Talk:Rinse FM

Get The Ball Rolling

I was very surprised not to see a Rinse FM article on here, so thought I'd have a go at starting one using the Kiss FM article as a loose template. It's by no means a decent article yet as I'm not an experienced "wikipedian", but thought I'd see if I could attract some attention and get a decent article going. Break 00:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This page gotta be improved, i not so good at editing be considering its probably the no.1 underground pirate radio station it gotta be improved, cheers Croydongrimeking (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

quotes

Can you explain what "rm. quotes not rel. - opinion from NN" means? Obviously the name of the station's manager is notable information, any article about a media organization would mention that.Prezbo (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW you've now given two totally different rationales for removing this content, both of which are very unclear. This is really annoying behavior.Prezbo (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are merely opinions from a non-notable author, neither relevant nor encyclopaedic at all. The pseudonym of the station manager is not relevant either (Rinse FM is not a media organisation), unless he or she is someone notable. Rapido (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem that they're opinions, that's why they're attributed to specific people. Outside sources quoted in Wikipedia articles don't have to be notable, they just have to be reliable, which these are for the purposes of an article like this. The quotes are relevant because they're about the subject of the article, they're encyclopedic because they explain why Rinse FM is important. Of course a radio station is a media organization, but this applies to any kind of organization--the person who runs it is a basic, obviously relevant fact. Notice how the infobox has a space for the owner? The fact that they're only known by a pseudonym doesn't really change anything.Prezbo (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The added opinions are puffery and are unsubstantiated. They don't explain why Rinse FM is important. If Rinse FM is important, people can work this out without having someone's biased opinion here. Rapido (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing biased about them, they come from journalists, not anybody with an axe to grind. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information to people, not force them to "work it out" on their own. They aren't "puffery," they're making specific claims about why Rinse deserves to be in an encyclopedia: it's the world's most popular radio station in a specific genre, it had an important effect on the development of that genre. Obviously these are things that would make a radio station more important. They're "substantiated" by coming from reliable sources.Prezbo (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've talked enough about why the irrelevant opinions from the non-notable journalist shouldn't be in this article, so I see no reason to keep repeating the same arguments with different wording again and again... Rapido (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, you are entitled to your opinion that these opinions are wrong or unsubstantiated, but according to WP:NPOV, as Wikipedians we are to report significant opinions from reliable sources even if we personally disagree with them. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe instead you could respond to my arguments? I'll just quote myself:

"Outside sources quoted in Wikipedia articles don't have to be notable, they just have to be reliable, which these are for the purposes of an article like this."

...

"The quotes are relevant because they're about the subject of the article"

You haven't done anything to explain how these opinions are "irrelevant," you just keep asserting it and throwing out the names of random policies.Prezbo (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Err... because they are opinions of a single non-notable journalist. As stated above. And they are not "random policies", I would ask that you not assume bad faith. Rapido (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They seem pretty random to me. "As stated above," outside sources quoted in Wikipedia articles don't have to be notable. If a source isn't notable, that doesn't make their opinion irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with quoting an opinion that's only held by one (reliable) source; that also doesn't make content irrelevant.Prezbo (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

These opinions become notable because of the source they are published in. And without doubt Pitchfork Media and Fact magazine are relevant sources for this kind of topic. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the publications may be acceptable sources, but selectively quoting praise from a non-notable writer is not appropriate, and does not appear on any other radio station articles I can find. Rapido (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The notability of the Hampson quote rests not on his person, but on the source it was published in. I have added a quote by John Peel, I hope we don't need to conduct a debate about his notability too.

I do agree that notable negative opinions should be included too if they exist, can you offer any citations?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rinse 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140910195520/http://ntslive.co.uk/slimzee-interview/ to http://ntslive.co.uk/slimzee-interview/

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)