User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2009/May

Re: New toolserver request

Is it possible? Jees. I'm not quite finished, but it seems your query can neatly be split into two reports, and the first of those is finished. This is a list of pages which transclude one or more of the appropriate templates, but not all three. The reason I bring it to you now is that I think that list would make for an ideal botreq (replacing articles without all three with the master three-in-one templates). Sure, a little thought would have to go into it; I'd offer but I'm worried at the moment that I won't have the time to see any project. Still, I can advise if you thought that would be a good idea. Part two (not transcluding any, etc) coming right up. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And the other list. Well, that should keep you busy for a while! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I edit conflicted typing a response while you posted the second list!

Wow, so it is as big of a problem as I thought it might be — that's one big ass list. Thanks for that!

Interestingly, bot request is what I was first thinking too, but I ran it past the project and someone who has far, far more experience in article creation than I steered me away from it. There are situations where you have to use the three individual ones rather than the consolidated, related I believe to cases where there are both an 'ABCD-FM' and an 'ABCD-LP' for example — some of the templates need the modifier, while others won't link off properly if you try to use it. So, query and a good deal of gnoming seemed like the best solution, and lord knows I love me some gnoming!

I think the second query might not be working right, or I didn't explain it clearly. From what you said, I figured that it would return a list of articles not transcluding any of the templates, either individual or consolidated. It looked too big, so I clicked through on a couple. As an example, KARV-FM is using one of the consolidated templates, while KAMB is using three of the individual ones, so neither of them should appear on that list. The only thing that I can think of is that there's a parameter (the call sign, or at least part of it) used in each template, and I wondered if that might have broken the logic? If not, then either I'm not understanding whatever the second query is supposed to return, or something's funky.

The other problem, that I'll have to put some thought to, is that these templates are only used on U.S.-based stations, so the second list is including a lot of noise. Not a problem to scroll past, but I'll have to think about whether or not there's a reliable way to focus down the data set. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just all articles starting with K or W, because there could be group articles for networks, etc.

BTW, best of luck with the exams! Mlaffs (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, that sounds very much like a bug to me (God knows where though!), so I'll see whether I can do anything about it. As for the other thing, obviously, I have no experience in this particular area, but from a technical perspective the best idea for limiting the amount of fluff on the second list would be by category - either exclusion or inclusion would be both possible and reasonably easy. Don't know how that works out in practice though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that should have done it - yes, a much more manageable 2978 pages (!). Alas, you'll also find that the page will take longer to load - an unfortunate side effect of it actually doing something for a change. So, yeah, my fault, but it should be working now (though I'm sure you'll tell me if it isn't). Same URL, of course. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's done it — all looks good. Category exclusion/inclusion is definitely possible, as there are various "Radio stations in 'state'" and "Radio stations in 'country'" categories. I think exclusion would be better, so that it doesn't filter out articles that haven't been categorized at all. I'll work on building a list. Thanks again so much! Mlaffs (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Power 99

Thanks...found another brand-name duplicate by the same user right afterward! Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

We have been deleted based on Lack of Notability. Please take a look at our situation and if you have any thoughts we welcome your input. NOTICE: Actions have also been made against some of the affilaites listed as references.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast

TY! Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reply It seriously seems like The Full Armor of God Broadcast has at least a minimum level of reliable sources listed. The deletion seemed opinionated and subjective on an area of the policy that is rather vague. I have asked this over and over and no body can give me a straight answer, why are these refernces not reliable, when many of them are listed on wikipedia? Why are the audio references not reliable, when they clearly establish that the notable artists have recognized the program? And if all these references are or not good enough, what kind of refernce would be? Is the only way for a syndicated radio show to be recognized is if it hase written articles?? What about advertisements in notable magazines? Would that work?Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio references prove that it exists. A website for the show itself would prove that it exists. The listing of stations on which the show airs proves that it exists. Ads in magazines would prove that it exists. However, existence isn't enough. I exist and so do you, but neither of us is likely to be suitable for an article on Wikipedia. What you're trying to prove is notability, and that's a trickier thing. You're looking for significant coverage of the show, from a reliable source that's independent of the subject. Has there ever been an interview published anywhere with the host of the show, where they discussed it, what it was about, etc.? Has there ever been an article talking just about the show itself? They don't have to be online sources, although that's certainly easier — they could be from a newspaper or a magazine that's only available in print, something that has a general circulation and that you could cite in the article.

I obviously didn't comment in the deletion discussion or even know it was going on, and I've never had anything to do with the article other than a minor change to point a couple of links to the correct place, so I'm not familiar at all with the content. I have to believe that people who were part of the discussion and said they looking for sourcing and couldn't find it were telling the truth. I'm happy to take a look at it and see if there's anything I can find — can't do it until tomorrow though.

At the end of the day, if you really believe that the decision was incorrect, you can request a deletion review. However, the review wouldn't be about the article itself — it's about whether the person who closed the discussion did so properly, following applicable policies and gauging the consensus of the discussion correctly. You're probably better to continue looking for the right sources.

Like I said before, you may not ultimately be successful — the sources may simply not exist. But not everything gets an article here — not everything is considered encyclopedic. That's not a comment on the quality of the show though. Mlaffs (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply Ok, but there are other radio shows listed on Christian Radio with less refernces. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but you might want to read an essay called Other stuff exists. It's generally not a good argument to use — just because another article that doesn't demonstrate notability has snuck through doesn't mean that other articles that don't demonstrate notability should be kept. You might even end up pointing people whose focus is on maintaining the notability standards toward other articles that should probably be deleted too. It's also possible that those other shows actually could demonstrate notability, but the proper sources just haven't been added yet. I don't know if you're a baseball fan or not, but it's kind of like the arguments that go on all the time over who should be in the hall of fame. There's one school of thought that so-and-so, who really wasn't all that fantastic, is in the hall of fame, so everybody who was better than him should be in too — essentially reduces things to the lowest common denominator. The other school of thought is that there's nobody who doesn't meet a certain standard, say 3000 hits or 500 home runs, who's not in. That second approach is more along the lines of how things work here. Mlaffs (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Question I am aware that audio refernces are more difficult to research in that there are no "key words" that can be searched for and instantly confirmed. With audio refernces one must listen to the entire file in order to verify information. Many of the audio sources wich were cited for this article were immediately discredited on the basis that they were hosted on its own website. However these audio sources clearly establish notability in that notable celebraties are regularly guests on the program. I do not believe that being hosted on the programs own website should disqualify these audio sources per Reliable Sources overview which states:

However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet.

I beleive that this guidline clearly shows that the audio files refernced in this article are admissable and do in fact display notability. Perhaps not in the easiest way to be researched, one would liturally have to research hours of programming to verify the notable guests.

Has there ever been an interview published anywhere with the host of the show, where they discussed it, what it was about, etc.? Has there ever been an article talking just about the show itself? They don't have to be online sources, although that's certainly easier — they could be from a newspaper or a magazine that's only available in print, something that has a general circulation and that you could cite in the article.Mlaffs (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

YES, but many are audio files. there have been some written interviews, but ussually on University blogs and such that are no longer on file. I can look into finding them. But there are interviews with WLRY's Mornign show, Pass the Salt w/ Coach Dave Daubenmire, Anvil & the Hammer Radio, Weathered Steel (WITR), The Cross Stream Radio, WTGO, WJCU and Malone University. I do not think that they are archived on those perticular sites anymore, but there are copies of them that can be linked. I will get right on that! Will that help?? Ivanhoe610fa (talk)

WLRY, Pass the Salt (WLRY) and WJCU refernces added How does this look? Better?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God#Show_content Please keep in mind that refernces to radio station program schedules confimr they air the show, not just that it exisits. Secondly that radio stations rarely ever archive syndicated programs. Thus archived episodes are stored on the show's own site, but as per WP:S "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." I assert therefore that the audio sourses listed on this article display notability in that they confirm that notable guest have been on the show, even though they are hosted by the program's own server, the fact that WP:RS Clearly states "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." make that kind of a mute arguement. What say ye?? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CFCW

I think I must have been under the influence of paint fumes from the condo construction outside my bedroom window. That's about the only excuse I've got. Dab away. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)