weren't these sources, then either the university of loughbourgh would publish an interview with him about starting out on LUSTV or you could get something similar published somewhere. For example I found a lot of similar citations for the Subcity Radio article.

I don't know the wiki policy on having uncited 'facts' in articles though tbh. --cloudo (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just looked it up and unless you are saying something that is obviously true like london is the capital of england or that the sky is blue it has to be cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. --cloudo (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I had found 1 of the sources above but didnt know if the blog would be a good enough source to support the inclusion in the article, also link 2 doesnt work ha! But thanks anyway :) Xrateddan (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the sort of thing that on its own as a source would be shakey but combined with the bbc source and other smaller sources would be strong. Dunno what's up with that 2nd one, was working last night... --cloudo (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to student TV in the United States
This bit of the article makes no sense at all, MTVU is a channel directed at students, not made by students so i dont think ths bit of the article should be there as it has no validity Xrateddan (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why this article?
Where the hell did all the articles on NaSTA/the individual stations go? This article is completely meaningless. I mean seriously, I was in one of these stations not long ago and this is just... weird. 130.209.6.40 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe Problems
This article has severe problems, It should be entirely rewritten using reliable sources, If this isn't possible then what material is salvageable should be merged to Television in the United Kingdom or the like. Nasta section in particular is self agrandising without any real sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.101.44 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to get sources as no one reports things like this on any comercial website, but that doesnt mean that there shouldn't be an article. What is in this article is fact! Therefore still has a right to be on wikipedia. The nasta setcion is like that because there are no sources that report on what student television is doing, the only sources we can use are the ones from the websites one the organisation itself. British student TV exists, nasta exists. but no one outside of that reports on it, and just because its not commerical doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it! Xrateddan (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has a right to be on wikipedia, if it can't be verified it should be removed. We deal with facts here, if you want truth try philosophy.

And everything stated in this article is FACT! I feel you don't really understand my arguement, but the endity of student television exists, sure there are many more things that sources can't be found for... Xrateddan (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And on the merger into British Television would be a bad idea! That article is already massively long and this information would be lost in there Xrateddan (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Name Change
The article should be renamed Student Television in the United Kingdom, to fit the style of other such articles and avoid any problems regarding the inclusion of a Northern Irish university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.101.44 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made this change, as I agree  Alex Muller  13:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rcats needed
­ This redirect  needs Rcats (redirect categories) added. Please modify it as follows:
 * from this...
 * to this...

Template Redr is a shortcut for the This is a redirect template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. This redirect will continue to be sorted into Category:Protected redirects. Thank you in advance! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, Red rose64! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Student television in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090831085532/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/media/analysis-university-tv-stations-467819.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/analysis-university-tv-stations-467819.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete
This article needs some further work; - More focus on what Student TV is how does it differ from any community television or youtube production (thus justifying a distinct article) at present it jumps straight into history - Basic facts, how many Student TV stations are there? what is the average budget? what sort of output do they produce? do they use ads or are they funded by the universities? are these endorsed by the uni or can anyone set them up from their dorm? maybe a table of the tv stations that have existed, could be created. Name, University, Years active, distribution method, core content, awards. - Better sourcing, I appreciate this can be hard with more niche subjects but it really needs better sources.

Anyway I hope those suggestions help improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:20D9:AD76:69F0:C74B (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential table
So further to my suggestion, I found this list in a talk archive that could be used as the basis of a table

Air TV - University of Stirling Bloomsbury TV - University College London BuffTV - Bournemouth University C4TV Canterbury Christ Church University Cam Crew TV - University of Plymouth CTN - University College Dublin CTV - University of Bath CUTE TV - University of Cambridge Demon TV De Montfort University FX:TV - University College Falmouth GlamTV - University of Glamorgan Guild Television/GTV University of Birmingham GUST University of Glasgow LooSE TV London School of Economics LS:TV University of Leeds LSUTV Loughborough University LUST University of Leicester MUSTV - University of Manchester Matt'N'Ian TV Nerve* TV - University of Bournemouth Nexus TV University of East Anglia R:TV - University of Essex SPARK TV - University of Lincoln SJCTV - St John's College, Oxford stoic tv Imperial College London Susu.tv - University of Southampton Trent TV - Nottingham Trent University UDSUTV - University of Derby YSTV University of York Winstanley TV - Winstanley College Warwick Television University of Warwick XTV - University of Exeter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:20D9:AD76:69F0:C74B (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vloggers Youtubers etc
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/17/25-vloggers-under-25-who-are-owning-the-world-of-youtube_n_6340280.html

I think the article probably also needs to have a rewrite to focus more on students who vlog, youtuber etc as since this article was created this would seem to have overtaken more traditional styles of student television in notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:20D9:AD76:69F0:C74B (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)