Talk:GLOSS FM

Thornbury FM was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into GLOSS FM. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GLOSS FM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Radio Stations Low‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As requested by another editor, this is a note to say the creator of this page (radiohead319) is a director of the holding company (Severnvale Media CIC) of GLOSS FM. Radiohead319 (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed someone has added a note saying citations are needed. This is somewhat frustrating after having all my hard work removed (which had plenty of cross references) by someone who thought the article had too many references!! The station's existence can be verified by asking any of its licencing authorities - namely Ofcom (the Broadcasting Regulator in the UK), or royalty bodies such as PRS, PPL and MCPS. Unfortunately none of these authorities publishes licensing details on the web, so this request will have to be done in writing or phone using their publicaly available communication details. I have added a reference to the Community Media Association, and this, along with the noted newspaper articles can be taken as evidence of existence of the station. I will therefore remove the flag requesting citation. If particular details of the article require verification, then you need to discuss this with the person who removed all the references that I inserted into the earlier version of the article. If you prefer my version with references, please feel free to restore them (apparently as the author I am not permitted by Wiki rules to restore them as I am considered to be biased!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohead319 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't references, they were simply inline external links. See WP:CITE and check out {{Cite web}} if you want to know how to properly cite sourced. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've read that page and I still cannot see the issue. The citations were added using numbers in the body text with the actual references at the bottom. Can I suggest you add a citation as an example to understand what you are looking for? Radiohead319 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article needs additional references. There is nothing wrong with the ones that are there right now. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how many citations required to get the ugly "Citations needed" box removed??Radiohead319 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than it has now i.e. until everything that could/should reasonably be cited by an external reference has been added. As for ugly, there's nothing wrong with the tag, it just means that the article needs to be improved. As a director of the holding company perhaps you are getting too involved with the article. I know you understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy because of your post at the top of this page, but perhaps you should also read WP:OWN and understand that nobody owns Wikipedia articles (or can claim ownership) and that it is a community effort to improve on articles. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GLOSS FM. 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/20110726122441/http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/localnews/thornburynews/8328841.Community_radio_station_available_all_year_online/ to http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/localnews/thornburynews/8328841.Community_radio_station_available_all_year_online/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]