Talk:Golden Age of Radio/Archive 2

'Listen To' Permalinks
There's little sense in posting temporary links for Listen To's. Suggest posting Listen To's with permanent links (such as feature pages with either historical Golden Age Radio recordings, or program episodes). Such as:


 * Jack Benny
 * 'Father Knows Best', 'The Great Gildersleeve', 'Jimmy Durante', and 'The Six-Shooter'
 * 'My Friend Irma', 'Gunsmoke', and 'My Favorite Husband'
 * 'Christmas on The Blue Network', and 'Challenge of The Yukon'
 * 'The Lone Ranger', 'The Green Hornet', Let George Do It', 'Johnny Madero, Pier 23', and 'The Shadow'

And as Christmas Approaches perhaps some representative Christmas episodes. Dnyhagen 07:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion whether we should link to digitaldeliftp.com or not, but if we do, it ought to be a single link to a page that lists all of the above individual pages - we try to keep the number of links down to a minimum in articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted, but perhaps somewhat disingenuous. In the Wikipedia realm of Golden Age Radio, or Old Time Radio, the application of the suggested policy couldn't be further from the norm under Old Time Radio and it's hundreds of linked or linking pages, as AbsolutDan knows all too well.  Last night I counted no less than 70 duplicate references to Jerry Haendiges' commerical 'Vintage Radio Place Logs'--otrsite.com (one on virtually every single Radio Program reference posted under this article's 'Radio Programs').  Mr Haendiges posts all of his radio logs on one page of his site--as anyone in the Old Time Radio or Golden Age Radio community knows all too well.  There were also over 50 identical References to LOF's (lofcom.com) commercial 'Phorum' pages, over 60 references to Jim Widner's commerical 'Radio Days' -- www.otr.com -- pages (podcasts, with commercial links to otrnow.com, etc.), and over 60 'Listen To' links to these same--and others'--clearly commercial, clearly multiply spamming sites.  All of which AbsolutDan has consciously and selectively chosen to overlook, under the same, precise criteria he criticizes or cites in his 'no opinion' discussion comment. Had this been a recent phenomenon, I might tend to agree with AbsolutDan, but he knows all too well from vast experience that he does have an opinion, he does know all too well of all of these ongoing abuses--if in fact they are abuses, since there's no apparent consensus one way or the other under this article, and he clearly reviews and revisits these pages at least weekly, if not daily for certain kinds of edits.--Dnyhagen 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving that aside, 'Site map' pages, etc, that he appears to be suggesting, are dynamic pages on most sites, changing often enough that permalinks would be impractical. Indeed, most contemporary websites specifically avoid employing 'site map' pages now, due to their susceptability to online spambots.  AbsolutDan ignores the fact that the suggested links point to four different broadcasting networks' representative progamming, hence one link to each set of 4 to 6 representative 'Listen To' episodes on each network's history page.  Indeed, I had proposed just such a single link to AbsolutDan in a separate discussion thread, since the single 'Jukebox' page suggested to him for inclusion in this article does just as he appears to suggest.    Two other examples are the site's Golden Age Radio Timeline and Golden Age Radio Sponsors Timeline, both of which, through java technology, keep fifty 'pages' of Golden Age Radio history available to the viewer on only one site page--without using 'frame' technology which is also prone to link abuse.  AbsolutDan's implied contention seems to be--and I'd tend to agree with him--that these hundreds of apparently gratuitous references to and from Wikipedia's hundreds of Old Time Radio themed articles are placed here to simply promote their sites on search engines.  As I've pointed out to AbsolutDan, one doesn't need gratuitous, multiple, duplicated Wikipedia links or references to be promoted up Google's hierarchy of categorized sites.  There's a popular misconception that Google's internal 'pigeon coop' logic is susceptible to such spamming.  In fact it is not, as history has clearly shown.  The site, and it's pages, that I've suggested for inclusion to AbsolutDan have always, and will always, appear on Google's first page under both 'Old Time Radio' and 'Golden Age Radio'--with or without Wikipedia's links--purely on the strength of completely different 'pigeon coop' promotion algorithm criteria (Example).  This is a fact that drives the Old Time Radio spammers crazy, but I didn't write Google's 'pigeon coop' algorithms--if I had, I'd be a billionaire today.  It's one thing to accept a generous contributor's offer to maintain permalinks on his or her site, for the good of all.  It's quite another to suggest that a contributor re-architect his or her website to suit Wikipedia or it's random editors' interpretations of GUIDElines).--Dnyhagen 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The plain, all too apparent fact of the matter is that several editors under this article for whatever parochial reasons, turn a blind eye to the hundreds of commercial, spammming references linked to, or arising from this article, while at the same time, routinely--and often daily--removing adjacent 'valid' links to clearly non-commercial sites which, due to their historical nature, keep permanent links to the material referenced. Since the pattern seems to be that 'consensus'--or even worse, parochialism--regarding interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines vary signigicantly from article to article, it would appear that consensus rules over 'guidelines' (remembering that guidelines are clearly that--GUIDElines).--Dnyhagen 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if we could stick to fact here and avoid speculating about my motives. For the record, however, one of my primarily motives here is to reduce the number of unnecessary/spammed external links. I have no particular ties to any article, topic, or viewpoint. If there are pages that I do not take the time to cleanse of an abundance of linkspam, it is due to lack of time, not lack of want. I am one person, with over 2000 articles on my watchlist. I do not, unfortunately, have the time to perfect each article on that list, much as I would like to.
 * Believe it or not, I honestly do not care whether Wikipedia has a link to digitaldeliftp.com on one or a reasonably small number of pages. What I do care about is violations of WP:SPAM, particularly the section titled "how not to be a spammer." Links should be added by persons not affiliated with that site, in order to ensure neutrality. That means they should be brought up here on the talk page and discussed here prior to being added.
 * Wikipedia is in need of more cited content, not more external links. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, not serve as a linkfarm. If a consensus of neutral editors determines that a link to digitaldeliftp.com would be appropriate for the article, again, I have no issue with this. And yes, a single link per article per website is the best policy. Readers can follow that single link to peruse the website for additional content, we don't need to (and shouldn't) link to every relevent page on that website. Even better would be a neutral, third party directory of all available links on the topic, such as a DMOZ link.
 * And again, if others are violating WP:SPAM, please feel free to follow sofixit --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, by all means let's stick to the facts--hundreds of which I cited to you, provided specific examples of, and supported, and all of which you side-stepped. This is not an argument about 'how many angels you can persuade me can dance on the head of a pin' (or was it 'the point of a needle'?).  In either case, you keep reiterating or ascribing references to SPAM to me, knowing full well that I have yet to even once post a truly SPAM link, SPAM update, SPAM reference or SPAM citation to the pages of Wikipedia.   The word 'should' means precisely that, but let's make it perfectly clear--'Should' means "to express probability or expectation": as in "They should arrive at noon".  'Should' is by no means an 'absolute', Dan. 'Should' expects that in all but unavoidable, or marginal situations, the expected or recommended behaviour will prevail.   Your continual citation of the most narrow and pedantic interpretations of 'guidelines' does Wikipedia--and it's audience--a disservice.  While you cite DMOZ as a possible source of third-party neutrality, nothing could be further removed from reality.  The Old Time Radio/OTR contingent of the DMOZ is run almost entirely by self-serving, commercial Old Time Radio site operators, vendors, or webmasters, hence their continued refusal to even consider, let alone recognize 'Golden Age Radio History' as a valid topic or category since the very inception of the DMOZ.


