Talk:TV9 Telugu

message: I think that this article needs to be moved to something more precise such as TV9 (Hyderabad) because there are other TV stations in the world with the similar name and it would be confusing to some people. Maybe a page called TV9 (disambiguation) should be created. Thank you. Acs4b 06:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I think that in this article controversies section having not standard site links. As per wiki guidelines this section violating copyright policy and attacking the specified channel  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.133 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RS they're reliable. Removing them, because you don't like a certain section, is simply repugnant. -- MST☆R    (Chat Me!) 08:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me what "not standard site links" means, and I don't see how the article is currently "violating copyright policy". (I've tweaked some of the wording to be slightly less reminiscent of the wording used by the source). The article would benefit from the addition of sourced material about aspects of the channel other than controversies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The controversy section currently has no copy violations - although it did a few weeks ago - it does not now. The content that was removed by Dr. K, in good faith - was infact violations. That content has been restored and reworded, to avoid copy violations.
Any futher accusations should be dealt with in this talk page - and not the edit summary - as the edit summary does not have enough space, to provide evidence of copyvio assertions. Thank you, -- MST☆R    (Chat Me!) 01:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would benifet from an expansion on something other than controversial related topics - but removing sourced content, is not the way to go about it. -- MST☆R    (Merry Christmas!) 07:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Bare URLS? that's got nothing to do with whether or not they're valid. It's a layout. These are reliable sources. They are also valid, as they are specifically on the subject. -- MST☆R    (Merry Christmas!) 11:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio(s) 

message: A general description of an institution/organization can't be described by a single incidence/program. It should be a general description. A single line of such incidences can be described though. This kind of elaborate description of a single incidence is noticed around any other institution/organization articles. 
I recommend to modify/reframe such description.
21:50, 22nd December 2011 (IST)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkrishna (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So sweep the controversy under the rug? No. The controversy section - as surprising as it may sound, is reliably sourced - and already has been modified. I do think it's time the article is expanded, however, that does not mean removing bits that certain editors don't like. -- MST☆R    (Merry Christmas!) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Substituted at 07:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article is by no means perfect, but I removed most of the puffery and unsourced claims now (POV tag removed). Both positive and negative information should be added in an uninvolved neutral tone, and backed up by independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV update