Talk:National Student Television Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt'N'Ian TV - An affiliated station[edit]

Just so you all know - we are a fully affiliated NaSTA station now. So I added us to the Wikipedia Page. Please dont delete us, we are officially joined now!!

  • That's fair enough - but you shouldn't link to 'BuffTV media encoder' and your names unless there should be an article about them - which there probably shouldn't as they aren't notable enough (Unless either Matt or Ian are quite famous, or BuffTV encoder is a notable piece of software). Bear in mind that the article on NaSTA as a whole barely survived deletion.
    • One more thing, 87.127.73.46, you should never edit other people's comments, it is often considered vandalism. The issue above has been fixed, so a note underneath saying 'now fixed' would be sufficient, rather than deleting most of the comment. I've reverted the edit. -

Sorry, 87.127.73.46

  • I've removed the "references" from Matt'N'Ian's sections; WP:NN requires external references to be independent, which these certainly aren't --JonRSharpe

STOP DELETING THIS. MattNIan qualified as a full station and paid full affiliation fees, and get this, even won three awards. So to say they were not part is just silly, they were part, and even won some. Why you reference a Google Cached page THAT WAS NEVER UPDATED FROM THE 2005 SEASON as your reasoning for removing them is insane. Leave it buddy.

first please place new comments under ones previously made second please sign your comments. now on the matter you raised if you can provide a more recent verifibility reliably sources, then please do so, also i would remind that you should not write about yourself and wait until such time as some one else feels you are notable, particularly in the case of someone who has been repeatedly warned for vandalism. Sherzo 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Reply--Not been accused of vandalism, ever, if have on this IP, its a shared work IP, so dont accuse me...And apart from photos of ian and matt at the event with awards in hand, and the actual awards themselves, there are no other items of proof because NaSTA 07's online work was virtually non existant so no proof ever went online because of "website lost passwords"

What do you want? A reference to an online photo? Its obvious to me you just dont like seeing that station on that list, everyone who attended NaSTA knows that station attended

well i suggest you register for an account or else you will be labelled as such. as for assertion of membership i have no personally feelings either way, however this is an encyclopedia which means you need a reliable source to back it. Sherzo 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

Which part of this article are people unsure about? Vanky 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure but I'm guessing it will be the formation date 83.67.43.64 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the NaSTA website, it seems as if nobody knows the exact formation date... Vanky 12:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Action post deletion debate[edit]

OK, I'd like to have a stab at a major article rewrite over the next few days, because (as evidenced by the deletion debate) this article doesn't really do NaSTA justice. I doubt that many/any of the station articles themselves will avoid deletion, so I suggest a section on each affiliate station, and a little about the UK student TV scene in general wouldn't go amiss.Tomisaac 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we now have an infobox and a little more flesh at the start. I've used the 'company' infobox, doesn't quite fit but does the job.temporarily.

To do list:

Categorise the article

Summary of each station

Get rid of the long 'History' table of dates.

Rewrite 'Conference and NaSTA Awards' in encyclopedical style.