 * So yet again, as on Wikipedia, those that 'get there first, get the spoils' in the SPAM arena. You know very well from our various dialogues that The Digital Deli Online is a two person operation.  A two-person, non-commercial operation.  Our demographic is, for the most part, near retirement or already retired, or students or enthusiasts of the history of radio communication.  The expectation that a retiree, often alien to computer technology, would--or could--take the time or resources to learn the ins and outs of online research, and html-craft to post links to our pages they think others might find useful, is folly.  As would be the folly of expecting a history student to use their spare, available non-study time, to post links or citations to our references.  Now if we were a commercial enterprise, I'm sure I'd be tempted to do what all the higher profile, commerical spammers you look askance at are doing: employ a third party agent to scour the pages of Wikipedia, making hundreds of Spam links to their commercial sites.  I'd never lower myself to that level, even if I felt compelled to, to compete in a commercial setting.


 * Your specious argument that Wikipedia needs less, not more, helpful links is nakedly self-serving. Where would Wikipedia be now, if not for the hundreds of thousands of websites and webpages suggesting or providing their own links to Wikipedia's more helpful, encyclopedic, or entertaining citations and articles?  No democratic information endeavor--on any topic, subject, or concept--can move forward and expand it's reach and thoroughness, without the addition of footnotes, links, examples or other addenda such as that provided by External Links, examples, or amplifications that, by either their copyright or proprietary nature can only be presented as links without violating Wikipedia's own, sensible, prudent and conservative guidelines.   It's that simple.  Indeed, Wikipedia itself, promotes and touts the huge number of hits it gets to futher it's own reach.  It's the height of hypocrisy to suggest that thousands of 'valid, helpful links to other, complementary sources' are bad for Wikipedia, but hundreds of thousands of links to Wikipedia's content are good.  Whatever 'war' you're waging on any and all links as the enemy of further expansion of an article simply defeats the continuing utility, visibility, and enhancement of Wikipedia's articles.


 * Your focus on some 2000 watched sites bears mute witness to the impossibility of effectively policing any of them. Suggestion:  pare your own list of watched sites to 1000, and let someone else pick up some of the policing.   I don't much expect to persuade you any further, since you clearly don't permit facts and citations to muddy the waters of pedantic clarity--your choice of User Name speaks volumes.  I will respectfully suggest, yet again, that you're hanging your entire opposition to an otherwise valuable addition to any number of the pages of Wikipedia, on the specious selection of the only one of seven Spam criteria you can even remotely and narrowly cite regarding our pages' contributions, by subjectively misinterpreting the word 'should'.  And you'll excuse me for being quite underwhelmed by the number of editors chiming in on this discussion page, so as to establish some form of 'consensus' the legal way, as opposed to the hundreds of nakedly commercial spam links I pointed out to you, one line away from the completely valid, useful links I posted, that you summarily deleted.  This is deteriorating into a nonsense argument that you insist on 'winning' at all costs, and I won't be put into the position of defending the obvious in this manner, since fact after supporting fact are lost on you.   I could have short-circuited this entire dialogue by simply cheating the same way as the hundreds of spam links littered throughout Old Time Radio related pages--find or pay an 'agent' to post links to our history pages.  I can't and won't lower myself to that level, nor will I demean the message of Golden Age Radio in that manner.  So that's the bottom line here.  "If you play fair, the audience loses, and if you cheat no one but you wins".  It's as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnyhagen (talk • contribs)


 * I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's assume good faith and civility policies. If at all possible, please don't criticize the motives of other editors without evidence.


 * You seem to be arguing that you're doing us a favor by not employing someone to spam Wikipedia with your links, so we owe it to you to include your links. I find that unconvincing, to say the least.


 * You also seem to focus on the fact that there are other promotional links. That's irrelevant; saying "but other people do it!" is never a good excuse for violating the external links guidelines.


 * Your comments are long, and I won't claim to have understood every point. But as I understand it the issue is simple: you aren't allowed to add links to your own website. That isn't a rule AbsolutDan or anyone else invented to be self-serving, but rather a consensus of many Wikipedia editors, as explained at External links. Wmahan. 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia's assume good faith and civility policies. Whenever possible don't presume to ascribe motives to clear, supported, documented, and valid criticism.


 * I focus on one and only one issue. The narrowest of interpretations of the only one of the ten proscribed spam guidelines, which you clearly didn't even bother referencing.  I'm not one of the 'policing editors' using the narrowest, subjective interpretations to suit their own ideology.  Be civil, in keeping with civility policies.  It's your observations that are insulting.  Please refrain from doing so on discussion pages.  If you wish to insult me, do it in a separate thread or a 'talk' to me.


 * And yes it's patently obvious you didn't bother to attempt to understand every point. You simplified it to something even more self-serving--yet another blind citation of the narrowest subjective application of the only one of the ten spam guidelines even remotely possible to ascribe to my addition of the links I suggested.  You totally sidestepped the RECOMMENDED Guidelines which use the word SHOULD.  A word you as well apparently don't understand.  Wikipedia's guidelines were formulated to avoid absolutes, hence they're carefully crafted quidelines.  I'm not surprised to see yet another parochial support of a fellow editor, but 'consensus' isn't acheived by cheerleading or blind, thoughtless, knee-jerk  nay-saying.  It's acheived by valid, thoughtful, supported, presentations of arguments pro and con, and citations, examples, and mitigating circumstances to support either side of an issue.


 * I respectfully ask that you focus on content, not calling me blind, self-serving, parochial, and so on. Frankly, resorting to name-calling will not convince anyone you're right. Nothing I said was intended as even a slight incivility or insult, and I hope you don't construe it that way.


 * You're right that Wikipedia's guidelines don't deal in absolutes. Wikipedia operates by discussion and consensus, and I merely added my own view. Redefining consensus to exclude the views of those you disagree with or consider to be "naysaying" is not a valid solution.


 * I would be happy to discuss the merits of the link further, but I can't tell what your point is aside from the criticism. Could you please explain your argument for including the link, or give a pointer to where I can find it? Wmahan. 07:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'll scroll up, you'll see my points. As to the links that have been removed, they all stem from Digital Deli Online and it's Golden Age Radio History pages.  Some of the representative links are provided above, but here are a couple more: Broadcast Network History,  A Golden Age Radio History Timeline,  A Golden Age Radio Sponsors Timeline,   Golden Age Radio Sponsors and Advertising, and a Jukebox Paradigm for one-link access to a number of representative Golden Age Radio recordings.  You will also note that contrary to the commercial link farms present in much of the 'OTR' community, I've employed Java and a one-page format for displaying material that might otherwise have consumed 50 to 100 other linked pages.  If it were my intent to seek link-backs, or page counts, I'd have certainly left those hundred+ pages on their own.  The technology I employ to specifically avoid that practice should be apparent.


 * The point that brought about this thread of the discussion stems from the single one of ten Spam prohibitions Wikipedia recommends should be avoided: External links 'Links To Be Avoided, item 3. Item 3 is the only one of the ten that any of the links I've proposed might be construed to violate.  But on the strength of the 'recommendations' language of the Guideline, and the 'should' direction behind them, I've made, supported, and reiterated my case for mitigating that one, single proscription my inclusion of the suggested links might present.  And for what it's worth I'll provide my own rule-of-thumb in determining Golden Age Radio spam on the internet:  If it contains the initials 'OTR' in either it's title or URL, chances are 9 out of 10 that it's you'll find out it's spam, and will almost certainly violate the 9 out of 10 Spam criteria that The Digital Deli Online specifically avoids--even if that places it at a disadvantage in page or site rankings.


 * Thanks for tempering your comments. I agree this should be a discussion supported by cases, examples, citations, and thoughtful, positive critism, not a food-fight.Dnyhagen 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And don't worry. I'll be sure to clean up every single gratuitous Old Time Radio link, listen to, and non-main article references to commercial sites now on the hundreds of Old Time Radio related articles, since apparently all the other editors of Old Time Radio articles have simply chosen to look the other way.Dnyhagen 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you truly think the links don't belong, I would sincerely welcome your removing them. If your goal in removing the links is to illustrate a point, please see WP:POINT. Wmahan. 07:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And yes, there's no question they should have been removed: a.) they were all posted by two anonymous sources, b). they referenced the exact same two sites (otrsite.com and freeotrshows.com) over 90 times each (both of which should be banned for spam link abuse), as did radiolovers.com (28 links), libsyn.com (23 links), and otrcat.com (18 links), c.) many of them simply opened a media player page without warning, and d.) they all promote a commercial endeavor (mostly 'OTR' .mp3 sales or membership to their sites). . . . Oh, and e.) all 200+ of them were somehow overlooked by the person or persons who removed my 14 links from this article, the Broadcasting Network articles, and six of those same Radio Program articles. And if your 'point' in pointing out WP:POINT is to cast yet another aspersion at my motives, you'd do well to re-read WP:POINT yourself. Your 'point' was neither illustrated, supported, nor made. Dnyhagen 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. As I said, your help in cleaning up the links is welcome. Please don't take my reference to WP:POINT as an insult. You were critical of my motives (to put it mildy) for merely saying that the article should not link to one site. So I hope you can see why I was honestly surprised when you removed a large number of links without any explanation that I could see. Wmahan. 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "listen to" links, there seems no real justification for these. Wiki is not a directory and these can easily be found on the internet. I will review the other links tomorrow I hope. Thanks --Nigel (Talk) 19:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree totally. Quality, on topic, representative recordings of the many Radio Program articles within Wikipedia are precisely relevant and clearly enhance any reader's experience of a Radio Program article.  Moreso if, as they rightly should be, they are presented on a non-commercial site, or page(s), which have even more expansive material to support the article--especially where that content is copyright protected and couldn't be presented within Wikipedia itself.  There are at least 12 such sites I can recommend that are purely history sites, present on topic information to accompany the representative recording(s), and have not one banner ad, commercial link, or spam-related item on their pages.  This is Golden Age Radio we're talking about in these articles.  It's not 'readily available' in a quality, non-commercial format, and what better way to illustrate Radio from 50 to 80 years ago, than through a representative recording.  That's one of the great benefits of Wikipedia's Internet-based format.  And the best argument for placing them as a Listen To link is the most self-evident--the reader doesn't have to click on it.  Help me understand the difficulty in not clicking on an otherwise highly valuable link.Dnyhagen 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Yes, Wikipedia is not a directory. However, linking to a few non-commercial sites where you can listen to shows seems entirely justifiable. The audio itself is the best source of what Old Time Radio was like. It cannot be included directly in the text article (it's audible information), so why not link to listenable sources? Links to audio are completely relevant, and not simply "a directory." OldRadio 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur (see above), since what could possibly be more relevant to an article about a specific radio program than listening to a representative example. I'm hard pressed to imagine a more suitable, appropriate illustration of what they've been missing if they haven't heard Golden Age Radio before.  Dnyhagen 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Two things, first is that you can upload the sound to wikipedia, thus avoiding the commercial links. Second is that why is User:OldRadio's first and only comment to this talk page.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You cite two things. 1.) That the sound can simply be uploaded to Wikipedia.  Sound files are large, if presented as .mp3's, and .rm's or .ram's violate Wikipedia's privacy guidelines since RealMedia has been cited hundreds of times about attaching intrusive, illegal cookies to every .rm or .ram content file played.  Since storable files are large, why further burden Wikipedia with all that storage, when there are several more economic sources from which to draw upon (see above threads).   and 2.) See the previous discussion threads on this page, and resist questioning motives without valid support to the contrary.Dnyhagen 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eagle--You asked a couple of things. Sure, sound can be uploaded and perhaps some should, but I don't know about uploading thousands of shows. What do you think? You used the phrase "avoiding the commercial links." I was not taking sides in Dnyhagen's discussion. (In fact, I'd like to refute what he/she just said about RealMedia files.) I saw the complete removal of all 'listen to' links as a separate matter; note that my comment said "linking to a few non-commerical sites..." Your second sentence refers to this being my first comment and (I'm not sure) seems to question the comment on those grounds. That's a fine, "welcome to the world of Old Time Radio on Wikipedia!" :-) No offense taken, but if you're interested, here's my story of how I got here. Back on September 10 there was an edit (143.236...) that a friend of mine made, adding my website to the 'listen to' section, and she emailed me about it. I told her that it was OK, and I have enough bandwidth that it shouldn't be a problem. So that led me to start reading Old Time Radio stuff on Wikipedia. A couple of days later the link was removed by 64.126... and that was that. I didn't re-add it or anything, but when NigelR removed ALL of the 'listen to' links (remember the link to my website was already long gone so his edit didn't affect me), I thought that was unfortunate and registered with Wikipedia and posted my comment. Here I am! OldRadio 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * RealMedia's ongoing and infamous personal privacy abuses are well documented throughout the information security community. See also Steve Gibson.  RealNetworks and it's RealMedia is also the only one of the more popular recording transmission or streaming technologies to insist on a proprietary, commercial, self-serving methodology for disseminating it's recordings.  (Website operators ignorant of RealMedia's downside, and strapped for storage space, tend to employ RealMedia to save space or download time for dial-up subscribers). This is yet another argument against using them for Wikipedia.  I'm not alone in refusing to employ it on my own site, and continually recommend against it's use for recording Golden Age Radio material.  It's proprietary compression algorithms render Golden Age Radio recorded material incapable of further rehabilitation.Dnyhagen 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the place for a RealMedia discussion right now, but on your User_talk:Dnyhagen talk page I have made a couple of points regarding RealMedia. (Briefly, I think privacy issues were addressed over 5 years ago, and I think RM files can useful in limited contexts--certainly not as an archival medium allowing "further rehabilitation.") OldRadio 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On sum, I'd have to vote against "Listen To" links to external sites, in favor of uploading vetted recordings to Wikipedia and having Wikipedia deliver them. Dnyhagen 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Links Part 2
Partly for readability and partly in the hope that we can detach ourselves a little from some of the heat above I felt a new section would be useful - I do hope we can try for agreement on that at least.

I was about to comment on the links individually but you turn your back for a moment & another editor changes things! However there are some very good links here but -

seems to duplicate the program listings above to some degree

is interesting but very limited geographically

doesn't seem to be the standard that the others are

My main issue would be good though they are there really is duplication. Given the expertise present would it not be possible to look for a few that covered most things? Alternatively is there anything in dmoz that would be useful?

Inadequate time now but can we please look for a workable solution to this - thanks --Nigel (Talk) 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your constructive attempt to re-focus the discussion, but your reference to the DMOZ is most disconcerting, especially where it concerns Golden Age Radio versus 'Old Time Radio'. The DMOZ infrastructure regarding Golden Age Radio is comprised from top to bottom of commercial 'OTR' sales and promotion site operators, hence their neutrality is so far removed from reason as to be highly questionable.  As an example, I and several other Golden Age Radio proponents and enthusiasts have lobbied for over 4 years with the DMOZ to either permit the inclusion of Golden Age Radio History or even consider the term 'Golden Age Radio' as a separate category within the DMOZ, and to date, the powers that be at DMOZ steadfastly refuse to consider such an addition--as, by the way, does Alexa/Amazon, it's single most closely affiliated supporter.


 * As to consideration of J. David Goldin's exceptional site, I'd both highly recommend and support it's inclusion in this article. Though he may personally be a teensy bit obsessed by his individual contribution to preserving Golden Age Radio (a mantle he may very well have every right to, but I find it a continuing distraction), his RadioGoldindex site has always been--and remains--an invaluable site from which to begin one's research into a specific performer or programme.  If anything deserves consideration as a link from this article, it's Mr. Goldin's site.


 * As to The MWOTRC, though it may be based in the D.C. area, the vast majority of it's membership lives far from Metropolitan Washington D.C., not to mention that most of Golden Age Radio's most authoritative, experienced and knowledgable proponents are active, contributing members of The MWORTC. Be careful you don't let it's name prejudice you.  The MWOTRC has been responsible for much of the research, preservation, and promotion of Golden Age Radio as we know it today.  At the same time, there are pages similar to The Digital Deli Online's on the internet, which list the various non-commericial Golden Age Radio preservation societies both here in the U.S. and throughout the world--all on one link.


 * As regards Jeff Miller's highly informative site, this is one of those cases where you have to either read the site fully, in depth, or simply overlook the rather humble format in which Mr. Miller is forced to present a truly significant collection of pertinent, well-researched Golden Age Radio History topics. I'd agree that it may not rise to the higher visual standards of some of the other Radio History sites on the internet, but I'd vote for it's inclusion, irrespective of it's humble appearance.


 * I also feel compelled to add that I have no affiliation whatsoever--personal or professional--with the above three referenced sites, but I have indeed found them highly informative and useful over the years.Dnyhagen 21:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Open Directory Project, saying "their neutrality is so far removed from reason as to be laughable" is a pretty strong claim. Do you have any evidence?


 * I noticed on your site that you ask for money in exchange for FTP access, CDs, etc. Are you a registered non-profit organization? Do you have evidence that the site is not commercial? Wmahan. 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the DMOZ's steadfast refusal to consider Golden Age Radio as a separate category is just as strong and unsupportable. If this discussion is to devolve into a lengthy cut and paste exercise from four years of email 'evidence' I'll need some Wikipedia guidelines on what to provide, and in what format.  But I sincerely doubt this is the forum for such a debate.  The issue of bringing the DMOZ into Wikipedia was suggested and responded to.  It's for others to either make their case for bringing the DMOZ into Wikipedia links or not.  That's the 'consensus' part.  Right?


 * I, along with hundreds of other non-commercial, donation-supported sites (Wikipedia, for example), simply request donations for continuing maintenance and presence of the site and it's archives on the internet. The site expands or contracts solely based on that level of support--or lack thereof.  The site does not sell Golden Age Radio CD's as you obviously know, from reading our affiliated FTP operation page.  If what you're referring to are my own, copyright CD-label collection, I suspect you know all too well that I used to post all of them on the site at their highest resolution, only to find them plagiarized by various Yahoo-related 'OTR' groups, and eBay CD vendors.  I issued the appropriate 'cease and desist' warnings and they were pulled, to the best of my knowledge, after which I then resorted to the CD-dstribution method I currently employ.   As is too often the case, a minority of the greedier and more abusive among the Golden Age Radio community ruined yet another useful resource for the rest.  The fact that they are copyright works are, and remain, my personal province as to how to either distribute them, or fund the production of even more of them.  The fact that I even make them available at absolutely no profit whatsoever, isn't germane to this discussion.  The last CD label collection I sent out, cost three times the requested donation cost just to mail to another country.  Your insinuations are ludicrous.  When you're prepared to furnish me with all of your legal documents, affiliations, and tax records, I'd be pleased to produce whatever 'evidence' you feel would satisfy your inquiry.  Since you clearly didn't bother with the other 1,187 of the site's on topic pages devoted exclusively, and non-commercially to Golden Age Radio History your observation would seem to be clearly provocative.  Just how far do you wish these attacks, motive questioning and incivility to deteriorate to?  Leave 'Swift-boating' to the experts in Washington.  This is not the place for it.  Dnyhagen 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking for verification for your statement that your site is noncommercial is not an attack.


 * I never asked to see your records. I asked for any evidence that you might provide--such as a simple link to a page about your organization. You didn't answer my question about whether you are a non-profit. I asked because in my experience it's rare for a non-profit to to have a .com rather than a .org domain (I admit that a domain name does not prove anything, which is why I asked for clarification). I believe you when you say your site is noncommercial, but I think it's always good to have verification when possible.


 * I have no desire to denigrate you or your site. You want Wikipedia to link to your site, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some evidence for your claims about it.


 * Likewise with the Open Directory claim--I'm not asking for four years of email discussions. But I hope you can see that it's difficult for me to accept that the we should discard that resource as extremely biased, based only on the fact that you say so. Wmahan. 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll limit this response to only a few more lines, since your clearly and intentionally provocative insinuations can't go unanswered, but I'll be economical with my response. Here's a link to my 'organization'--Digital Deli Online.  Now send me links to yours.  As to your other response, do a Whois look up on 'goldenageofradio.org'.  And I quite frankly don't see any reason why I even need to establish my bonafides to you or any other individual on Wikipedia.  If that's a prerequisite, I must have missed that in all of the 'free and open' pronouncements about Wikipedia.  I was directed by another editor to come to this 'discussion' page to obtain 'consensus' on what or what not to place on an article under consideration.  If others, like myself, have found the DMOZ intransigent in considering Golden Age Radio as a category, they're welcome to chime in. Likewise if they've had nothing but the most helpful relationship with the DMOZ Old Time Radio Group, they, as well, are more than welcome to chime in.    If others have found issue with the three pages that NigelR questions, let them chime in as well.  If someone else has something to posit regarding RealMedia or 'Listen To' links, let them make their case as well.   This should end this thread of the issue under attack (oops, 'discussion'), but you'll forgive my overwhelming sense that it won't.  Dnyhagen 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Placement of external links
I've moved the external links within the article to the "External links" section. As 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)

Copyright problems with the links
By Copyrights we have a slight problem.
 * you have recordings of a radio brodcast on your site. Do you hold the copyright to that? Otherwise, your site can't be linked to. Now if some of your stuff is not copyrighted, we can just upload it to our servers... we have space. If it is copyrighted, and you don't own the copyright we shouldn't link to it, period. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no 'slight problem' of any kind. The Digital Deli Online does not either broadcast, or promote radio recordings that aren't believed, to the best of our due diligence, to be in the public domain.  I'd like to think we're not alone in this regard.  Indeed we have prominently posted a long-standing notice to any and all potential copyright renewers or claimants to address even suspected copyright issues to us for immediate deletion from our broadcast archives.  In 5 years of operation we've only had to respond to one such request, and we complied within hours, to the complete satisfaction of the claimant.  In such situations we don't even demand proof of copyright.  We simply assume that the claimant is acting in good faith.  Derivative works are another issue, but your point is a good point, and a clearly a valid point for this forum.  Dnyhagen 03:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if the material is in the public domain, then we can just upload the sounds to wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued by your assertion about linking to copyrighted works, though, since virtually every responsible website on the internet is well advised to copyright their websites--and almost all that I'm aware of certainly do. Given your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, there wouldn't be any links at all from Wikipedia's articles.  Is that truly Wikipedia's position? Dnyhagen 03:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We can link to the holder of the copyright, but not to someone who is publishing material in violation of someone else's copyright. "To the best of our knowledge" is not good enough, pretty much anything broadcast on air recently enough for a recording to exist is copyright, you'd need to prove it wasn't rather than not prove it is, if you see what I mean.  Guy 12:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Prior to 1964, copyrights had to be renewed in their 28th year or the work would fall into the public domain. The radio broadcasts the article refers to are all prior to 1964 and huge numbers of them never got renewed. "Television is the new big thing" during many of these copyrights' 28th year--radio drama was pretty much dead. Of course, one has to be careful because underlying works could have had their copyrights renewed (scripts, music, etc) while the broadcast show wasn't renewed. To prove something is in the public domain for these shows is normally trying to prove a negative (the copyright was never renewed) which means sometimes "to the best of our knowledge" has to suffice--you've done the work and it looks like it is public domain (you can find no renewal under the scriptwriter's names, creator's name, production company, etc). This is a reasonable position and seems to be in line with Copyrights where it says "If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request the page be immediately removed from Wikipedia;" [discussion of how to have it removed snipped. continuing on...] "Either way, we will, of course, need some evidence to support your claim of ownership." This policy is putting some of the burden on the copyright holder. I'm guessing that nobody here wants to violate anyone's copyright. The question still remains, how much audio should be uploaded to Wikipedia? Some seems reasonable, but Wikipedia is not a jukebox either. OldRadio 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If "to the best of due diligence" is good enough for The Library of Congress, I'm wondering why it's not a good enough standard for Wikipedia. The key to the most recent round of copyright roll-back legislation was a huge issue for The Library of Congress, who refers questions of copyright interpretation to The Copyright Office.  The provision most pertinent to either The Library of Congress, Wikipedia, or for that matter, any Golden Age Radio History site is "Notice of Restored Copyright", primarily the 'reliance parties' provision, which states:  "A reliance party is a person or business who has depended on the public domain status of the work in utilizing the work in a way that would, after restoration, be considered copyright infringement. A key to reliance party status is the requirement that the person or business must have engaged in what would have been infringing conduct both prior to and after the restoration date. Cessation of the activity for any appreciable period of time will deprive one of reliance party status. Also, before restoration, the person or business must have made or acquired one or more copies or phonorecords of the work that was restored.   Once a work is restored, a person or business who is a reliance party may continue to exploit the work without liability until the restored copyright owner either serves actual notice on the reliance party or until the Copyright Office published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to restore copyright. Once either of these occurs, the reliance party has one year to sell off stock. The reliance party may not make further copies or phonorecords of the work."  (Note that 'phonorecords' is a direct reference to LP's, '45's', and transcription discs).  In either instance, good faith, due diligence, and prompt response to service of notice of copyright are the simple, long standing standards.  Wikipedia's 'fair use' of such examples of Golden Age Radio recordings would clearly fall under the standard, in all but the most aggressive or narrowly interpreted copyright assertions.  Renewal notices for all of The Library of Congress's holdings are publicly available via TelNet.  The Digital Deli Online has posted and adhered to The Library of Congress standard since it's inception five years ago. Dnyhagen 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, then if it is not copyright, we can just upload the content to wikipedia. After all it is in the public domain right? Plus with the sound on wikipedia, the readers only have to click once rather then twice. As to how much sound is uploaded, as much as needed to show the reader what he should know. Beyond that, the reader can search google or any other search engine (yahoo, msn, ask.com ect. ect.) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Eagle, I will prep a few representative samples in Vorbis (OGG container). Do y'all think a couple of minutes from a show or complete shows should be used?
 * Go right ahead, please use what you feel is needed. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Eagle. I will try to do so this week. Vorbis encoding is a little new to me, but I'm sure I'll figure out some appropriate settings and representative shows. My first couple of encodings have surprised me with the quality Vorbis is able to maintain. Hydrogenaudio has been a good resource for info. OldRadio 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI to others. Looks like early next week before I'll get around to adding these here. I have encoded 12 complete, clean sounding shows and have started writing some text for a few of them. Others will just be added without much comment. OldRadio 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking Policy
I still think there is value in linking to external, non-commercial sources of where to listen. Can we get a consensus opinion on this? Am I alone in thinking this?

Full disclosure: I am not completely neutral since I do run such a non-commerical website (no ads, no donation requests, no registration required--I get nada--my name currently isn't even mentioned on the site, although the WHOIS for the domain correctly identifies me so I'm not "hiding" or anything). However, I do like to think that I am thinking about this pretty objectively and to me there clearly is value in such links, especially since I can be somewhat difficult for average folks to find such non-commercial sources via Google. This type of linking has precedent on Wikipedia. If I go to the article on William Shakespeare you can bet I'll find links to the complete works of Shakespeare, and if I click on one of his plays (Julius Caesar (play) is the most familiar one to me), the external links will take you six sources of where you can read the play as well as one study guide. Six copies of the same play seems excessive to me, but it would be a shame if there wasn't any link where you could actually read the play.

I'd appreciate other opinions. If my position has no supporters, I'll shut up about it. :-) OldRadio 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Julius Caesar page is a good example. And since that's probably a page accessed often by high school and college students, I just added a "Listen to" link to the Mercury Theater rehearsal of September 11, 1938, to increase the value of the links on the Julius Caesar page. A student who listens to that production can compare it with several texts and see how editors make changes and deletions. (I was once fascinated by the way Calder Willingham wrote END AS A MAN with major changes between novel, play and film.) Obviously, a lot of students are using Wikipedia (as evidenced by the strange things that turn up on pages relevant to high school reading assignments), and thus "Listen to" has a genuine value in giving young people an overview of life in the 1930s and 1940s. But that's only one reason why "Listen to" has evolved into an extremely important feature on Wikipedia. Pepso 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - you will find that there are less links on Julius Caesar than there were. I will look at the remaining ones later.  We can't remove them until we spot them but if you look at my edit record I spend far too much time doing that - rant over.


 * Personally the disclosure works for me quite well. I am not against external links - I am against anything commercial (& people trying to use Wiki to advertise in anyway), excessive links and irrelevant ones. I have attempted to return the discussion to the actual links above.  However your friend (from the talk pages you would appear to be in contact with each other, apologies if I am wrong) seems determined to derail any attempts to solve the problem constructively.  Unless a solution can be found quite sound I shall consider resorting to peer review via the AfD process (Article for Deletion) but for this page that would seem quite extreme - however a number of editors could have done far more constructive things with their time.


