Talk:Golden Age of Radio/Archive 2

message: I've moved the external links within the article to the "External links" section. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) explains, external links with link text (like this: Wikipedia) should not appear in the main part of the article, but that is the preferred style for the "External links" section. External links used as citations (like this: ) are acceptable within the article. In this case the links weren't really providing citations for anything, but rather giving additional resources. Wmahan. 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of external links 

message: I am now hearing from casual Wikipedia users who are puzzled and disappointed to find that the radio links they were accustomed to using have vanished. Pepso 14:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give an example? I didn't see anything about that on your talk page. Do you own or otherwise have an interest in one of the OTR sites? Wmahan. 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have no connection with any OTR sites, commercial or non-commercial, and don't even know the people in the OTR community. I just mean the phone rings, and people who know of my interest in radio ask me if I know what happened here. Apparently, these people liked to read the Wikipedia pages and then used them as a guide to decide whether or not to click and listen. Pepso 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pepso, and everyone - I appreciate that you feel that the removal of the many external links have caused a detioriation in the quality of the article, but it is important to look at this in the perspective of a big project - in fact the hugest encyclopedia ever - wikipedia.  Let's take a moment to compare a wikipedia article and an article in something like Brittanca, for example.  Thinking for usability for the majority of readers, a list of dozens of books to read at the end of a comparatively short topic in Brittanica is not easy to read - much better for that information to be amalgamated into the article as a whole.  It's the same for wikipedia - a huge list of external links only serves to confuse the casual browser, going against the generally accepted consensus for the rest of wikipedia.  If we can get the content from the external links into wikipedia, the usability of the project is vastly improved, by the means of content licensing, the various WP:CD projects and others.  I'll refer you to some policy from Metawiki - m:When should I link externally, which states that if you can get the content into wikipedia, and you're not using the link to meet WP:CITE and WP:V, you shouldn't include it at all.  Also, please see Wikipedia is not a web directory and WP:EL (which give an overview of more wide-ranging policy).  I hope that this has helped to explain some of the policy to you -- Martinp23 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Flaming even more, isn't helpful either. Nor are your repeated, unfounded, unhelpful and intellectually fraudulent accusations.  I know for a fact that at least one of the editors you repeatedly insinuate otherwise, did, in fact, review all other links in the respective articles he pruned.  If you continue in this vein you'll only perpetuate what you say you wish to avoid. Enough of this nonsense.  Let's stay on topic.  Dnyhagen 06:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions

message: It has been suggested an editor work on a review of the links here.  As I had started it would seem sensible to continue.  I am to a degree a deletionist but equally I came to Wiki for the quality of the articles here AND the relevance of the links which were better and clearer than those in search engines.
So I have removed all the links for now and would sincerely appreciate it if they were not put back until we get genuine agreement on the ones we wish to use.
Given the state of the page I have created a new one solely for the discussion - the link is here Discussion of links as well as at the top of the page - please join me there and help to make this page better.  Hey let's even try for Featured Article!.  I'm pretty sure that anyone interested in this will either look back or have the page on their watch list so I will not contact editors individually.  See you there --Nigel  (Talk) 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links again

message: There was a edit dispute over what links to include. and that these two sites don't appear to be free. http://www.lib.umd.edu/LAB/index.html and http://www.otrcat.com/ These sites should be removed as they are not free and this can cause some problems. See WP:WEB and WP:SPAM for more infomation. If there is any futher issues about socks or other issuses have them come directly to me or anther admin to clear up any issues. Also, please obey WP:CIVIL. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the University of Maryland! They charge for photocopies and other library materials just like any other library. TANSTAAFL! Pepso 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Y'all are nothing if not consistent.  It figures that the thinking arising out of this group would equate http://www.otrcat.com with one of the finest Golden Age Radio lending libraries outside the Library of Congress.  It's a university, folks.  The Library of Congress charges the same if not more for most of its materials.  Are the inmates running the asylum?  I can see your rationale for posting WP:CIVIL in advance. Dnyhagen 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no justification no matter how twisted, tortured, or obtuse to remove the University of Maryland source while equating it with the likes of otrcat.com  (the same otrcat.com that was surreptitiously embedding it's vendor code into all the Amazon.com John Dunning 'Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio' links from Wikipedia).  There comes a point when one must simply confront the fact that one is attempting to contribute to an irrevocably co-opted area of Wikipedia and move on to an area with a bit more intellectual integrity.  It's no wonder there was at least five months of so much spam linking and other 'somehow overlooked' link and "Listen To" abuse arising out of Old Time Radio and it's related articles.  This action speaks volumes about the intentions of the proponents of this realm of Wikipedia. This is a travesty, WP:CIVIL or no WP:CIVIL. Dnyhagen 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of integrity and intentions of the proponents of this realm, one might question -- Is any external link that doesn't point to Digital Deli defined as travesty? Wikiotr 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link contorvsery

