→Non notable programmes: new section |
|||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:: It may be worth having the discussion in one place - [[Talk:Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#Removal_of_unverified_information]] [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
:: It may be worth having the discussion in one place - [[Talk:Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#Removal_of_unverified_information]] [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::Agreed. I'll reply to your message there as soon as I can (though it may take a while). I wonder if anyone else, e.g. the person/people behind the IPs that are reinstating the unreferenced material, will make their case. To him/her/them: the use of discussion to resolve problems is a basic principle of Wikipedia, and if you're not prepared to explain your reasons when asked, then your continued edits will hold no weight and the assumption of [[WP:AGF|editing in good faith]] will eventually turn to consideration of [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. —[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]] 10:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::Agreed. I'll reply to your message there as soon as I can (though it may take a while). I wonder if anyone else, e.g. the person/people behind the IPs that are reinstating the unreferenced material, will make their case. To him/her/them: the use of discussion to resolve problems is a basic principle of Wikipedia, and if you're not prepared to explain your reasons when asked, then your continued edits will hold no weight and the assumption of [[WP:AGF|editing in good faith]] will eventually turn to consideration of [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. —[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]] 10:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Non notable programmes == |
|||
{{u|86.138.156.214}} - It's ridiculous having a list of non notable/redlinked programmes, Anyway the programme ''[[Learn to Dance]]'' doesn't have its own article because it's not notable yet .... You could always delink it & add some sort of cite next it :),<br /> |
|||
Cheers, [[User:Davey2010|<font color="blue">'''''→Davey'''''</font><font color="blue">'''''2010→'''''</font>]][[User talk:Davey2010|<font color="orange">'''''→Talk to me!→'''''</font>]] 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:08, 8 June 2014
Template:British TV channels project
It's not aimed at any age. It's who ever wants to watch it. MJN SEIFER 23:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few Edits:
1. Changed "British" to "English" as that is the prefered term.
2. Removed the statement it is "Aimed at younger viewers" because it's not. It's who ever wants to watch it.
3. Updated the tiny pop section
4. Removed the statement that tiny pop is finished, because it hasn't.
5. Removed the word "Children's" as films and music are amined at fans not ages.MJN SEIFER 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should the phrase "It's brother channel is Pop" should be "It's sister channel is Pop", as this is what channels owned by the same people are generally referred to as? Garej 09:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-tinypop.jpg
Image:Logo-tinypop.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Removal of unverified information
This article has been tagged since Sept 2010 for lack of references. The main culprit for this was the long list of programmes which was completely unverified and quite likely to have been subject to vandalism (addition of incorrect information). Once tagged, material cannot be allowed to stay indefinitely: there has been plenty of opportunity for any of the regular editors of this article to fix the problem, but none has done so. Hence I have removed the unverified content, per our policy on verifiability.
From now on, please do not reinstate or add any information to the article without providing a reference to a reliable source. I'll be watching this article for a while, and will be happy to engage in reasoned discussion about this issue. Thanks, —SMALLJIM 12:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- It may be worth having the discussion in one place - Talk:Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#Removal_of_unverified_information Bonusballs (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll reply to your message there as soon as I can (though it may take a while). I wonder if anyone else, e.g. the person/people behind the IPs that are reinstating the unreferenced material, will make their case. To him/her/them: the use of discussion to resolve problems is a basic principle of Wikipedia, and if you're not prepared to explain your reasons when asked, then your continued edits will hold no weight and the assumption of editing in good faith will eventually turn to consideration of disruptive editing. —SMALLJIM 10:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- It may be worth having the discussion in one place - Talk:Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#Removal_of_unverified_information Bonusballs (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Non notable programmes
86.138.156.214 - It's ridiculous having a list of non notable/redlinked programmes, Anyway the programme Learn to Dance doesn't have its own article because it's not notable yet .... You could always delink it & add some sort of cite next it :),
Cheers, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)