Rewrite 'History', or junk it if there's really no reliable information.Tomisaac 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cool, agreed. Maybe we should get a copy of the logo without the purple background too. As far as the 'summary of each station' goes, I suggest we keep each entry a similar size, include logos wherever possible, and don't mention anything about what awards they've won.
  • Good start on the station sections, i've added a couple more. I'm a bit stuck on History - I've rewritten the stuff about Bournemouth a bit, give it some more context, but other than that, there's no info...Tomisaac 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to compile a list of notable former Nasta members? Pete
    • Well, maybe. But lists tend to get far too long and lower the quality of a page IMO. Plus, we just removed the list of former conferences. Can we remove the list of non-affiliated stations? Technically less than half of the student TV stations in the UK are affiliated right now, because nobody has sent off the fees! And is it really relevant who isn't in NaSTA? JMalky 09:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about (for the moment) including everyone who was affiliated last year in the main list, and including stations who either did not affiliate last year or have never been affiliated as 'other'. That way we'd catch new stations who intend to affiliate this year on the page, and not leave out some major stations who just haven't got around to posting their cheques yet. I think it is worth giving a short mention to non-NaSTA stations, as there are very few of them.Tomisaac 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just been reviewing the member station section, and several seem misleading at least compared to there own website or are acting as promotional material. i can see you all care about student tv but i think your ignoring th NPOV policy. also are all these stations still active as several sites have not been updated in some time, Bloomsbury for example doesn't appear to have been updated for several years. Sherzo 11:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, could you point to a couple of specifics so we know what to avoid? There are non-active stations, I think they should be pruned. Note that non-active website doesn't mean the station is not running, as they aren't all web-based.Tomisaac 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, I have just heard (on fairly good authority) that Bloomsbury are alive and well (though their website is broken...)Tomisaac 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what i have seen looking throgh the varies websites and googling them WTV and LS:TV are close to a traditional television station, with lots of programmes which are regularly broadcast, several others are however moving in this direction, wheras others resemble filmmakers clubs. Though GUST has a very interesting model basically it just perpetually produces the same shows year on year. i think a good NPOV wold to give a fair represention of the stations volume and diversity of output, but avoid descriptions of services they provide or how they broadcast unless this is particularly different from the norm. are there any third party verifiable sources on the NaSTA and student tv in the UK? since your good sources is hardly verifiable as the last update on the website was 4 years ago so its been broken for all that time. i appreciate they may not all be web based but if there's no website you need to provide some verifiable sources. I think a section on notable alumni would be useful, highlighting a few former members who've gone on to success in the media. Sherzo 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, I think Bloomsbury are pretty close to dead - all I have is word of mouth that Bloomsbury had a committee last year, but that's it. But please don't go merely on the basis of the websites - these are **not** online TV stations, the main method of broadcast is on campus cable-based networks. The best way to judge output is to either watch the station in question, or ask someone who watches/makes the programmes what their output is. It's a bit like asking for a source on the content of a film, you really need to watch the film to say 'that's what happens at the end'. Good sources for Student TV in general are a couple of BBC news articles, a lot of local news coverage and a good few (I've got clippings of five) national newspaper articles. Also, University guides often make mention but are light on detail. Notable alumni would be a good section, it's a question of back-tracing the stations from biographies etc - I've got a couple of them lined up for XTV, but I need some for the other stations too before I add it in.Tomisaac 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the NPOV, but that was bound to happen because folk from the member stations are eager to write their own sections. That kind of thing is easily fixed though. This article has been drastically changed very quickly, so there's bound to be a few problems. Bear with us. JMalky 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ontop of the NPOV issues you also seem to have a bit of an edit war between i what i assume are rivals from different stations. is demon the first of these stations in halls, i can't find any sources on that but i can't equally find anything for YSTV claim that they were first. from what i've seen of the websites most station put up what programmes they do, just if i wanted to find out what shows the BBC or ABC make. I appreciate your point, but everything you put on wiki has to be verifiable, so it should at least reflect whats on there own websites.

I have one suggest have you thought about creating your own wiki? then each station, show etc could have its own page, you could design it on the IMDB lines. Sherzo 23:35, 03 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply removed demon from saying that they are the first to broadcast in halls. I am not saying that YSTV was the first, I just know it to be factually incorrect as we have broadcast to halls for longer. As far as I know, I don't need a citation to prove that someting without a citation is false. I am just trying to keep the article factually accurate, not having an edit war - sorry demon :) Ystv 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Members[edit]

who are the founding members of the organisation, the earliest website on archive.org was for december 96, however its listed as Nasta 95, and the member stations then were, BTV, CTV, GUST, GTV, LUST, Nexus, STOIC, YSTV.are these the found members?

Probably not, those are most likely the affiliates at the time of the website being written. The actual formation is some time in the 1970s - I've seen some archive footage of a very informal NaSTA conference from that era - but in true student style, no-one thought to write it down and keep records.Tomisaac 11:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it goes back as far as 1969; the earliest student TV stations seem to date back to about 1967 (YSTV, possibly GUST?) and 1968 (GTV, Nexus). My notes on past NaSTA conferences say "1969 ? Sussex, 1970 ? Plymouth" but I have no idea where that information came from, other than from old newsletters in the NaSTA file in the GTV "office" in about 1997. It does suggest that there were stations in those places at around the time that NaSTA was founded. I also have a fairly solid list of 1980s/90s conferences if anyone's interested. --rbrwr± 21:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

What does NaSTA actually stand for?

National Student Television Association - I think the 'a' from National is added in to make a pronouncable word, rather than 'NSTA' which is kind of hard to say.Tomisaac 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gust[edit]

I think this page solves that particular mystery Vanky 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arwel_Parry/archive_3#Student_TV_memories

Article Quality[edit]

Just had a look over the article other than a few g&s mistakes, and few stations POV pushes, it looks good you should be proud. The only changes i think you need, would be to add blurbs for the other affiliated stations. Other than that well done! Sherzo 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current holders of Best Broadcaster for 2007 / 2008 are LS:TV[edit]

Surely LS:TV are the best broadcaster 2006-2007, as 2007-2008 hasn't been awarded yet. They have been awarded for their production in the last year, not what they're going to produce.

--Peternewman 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station Articles[edit]

Despite the round of deletions a few months back, some stations have either still got articles (GUST, LooseTV), or have new articles (XTV). None of the deleted stations have had articles re-created.

These articles were not linked from the NaSTA page, so I've done them using the 'Main article' notation. By the way, I did not create or edit the XTV article, and I'm going to abstain on saying whether it should exist.

Please do not create advertisement or un notable articles its damages wikipedia. Sherzo 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that, and I'm all for removing non-notable articles. I see GUST and XTV have been redirected to NaSTA. One point is that GUST was recently kept after an AFD debate, and that article contained quite a lot of information which is not present in the NaSTA article. As such, I don't believe it should be redirected.
If any of the member stations have their own articles, surely they should be linked from the NaSTA page that mentions them. If the member station articles should not exist, surely they should go through the normal process for deletion?Tomisaac 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an AfD would remove the page i am currently of the mind that they are useful as redirected and given the improved quality of this article it is more than capable of carry GUST information in a single paragraph without need for a forked article, {GUST programmes etc are not notable} however i coming to increasingly believe that all the less notable stations should be rolled into on general section since they're are essential the same thing at different unis there is no real need for a {seperate in places quite POV} section on each Sherzo 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite and possible re name[edit]

I'm think more and more that this article should be rewritten, to actually explain how student tv in the UK is made rather than rattle off a list of station that basically do the same thing with differing degrees of success at different university. Also possibly renamed to student tv in the uk with a section on nasta as there appears to be as many student tv station out of nasta as in it, so its hardly representative of student tv in the UK as a whole. though i am finding it difficult to find any current notable sources without which it maybe the whole article should be deleted or cut down to what is actually verifible. Sherzo 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly reasonable, but I think there is an underlying problem with a lack of consensus and bad edits. Re-directing GUST is at risk of turning in to an edit war, which would be bad. Every now and again we get a POV-push from particular member stations (most recently in LUST). Sources are problematic, true, and although we have enough secondary sources to establish some notability, we can't justify every single statement in the article with out turning to a primary source i.e stations themselves. We also have an issue in that some sources are print media only.
The concern with removing the station sections is that without the NaSTA article, stations will want their own article (and I believe many stations are on the fringes of notability), and we'll have a continuous stream of AFDs and no consensus. Can I lay out some alternatives?
1. The status quo, which I understand to be articles on major stations (GUST), NaSTA article linking to them and sections on each station in the NaSTA article.
2. Article called 'UK student TV', with a section on NaSTA, and station sections merged in to their relevant Student's Unions articles and major stations that have been kept by consensus to have their own articles, linked from all relevant articles.
3.Articles on every single station plus NaSTA itself
4. No articles on UK student TV at all.
Myself, I'm happy with the status quo and as such I'm going to leave this article well alone for the immediate future. I'm also going to suggest that others do the same, and that JMalky and Sherzo take a break from editing this particular article for a while to avoid any rash edits, whilst we try and build a consensus between us before making any major changes. [User:Tomisaac|Tomisaac]] 09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) ->edited later to clarify, previously sounded like an (unintended)attack on JMalky and Sherzo.

I don't think any of the stations individually are notable, as a collective they're notable it the same way that youtube is notable but its individual users aren't. However i think the article misrepresents what Nasta, it lacks sources, and there as many UK student tv station outside it as inside. i think if the article was changed to focusing on student tv the history development and notable people who have been involved in student tv. A section on Nasta , but i don't think each station needs its own section since other than locality very little changes between station in terms of programming or style. out of the options 2 is the probably the best though in regards to merging the individuals stubs i doubt there notable to be on such pages as for GUST it was kept by consensus however the article does not reference its one claim on notability and lacks any information on its history and simple use the unsubstantiated claim of being first as a way to shoehorn an article on the current station and its programming rather that why being first makes it notable. Sherzo 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not I agree with Sherzo. I'd much rather that the NaSTA article be converted into a 'UK Student Television' article. It does seem to make a lot more sense. There's been a bit of confusion about what NaSTA's role is and the article is a bit misleading. I think this happened because various users (myself included) were bigging it up a little when it was up for deletion. But I think those people who were in favour of keeping the article were more concerned that UK Student TV have a place on Wikipedia, rather than NaSTA per se. So good idea, Tomisaac. As for wether or not individual stations should have their own articles, maybe that could be decided by formally putting the GUST article up for deletion, and using the resulting debate as a sort of precident? JMalky 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an overall article would be both more representative and easy to research & verify. on the matter of precedent though i feel its better every article be judged individually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LUST is the already used precedent. I have put a request for comment to get more input. Sherzo 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so are we doing a re-write or not? JMalky 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have better access to material, can i suggest you and tomisaac start Sherzo 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do agree that turning the article into one about student TV would make for a more encyclopaedic article, so long as it did not become a directory. It will never stop students from individual universities from creating articles on their station, nor putting POV edits into this one, so the article would need to be watched to ensure that all statements and assertions are sourced. Unsourced statements would be challenged, and then deleted if not verified. If non-notable stations wanted a bit more latitude, unsourced items could arguably be part of the university article - that's not to say that WP:V or WP:NPOV should be ignored. Ohconfucius 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm up for a rewrite, but I won't be able to start for a while as I am very busy in the 'real world' at the moment. Is there any mechanism for starting rewriting a page in non-main-namespace (user talk pages?) before it is ready to replace the original page? It would seem a shame to redirect NaSTA and all the station pages to 'Student Television in the UK' before we have any decent content.
  • It's done all the time. You can create an article within your own userspace without the constrains of a public article. For instance, you may create one called User:Tomisaac/British student television, work on it (even in collaboration) there, and then move it to a suitable namespace, such as British student television. Only at that stage do we need to think about what to do with the NaSTA article. Ohconfucius 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do what I do and write while you're meant to be working. :D Actually, yeah, I'm busy too. But I'm sure we'll get round to it in good time. I'm more worried about settling the GUST debate at the moment anyway. As for starting the new page, I suppose we could use this talk page as a sandbox. And of course, we don't really have to delete/re-direct the NaSTA article until the new page is of a decent standard, provided we do it reasonably quickly. JMalky 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the this article shouldn't be removed until a new was is suuficiently developed, since i am relatively unbusy if you'd like to provide me with any useful resources on constructing this article, i could have a go at writing a first draft Sherzo 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite draft copy[edit]

OK, I've started something at a sub-page in my userspace which is still full of notes and tags, but it's a start. Feel free to have a go at it everybody!Tomisaac 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resources[edit]

- *Bloomsbury TV - *BuffTV - *C4TV - *Cam Crew TV - *CTN - *CTV - *CUTE TV - *Demon TV - *FX:TV - *GlamTV - *GTV - *GUST - *LooSE TV - *LS:TV - *LSUTV - *LUST - *MUSTV - *Matt'N'Ian TV - *Nerve* TV - *Nexus TV - *R:TV - *SJCTV - *stoic tv - *Susu.tv - *Trent TV - *YSTV - *Winstanley TV - *Warwick Television - *XTV

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Student_Television_Association&oldid=466481454"