User talk:Iamterry

Hello. First, I should welcome you, since nobody seems to have made an edit on your talk page yet. So, welcome! And stuff.

So, to business:

I see you reverted me on NOW Cambridge. I appear to have reverted you back to a redirect, because I was working from the category it was in (I didn't notice this until I was looking back at my contribs and wondered why I'd made to edits to NOW Cambridge. My apologies for not noticing and dropping you a note until just now.

So. The article was essentially identical in form to the to the various Bauer articles that had been sent to AFD at Articles for deletion/Bauer Central Lancashire, which I mentioned in my edit summary. You will see there that a consensus to redirect it and its fellows to its parent company was achieved. Although it is true that Wikipedia does not operate on strict consensus precedent, I see no logic in having separate articles for some random subset of 'plexes. Your rationale for reversion was that it is a "useful quick reference for the ensemble and contains information not easily discovered elsewhere", which is a fair point; but hardly in itself justifies having articles at that level of detail. I've been working on small articles CE Digital and MuxCo for two smaller operators, and plan to add tables to the ones at Bauer Radio and Arqiva]. I was even thinking about a separate merged article for NOW Digital.

But, things get decided on a case-by-case basis, so you if you want us to go down the formal route of AFDing the NOW! ones as well, I suppose we can do that, although AFD discourages people going there asking for redirects.

If you want to send the Bauer ones to deletion review, then that's also fair enough. If you want any assistance with the process of that I would be happy to help. Morwen (Talk) 23:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for spotting my revert note and replying to my talk page. I've been going through your links describing the reasoning of your changes and have come to the conclusion that the removal of the articles is as per wikipedia guidelines due to not being a directory therefore I can not argue against their deletion on that basis. I think warning notification should have been placed on the pages before removal to provide some warning though.

Whilst I can not argue against their removal due to wikipedia practices - I do think that the removal of the content of these pages is a shame and a loss. I'm not convinced that the information contained within those pages is replicated elsewhere in a easily accessible form. I do also recognise that some (unable to estimate a percentage) of the ensemble pages did contain inaccurate/historical descriptions of the ensemble - I only changed the ones I personally could monitor. I'm not entirely sure what the answer is as to where this kind of information could be stored/discovered - whilst it would be in the best interest of the broadcasters to provide up to date information, this doesn't always happen.

Iamterry (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, thing is not being replicated elsewhere is sort of another argument for not having them - what was our source for them? Were people actually using radio equipment and writing down the numbers and channel names and suchforth directly into the edit box?  If so, there's a problem because that information is unverifiable without being in the right area (and, for historic information, timeframe).   Wikipedia is such a prominent website that people end up wanting to add useful material like this to it, even though it might not match what longstanding Wikipedians want to be covering, and I can certainly understand that.  It's a tricky one.    Morwen (Talk) 12:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)