Wikipedia

Talk:Cam FM

Latest comment: 2 months ago by 124.107.184.134 in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page


Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note: A number of edits to this page have been made by people within the Student Radio industry who are members of other student radio stations. Readers & editors should be aware that fierce rivalry exists between student radio factions. Edits by people with a history of editing multiple student radio station articles are likely to be bad-faith edits with impairing Cam FM's reputation as the main intent rather than adding to the accuracy or content of the article. 

128.232.242.213 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

----Should this page be deleted?

Should this be deleted, or merged as per the treatment of URB 1449 (the University of Bath student radio station) - I see nothing particularly different on this page and it's content?

----This Page Needs Keeping

This page should not be deleted as the station is a key part of life at Cambridge University. CUR1350 is an independent organisation to CUSU

----This Page Needs Editing

Saying that CUR1350 is a key part of life at Cambridge University is an overstatement. The radio is not really well advertised around campus and not all students know about it.

> Survey dated Jan 2006 puts CUR1350 market awareness at 65% i.e. a majority. Thus is not an overstatement.

It is very probable that the article itself has been written by somebody belonging to the organisation. The words "cutting edge" are repeated twice in CUR1350 MySpace. In the wikipedia article, the following sentence appears: "CUR1350 has a reputation for cutting-edge strategy in media." As for the listenership, if you divide the 1450 listeners per week by 70, the number of weekly shows CUR1350 claims to have ('over 70', as highlighted in the "About Us" section of the radio website), you will get a figure of 20.7 listeners per show.

> A typical listener listens to multiple shows in one week, 20.7 per show is a vast underestimate. 1450 refers to 1450 different people. These figures do not include listeners via PA distribution to college bars.

Evidently, it is a small radio station and needs to be presented in a different way. A good start would be to cut sentences like: "CUR1350 is now a major player in the radio market of 18-30 year olds in Cambridge." or "CUR1350 has a reputation for cutting-edge strategy in media."

> CUR1350 was twice nominated for national Technical Achievement Award and won a gold for Technical Achievement in 2004. In addition, solutions developed in house have now been packaged as products and sold by the developer to small-scale radio services. Thus more evidence for inclusion than removal. Evidently (rather than by assumption), the station is presented appropriately.

...in addition case for removal was presented by a Milton Keynes resident, not a resident of Cambridge, thus independent survey of the station's value at the university is unlikely to be accurate as poster does not appear to belong to the station's key demographic.

Ownership and self-sufficiency

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Gosh this article has been extended lots since I last touched it a year ago! It's looking very good -- nice work to those editors who have worked on it. Two questions though:

  • The infobox says that CUR1350 is owned by an entity called 'CUR Media'. I've not come across that name before -- what's the status of that organisation? Last time I checked, I understood CUR1350 to be, as with other CU societies, an unincorporated society with accounts audited by a CU Senior Treasurer, and falling within the charitable umbrella of the University. As such, any owner would surely be the University of Cambridge, even it's overseen by a group called CUR Media?

> Yes, CUR1350 is currently an unincorporated society. As the turnover of the station has increased somewhat over the past 2 years the society has been asked by the University to become incorporated to protect the University against financial liability. CURmedia is the working title of the company to be.


  • The article states that CUR1350 receives no funding from the university. In the past, I believe it used to receive capital expenditure or even annual grants from the Societies Syndicate -- has this entirely stopped now?

> Yes, the Societies Syndicate are not prepared to give an annual grant to CUR1350 and have stated that money for capital expenditure applications is likely to be provided as a loan rather than a grant.

These are only minor points -- this is a good article! Sjb90 14:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

> Thanks for your continued contributions and for alerting me to the inaccuracies. Please let me know if you find any more! Iccles dog 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removal of Application Writer

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have just made an edit to the initial paragraphs of the article. The person who wrote the application that led to CUR1350's win of the Student Radio Awards was credited in the same sentence as the listing of the award.

Given that the award was made to the station, not the person, I would imagine that the award was based on the efforts of many members of the station, and thus the writer of the application does not seem notable in the context.

I have done the same later in the article, where he is three times listed [self-added?] again. This comes in contrast to the particular broadcasters of the station who were given awards, who obviously deserve to have their names credited.

I suggest that if Michael Brooks formed an important part of the society in contexts other than application writing, then that should be written in the context of past committees and other members of the management, and done so if citations [other than citation of the web site he managed at the time presumably] make it verifiable and noteworthy. I would not expect this to be the case.

FergusRossFerrier (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The statement quite clearly declared that the written entry was written by this individual and that the audio entry was edited and mastered by the individual. It at no point claimed that the award was due to the unique input from this individual. However, it is notable that this individual was the organisation's manager for a protracted period before the award (Feb 2005 - Mar 2008). The award was not made purely on the programmes, it was made on the way the organisation operated and how this translated into the on-air product. Creators and winners of other SRA awards have been attributed in this article. Why should this be any different for the Best Station Award? Is it really unreasonable to attribute the person who both constructed the winning entry and led the organisation for 2.5 years up to the point that it became Best Station?

94.195.13.89 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"I would not expect this to be the case" FergusRossFerrier

Fergus, your somewhat loaded comments are noted. Two external references added. Thus this is indeed the case. 94.195.13.89 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"it is notable that this individual was the organisation's manager for a protracted period before the award" - it is certainly the case that he WAS manager for the period before the award, though to include the name aside the award you must prove that the award was, to a notable extent, a direct result of him being president rather than just incidental to it.
On the references provided - the University's press release [1] only notes that he chose the presenters to appear on the subsequent Radio 1 takeover, not that he was instrumental in the winning of the award; and the Varsity article cited [2] is in 2006, the year *before* the winning of the award in question! It mentions that he helped to secure a nomination in 2005, but no source has shown that he was substantially involved besides creating the application.
The world does not know from these whether his contribution was noteworthy or not - we cannot infer this simply on the basis of him holding a certain office - so his name should not be included. FergusRossFerrier (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, we have a person who was Station Manager from 2005-2008, during which the station was awarded an award for Best Station, with the SRA having forms accompanying the entry with "Michael Brooks" listed as the first author; yet on balance of probability you are saying that my contribution was less likely to be noteworthy than it was likely to be noteworthy?! A tremendous amount of work went into that station over those years, and I spent days on that entry. Every member on that 2006/07 Committee would agree that I deserve credit for my bit. I'd be quite happy to produce the raw publisher and Acid files for the entry if the world still needs proof, then hopefully we can put this edit war and your accompanying jealousy to rest. 86.26.4.98 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)(M. Brooks)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cam 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cam 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@ 124.107.184.134 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cam_FM&oldid=1242724753"