Talk:Nine News

message: "National Nine News is news service of the Australian Nine Network. The Nine Network spends more money per year on news and current affairs programming than any other Australian commercial television network, and has traditionally defeated rival television news services such as Seven News. In recent years, however, the Seven Network's Seven News become the highest rating evening news service on a national basis. National Nine News, however does rate higher than Seven News one some nights, predominantly in eastern cities such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane."
the "more money per year than any other....." sounds like an advert.  "tradionally defeated"...poor choice of words.  "Seven News become the highest rating evening news service on a national basis" is simply bogan grammar. the rest...more mistakes!
"Individual, local, bulletins are produced for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Darwin by the Nine Network itself, while in Adelaide and Perth bulletins are produced those stations' owner WIN Television.   National news bulletins, presented from Sydney throughout the day, including Today, National Nine News: Morning Edition, National Nine News: Afternoon Edition and Nightline." 
Most of that is horribly written and it's full of grammatical errors. 
Ditto the rest of the article.  Full of mistakes.
:Please instead of finding faults in the article and inappropriatly insulting contributers grammar, please subtly use appropriate templates to notify contributers of any issues you believe may be present. You can alternatively help reduce the issues, by contributing and removing uncited errors yourself. Stickeylabel 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been happy with it; I think a lot of the commercial network articles are a little to preoccupied with who-is-'beating'-who in the ratings. I'm not exactly sure though how this should be dealt with, but I'm looking at how it can be improved. timgraham 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone else think this is horribly written!? 

message: Most of the images on this page are marked as Public Domain-user created, which is obviously not the case, because you are taking a photo of a TV screen or a capture from a video doesn't mean you get copyright over what is being captured. Thus I am moving them over to the Tv-screenshot tag. Please keep this in mind when you are uploading images for this article.
| Whoops forgot to sign Whitehornmatt 05:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that you or someone else has marked them as "replaceable non-free" images. What exactly is the justification for this? They are not copyrighted publicity shots, and according to the non-free content page, acceptable use includes "film and television screen shots: for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". If they they are deemed replaceable, what would they be replaced with? More television screenshots of the same nature? Cyril Washbrook 03:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strawbs77 has writtern that "WP prohibits use of TV caps that feature living people/person - "not fair use" under WP:CSD#I7 guidelines" This is probably why these images cannot be put on this page, which is a little annoying. Doctor Mario Claw 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per wiki guidelines -> "The problem is the images in question are not freely licensed, and Wikipedia policy does not allow nonfree images of living people, since it would be possible for freely licensed images of them to be made. They are considered "replaceable fair use" and are regularly deleted. Wikipedia does not use images by permission (since that permission does not extend to other, non-Wikipedia users), and policy is quite clear that images of living people must be freely licensed in almost all cases. A TV capture is not a free image." Strawbs77 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: :The discussion has been moved to the WikiProject Australian television talk page.
It was agreed on the WIN Television talk page that these headings were unneccessary and ugly - I'd like to question why they're included here? They don't add to that article and they prevent the proper structure from appearing in the table of contents and they are inconsistent with almost any other article on Wikipedia. There's also a number of web accessibility issues that arise from using tables for layout. timgraham 03:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I also propose an overhaul of news service article's that are covered by WikiProject Australian television. I believe the current layout is inconsistent with almost any other article on Wikipedia, and I believe that we should set a precedent for all other news service article's to follow. As this issue covers a range of articles for WikiProject Australian television, I have therefore moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian television. Stickeylabel 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables/sections 

message: I have cleaned up the article, by intergrating several lists into paragraphs, and removing uncitable and uncited statements. Stickeylabel 11:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned Up 

message: May I ask what happened to the tables under each city's description that indicated the names and responsibilities of the reporters? The edited paragraphs do not contain the same information as the tables and lists. Cyril Washbrook 03:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tables under each city's description were removed as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not the place for list's of reporters, it is an encyclopedia. Information should be cited and should be presented in paragraph form. Stickeylabel 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, but the tables were neither FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics nor news reports.  I suppose I'll take your word for it. Cyril Washbrook 07:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not need to tell anything to any contributer on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it functions via policies and concensus. Just because an article, for instance, violates fair-use, that does not mean it is alright to replicate the violation elsewhere. Encyclopedia's may have lists, but it is Wikipedia's concensus, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stickeylabel 05:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the reporters 

message: Another policy of Wikipedia is the Burden of Proof. If you add or restore material, you are responsible for giving it a verifiable source - especially if it is likely to be challenged. If no reliable sources exist to verify a statement, it should not be included. Random speculative statements should be removed, not  tagged. Inline citations should be used wherever possible.----JamesSugronoU|C 11:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the Kelly Nestor line I think it's actually true..no idea if there's a reference for it or not. timgraham 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it shouldn't be in there unless there is a reliable source for it. It really is that simple.----JamesSugronoU|C 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Adelaide Advertiser reported it..I'll find the article and add it in as a reference. timgraham 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. There's also another one which immediately caught my eye - in the opening paragraph... ...however in recent years the Seven Network's Seven News has become the highest rating evening news service on a national basis. A source should be found for that , not saying that you should do it personally, but anyone who feels like cleaning the article up a bit... I'm sure there's bits and pieces that could be bettered.James SugronoContributions 07:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's quite difficult to keep track of some of the changes made here - in a number of cases people who may support one network or the other come through to 'fix things'. This is actually the case although I don't know whether or not it's entirely neccessary in the opening paragraph - I do intend to clean up this article substantially sometime in the future although at the moment I'm focusing on other things. timgraham 07:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another policy 

message: I think the Gold Coast News shough be listed seperatly as it is no a national Nine News bulletin, so to speak.
Prehaps it should be listed after the Darwin news with a introduction explainin how it is local news bulletin only.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.198.228 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold Coast news 

message: :Image:Nine Goldcoast News.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nine Goldcoast News.JPG

message: Should info for these program have been added?? There are already detailed articles for these programmes on Wikipedia - this is an article about National Nine News and its bulletins, not Channel Nine's News and Current Affairs division. I propose these sections are removed. Brad F 89 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACA/60 Minutes/Sunday 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nine News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414135945/http://www.news.com.au:80/perthnow/story/0,21598,23517631-5012990,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23517631-5012990,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nine News. 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/20150825042518/http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media to http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I red-linked to Michael Thomson (journalist) here, but  reverted, because "the links don't exist". 
WP:REDYES says red-links are OK, and other articles also link to that target. Is the target name correct? Lots of other Australian television journalists have their own articles. Is Thomson likely to be equally worthy of his own article? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[Michael Thomson (journalist)]] 

message: While a broadcast program such as Nine News: Early Edition is a title and so would be italicized, a news agency such as United Press International or Associated Press is not italicized. The article's lead sentence says, "Nine News (stylised 9News) is the national news service of the Nine Network in Australia." So is it a broadcast program like CBS Evening News or is it a news service like CBS News? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has commented after several days. Let's keep this open for a week to see if anyone can provide a rationale for this non-standard italicization.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I suggest that the former locations of studios are unnecessary clutter, so I removed them.  apparently disagrees, having restored them, but with no explanation.
Does anybody else have an opinion on the matter?  could you explain why you think it's worth listing the former locations here? Surely that degree of details is not important here - if it matters, it should be in the "history" section of the individual studio's articles? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any response, from anybody, I have removed them again. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  former locations of studios