Talk:ABC News (Australia)

message: ;(Start merged comments)
I've done a lot of cleaning up with this page after User:Strum_that_guitar removed at least half the content without any explanation (although his talk page seems to suggest he does this often). I've also backed it up on my own HD in case anyone tries to bugger about with it. I hope it's all right now.--Cyvros 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's because I kept fudging up the edits at the end. I've added some information which you deleted, but deleted the ABC News info and will be transferring that to the ABC News page. A large amount of information needs to be added in future regarding radio current affairs. I'd be glad to discuss with you which bits you think should be culled. There are some little points you lost, too, which might have added to confusion (two Matt Browns at the ABC, for instance).--Cyvros 10:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I also love your deletion of all the negative comments on your talk page, too.--Cyvros 10:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled (merged from) comment section

message: Some part of this article cites an entry from h2g2. But every entry of h2g2, like IMDB, can be edited by every registered user. So, it's may not be reliable. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 07:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  h2g2's Reliablity 

message: A file in this article, :File:ABC News Australia Cut.ogg, has been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 13#File:ABC News Australia Cut.ogg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File for deletion 

message: I'm still not sure about the best name for this entity, but after having done a fair bit of scanning through annual reports and news items, and reading this and the ABC News and Current Affairs, I think that they are both rather muddled and need merging with better explanations of history and organisational structure. I'll add a few more citations that I have to hand, but it will need more time to be sourced and structured properly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had no response, I went ahead and merged, and there was very little worth keeping in the other article. This one could do with some updating and further citations, although I did do a bit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: for the record - support the change JarrahTree 11:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: , you changed the lead after I had put significant work into it, including reading through annual reports to establish the name changes and what the current official name actually is, before merging and tidying. The name of the article is not the name of the division. So this is just to let you know why I am reinserting some of the content in the lead that you removed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , this is the place for discussion, not edit summaries. The phrase "general name" does not need to be sourced, it is a common English phrase which expresses the fact that the name of the article does not reflect an official name. After trawling through a lot of history, finding that the name had changed many times through the years, and is currently "News, Analysis & Investigations", the lead explains why the name of the article is not called "ABC News, Analysis & Investigations" (too long, and likely to change again). I have also replaced the bare url (apparently dead anyway) citation that you had put in the lead into the History section, and mentioned the name of the Act. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but "ABC News" is a public news service, and not just a general name, as per the cited source. Also, the changes you added: "The name of the organisational division has changed over the years: until around 2015 it was the News and Current Affairs Division, while since then it is called News, Analysis & Investigations" isn't sourced either. Have you provided any evidence to prove that the abc news has indeed changed names over time? Self research doesn't count on wikipedia - Cement4802 (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , will you please read WP:REVERT and STOP reverting my changes without discussion. As per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I have provided sources in the History section, where the same information is repeated. With your reversion, you have not only restored an invalid, dead bare url in the lead (where it doesn't belong and doesn't support the sentence anyway), but removed my additional detail about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, properly cited. I am going to revert your change once, and I suggest that you cool down and take a break before you carry on edit-warring, or I will be reporting you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your cited source, and the history section you wrote explains how the titles apply to the Director of ABC News, not the news organisation itself. Therefore, the statement in the lead - "The name of the organisational division has changed over the years: until around 2015 it was the News and Current Affairs Division, while since then it is called News, Analysis & Investigations" is incorrect. The name of the ORGANISATIONAL DIVISION has not been changed to those titles, only the DIRECTOR of ABC News. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

text: That still doesn't change the name of the division. The titles you are referring to apply to the director. It does not apply to the name of ABC News. Also, you haven't consulted any other editors about your dramatic changes to the article. Reverting your changes back to the established status-quo of the article is not disruptive. No one else has yet agreed with your changes to the article. I already think I'm being pretty generous by reaching a middle ground. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes