Talk:2Day FM

message: Need to combine the last two paragraphs.  Am suggesting:
In recent years the station has loss much of its share of the radio market to newcomer Nova 96.9, which has been accused by Austereo of having a format too similar to that of 2Day FM.  In order to increase ratings 2Day FM started 2005 with a number of changes, the most significant of which was moving the night show team of Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O to breakfast, and employing young unknown Craig Low as the host of the nightly networked show "Lowie's Hot 30". Both moves have so far proved successful.
kju 12:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm doing NPOV tag cleanup. Whenever an NPOV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.Jjdon (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: I've just changed the two section titles from "2Day FM handling of child rape victim" and "2Day FM hoax call resulting in recipient's suspected suicide" as both were fairly clumsy, and in the second case somewhat misleading ("recipient" would be better applied to the person who ultimately dealt with the call, not the person who first answered it). I think the new versions are an improvement, but anyone else it free to improve on them. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Maybe go even further and remove the capital "Royal"? It looks weird to me but maybe that's just cause I'm an American. Λυδαcιτγ 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite usual in the UK to capitalise "Royal" when it is specifically referring to the British Royal Family, but it may not be so common in other Commonwealth countries such as Australia, so it's not a massive issue either way. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree, but the use of Royal vs royal doesn't differ anywhere. It is an adjective. Sometimes when people say "The Royal Family" or "British Royal Family" they're using it as a collective name for them (i.e. "I saw some of the Royal Family today!") so it becomes a proper noun. As no one has ever just called them 'Royal' (i.e. "I saw some of the Royal today!"), in the context of this section header it can only be an adjective. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In your rush to pedantry, you seem to have not read the last eight words I typed. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to be pedantic, I realise you don't see it as a massive issue and respect that view. I've always been a bit OCD about the English language and its presentation on Wikipedia so I'm usually quick to defend it to the best of my own knowledge (which isn't, I admit, always accurate anyway). I was also worried that someone that might read your comment and actually change it back to 'Royal' believing a valid discussion had taken place that justified it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titles 

message: I'm wondering whether we may not have to eventually split 2012 royal hoax call incident off into its own article in a similar way that we did with The Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row a few years ago. At an estimate the events surrounding the controversy currently take up about 25% of this article, and with investigations and inquests still pending it could expand further. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, even with the small amount of information we already have, it warrants its own article. The notability of this incident is very high not only because of the tragedy surrounding it, but because it has already had significant worldwide coverage and the outcome will most likely (and this speculation I know) have repercussions to the radio industry worldwide too, so it will likely go beyond the focus of this article anyway. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I think it should be remembered that we're not a newspaper. Have you seen Talk:Jacintha Saldanha? Having observed how similar news events often proceed to AfD, I think it would be sensible to wait a few months and see what happens. The extent of current content is clearly undue in this article, so it perhaps needs paring down or copying to a more appropriate article instead. -- Trevj (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible spin-off article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2Day 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/jacintha-saldanha-suicide-notes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407121228/http://www.2dayfm.com.au/ to http://www.2dayfm.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion