Talk:Radio Society of Great Britain

message: The tag needs to go. This article does assert the RSGB's Importance. The article may need to be expanded, however it no longer needs the tag for importance. Anonym1ty 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Tag

message: Why remove the LPWS link ? While most radio amateurs might understandably have a problem with some of the activities promoted by "Laughing policeman wireless society" its website (and in particular the page to which the link pointed) does pose some valid criticisms of the RSGB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.68.35 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly you should have a read of WP:EL which offers guidance to the purpose of external links. In this case the LPWS article did not refer directly to any topic specifically discussed in the article and in fact appeared to express strong POV. Some including me consider it marginal on spam. If in connection with the comments on criticism discussed above somebody adds a criticism section then it may be a relevant external link to support what is written there. Or maybe not. Dsergeant 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate link

message: The article is rather light on supporting citations. I was looking for a reference to site re the original name of the Society. This source (http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/qsl-ham-history6.htm) says it was "Wireless Society of London founded in 1913" and this conflicts with the name in the article. Do we have a reliable secondary source?G J Coyne (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the "Club" vs. "Society" issue has now been clarified coherers (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original name of the Society 

message: I tagged this article (I debated for TONE vs ADVERT) because several sections appear to have fluffy prose, a bunch of WP:EL and self-cites, and substantial uncited content about historical details and activities that (on their face, again because no WP:RS) seem irrelevant to an encyclopedia. See the several changes I just made as examples of the kind of writing I found objectionable. Does the extended quote in the "2011 Expenses Scandal" actually serve any more purpose than a mere one-sentence that the money was repaid and the situation is now resolved? The "Future" section is mostly transient events (that are now historical), and again only self-cited. We need independent sources to help decide what information, long-term projects, specific historical events/milestones, etc are of wider interest. DMacks (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. I have mixed views about your changes and certainly do not agree that it reads as an advert. Do have a connection with amateur radio? Much of the content on here has been written by radio amateurs and who are also members of the RSGB. As usual on WP there is a conflict between obtaining reliable independent sources and what is known real information. For instance much of the history is well documented in Radio Communication (since 1925!). The expenses scandal for instance was a major event in the society which led to a complete restructuring of its board and should not be dismissed in a single sentence... Dsergeant (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no connection with anything amateur-radioish. Unfortunately we can't use "what is known" unless it's in reliable sources. One of the inherent difficulties in writing articles about niche topics. Writing extensively on what is not covered elsewhere is the whole problem with WP:UNDUE ("depth of detail, quantity of text...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."), which is what leads to an article seeming to cover in excess that which is only of interest or known to those within it. If something led to a large restructuring of the organization, that's significant. So say...exactly that. The quote is the main problem... it could be condensed and paraphrased. But is "the structure of the organization" really the main point of this article for our readers (vs its activities, long-term goals, achievements)? If not, then having so much content about it is undue. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert tag