message: All sources have been removed. Now there is a request for sources. No response to that request can be entered because of a dictum that the removed sources should not be replaced. I think this is what Alan Watts called a "double-bind." It seems to be Orwellian, Bushian and Borgesian all rolled into one. Pepso 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called inertia, but others might call it intellectual fraud.  I'm one of the ones that calls it what it is--the latter. Dnyhagen 03:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add more sources, as long as they conform to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Sources are always good. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for sources

message: I suggest also the return of the link to the authoritative historian Elizabeth McLeod, as she is acknowledged within the field as the number one expert. (See bottom of the Amos 'n' Andy page.) Over years, no one has ever found a mistake in anything she's written. Okay, well, maybe once, but it was something minor and extremely obscure. Pepso 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She looks like a very good source for reference (got a link specific to her?), equally Museum of Broadcast Communications looks like it should have a place somewhere around (tho I guess this should be on the links discussion page) --Nigel  (Talk) 14:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links are back as per links discussion page --Nigel  (Talk) 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Return of links

message: Anyone mind if I do a bit of archiving, I won't archive anything recent. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please! --Nigel  (Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Amen to that! Dnyhagen 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried some archiving, but all of this is not 2 weeks old. Perhaps in a few days when some of these sections expire. I did start some archiving. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: If there is enough interest, I would like to suggest a wikiproject to coordinate old time radio efforts.
1. There appears to be a large amount of information dealing with old-time radio that cannot be found or is hard to find on the internet. 
2. There are large gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of old-time radio due to the lack of a coordinated effort.
3. A WikiProject would make it easier to create and enforce policies pertaining to old-time radio articles.
Another idea might be to create an overall radio wikiProject, considering there seems to be a lack of one, and add old-time radio as a sub-wikiproject.
--PhantomS 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a generic radio wikiproject proposal already in place. Please add your support on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals or on the temporary project page at User:Badbilltucker/WikiProject Radio. --PhantomS 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new radio WikiProject has been created. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio and add your name to the participant list if you are interested in helping. --PhantomS 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject OldTimeRadio 

message: The article currently has an odd proportional mix. The sections on how OTR radio shows have been recorded, which should be a minor part of the article, occupy more than half of the article. Techno-geekery gone wild. The section about the history and programs of OTR, which should be the main part of the article, is rushed and superficial. — Walloon (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportions 

message: :I'm inclined to agree with you on the value of that particular resource, on reflection (yes, I was the editor that deleted it in the first place). Have added it back in, and will hope that 3 links doesn't become 13 again! Katherine (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding external link 

message: The article should explain the difference between commercial, cooperative, and sustaining programs, and discuss the form of advertising in this time period in greater detail.  A sentence or two on the controversy over "cow-catcher" and "hitch-hiker" advertisements would not be out of place.  The FCC collected a vast amount of statistical information about the various types of programming in the early 1940s; this data should be presented here.  An explanation of how radio networks operated, and the effect that this had on program length, selection, and distribution is needed.  (In particular, the networks merely acted as distributors of the programs -- the advertising agencies produced the "commercials" and selected the stations on which they would air, subject to the constraints of time availability and the route taken by the telephone wiring that connected the stations together.)  121a0012 (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercials vs. sustainers, other work needed