This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Upon further reading, I have grave reservations about this article:
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 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)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fursday ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Upon further reading, I have grave reservations about this article:
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 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)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fursday ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)