Talk:Southern Cross Austereo
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Is this an advert?
I once read an article about Delta Airlines, and I recognised none of this. I checked out the talkpage, and someone opiniated it looked like an advert. Does this page look like an advert? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Digital radio list and bold formatting
Regarding these edits [1][2][3][4] by myself and Stevefrommelb, removing and re-applying bold formatting to the names of the digital radio stations...
As I pointed out in the summary for my most recent edit, we have a fairly clear Manual of Style guideline,
MOS:DEFLIST
. However, looking at the text in the list, several of the items need to change, because they are:
- Copied directly from somewhere else, contrary to WP:COPYVIO (eg BUDDHA Hits)
- Blatantly promotional, contrary to WP:PROMO(eg several references to "best", "favourites")
I suspect that after fixing for copyvio and promo, there won't be enough left to justify a description list.
I will edit the descriptions to satisfy
WP:PROMO, and once that's done we can decide whether the remainder justifies a description list. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
]
- OK, I've cleaned up the COPYVIO and PROMO. Does anyone still think it justifies formatting as a description/definition list? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)]
- In the absence of any other comments, I have again removed the unnecessary bold formatting, per MOS:BOLD and my comments above. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)]