This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
A fact from Mike's On appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 864 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Mike Francesa of Mike'd Up, who co-hosted his last sports radio program, said he wouldn't have a co-host on this one?
90% of the Mike and the Maddog article is original research. Editors simply reported what they heard on the radio. Let's not turn this article into the same mess. Let's limit the article to information that can be found in reliable sources. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Every incident and/or controversy does not need to be repeated here unless it was of such significance and notability that it actually had some sort of long lasting effect. Hobbomock (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are both official policies of Wikipeida, information cannot be added to an article unless they are sourced with what are considered reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Truth and non-truth are of no relevance to these requirements. I am not disagreeing regarding the truth of the guests. As a matter of fact, I agree with you 100%. However, it cannot be added to the article unless a reliable source can be found. Me an you listening to the radio show are not good sources. When I find a media source that confirms that those are his official guests, I would immediately insert that information. However, it would an egregious and blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to add the information without a source. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that the host of the show himself states that the following guests have been contracted to appear regularly on the show is not a reliable source? I have to wait for Bob Raismann or Phil Mushnick to report it in their article first? Who by the way get their material from listening to the show. That doesn't make sense. How about the fact that they are listed on the WFAN website in the Francesa audio files. That should be a reliable source enough. Hobbomock (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and it does make sense. There is a strict rule against original research. Contentious articles would be crazy if everyone added what they personally saw and heard. Although the rules' applicability doesn't seem to be correct when applied to this specific situation, we must abide by the original research rule, and can't decide that we will abide by the original research rule sometimes and sometimes we won't. If you can get a clip where he Mike states that they will be his guests, that, as a primary source, would be great. But clips of interviews don't establish that they are his official guests. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fhe latter part of the above statement is sort of correct. One does not need an online audio clip to source what was reported on the show anymore than one needs an online version of a print source to source an article. Is it harder to verify, yes, but there's no requirement, not should there be, for a source to be online for it to be valid.oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