 * As you yourself have pointed away from here do you have suggestions for this article? Thanks & regards --Nigel  (Talk) 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a bit disengenuous of you, NigelR. I clearly responded to your link question immediately following the point at which you raised the three citations you addressed in Part 2..  You need but scroll up to see them.  "Asked and Answered".  To recap, a strong yes to both J. David Goldin and MWOTRC, and a less firm yes, to Jeff Miller's site.  If you call the very first response to your re-focus of the links you raised, derailing, it would be helpful to know how you construe that.  I'll take whatever lambbasting Wikipedia dishes out, but I won't sit still for rewriting history. Dnyhagen 09:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks NigelR. No, Dnyhagen and I are not friends. My arguments do not relate to his page specifically. I have only met him in the past couple of days via this talk page, and although I do think he is doing good work getting originals and preserving OTR, I have not taken a position as to whether or not his website should be included in this article as a link. (I point that out on his talk page as well). He and I have both argued in favor of listen to links in general and I have given him supportive comments of his work on his talk page (and got his email address) so that is where the appearance may come from. OldRadio 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me rush to OldRadio's defense, lest he be contaminated by the stink ascribed to either The Digital Deli Online, or Dnyhagen. The only conversations we've enjoyed have been regarding the application of RealMedia files on our respective sites.  OldRadio has no affiliation with either The Digital Deli Onine or Dnyhagen apart from mutual respect for each other's efforts.  Please don't construe from simple constructive dialogues that we've enjoyed, that OldRadio possesses any of the ulterior motives and heinous ambitions of Dnyhagen. :-)  Dnyhagen 02:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Has there been any discussion of the "Listen to" sections mentioned above? I was a little surprised to see them, because as far as I'm aware external links are normally placed in a section called "External links", and telling the reader to "listen to" something seems more prescriptive than most stylistic conventions on Wikipedia. Wmahan. 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Listen to" is no different in tone than "See also." Pepso 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but "see also" is a standard phrase in reference works such as encyclopedias, while I'm not aware that "listen to" is similarly established. I think it might be a good idea to discuss the issue somewhere and reach a consensus before adding those sections to many articles. Wmahan. 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, regarding linking, here's a proposal: those intersted in this, please weigh in on including www.otr.net as a link. Disclosure: this site is a site I work on. It's biggest negative (that I'm aware of) is that it requires the proprietary RealPlayer (which Dnyhagen does not like, but is free). The site is as non-commercial as they come and offers a reasonably large selection of shows. If it is not added, it won't break my heart, but it is the largest completely non-commercial listening archive I am aware of. OldRadio 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you plan on adding ads to the site? If not, how is it supported? Wmahan. 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no ads are planned. The server and bandwidth are paid for privately. Like Wikipedia, otr.net tries to offer what is can as a public service. It's a way of giving back to the OTR community. Of course, donations would not be rejected if you felt like sending some cash. Ha! :-) OldRadio 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Speaking only for myself, I tend to look much more favorably on such "public-service" sites, since there's much less of a concern about someone trying to make money by spamming Wikipedia. I would not oppose the link. Wmahan. 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur as well. The shows are presented neatly and accessibly, and present no gratuitous banner ads, spam or self-serving links.  I'd repeat my concern over the practice of links that immediately open a media player without warning, as some of the 'Listen To' links I've noticed tend to do.  The reader should be forewarned if a click will automatically open a media player from his or her system.  The reader should have the choice of opening a media player session or not, or of clicking through to the recording's page, or not.  Frankly it would seem more practical--and verifiable--to link to a page that the reader can decide--or not--he or she wishes to trust.  All of us are mindful of the increasing number of media player exploits for deploying spyware, rootkits, and other such troublesome, intrusive attacks or tracking, keylogging and phone home techniques. Dnyhagen 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As to 'Listen To' sections themselves, I haven't been working with Wikipedia long enough to know if this is a 'standard' section or not. All I know is when I first started navigating Golden Age Radio articles on Wikipedia, almost every page had one or more. Dnyhagen 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dnyhagen: were these the same articles that you removed the links from? Perhaps this "listen to" procedure was begun by those who initially were looking for a way to spam WP? What do you think, based on your experiences thus far? --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, wow, I don't even want to go there. And yes many of them were, but just as many were disguised as external links as well.  Full disclosure again: When I first reviewed all of the Golden Age Radio articles and their associated program articles, I got the distinct impression such links (the 'Listen To' links) were the norm, invited, and welcomed--given the sheer number of them.  Given the storm that later ensued, it's appears that they were either a recent phenomenon or had slipped through the editors' radar for some time.  I naievely posted a few of my own, as you know all too well, and that's when the proverbial crap hit the fan. :-)  But yes, based on my experiences to date on Wikipedia, it now seems clear to all of us what 'Listen To' spam is or is not now.  I hold to my first observations that what could possibly be more appropriate to any illustration of Golden Age Radio than a 'Listen To' opportunity for the reader, irrespective of how it's structured within Wikipedia, but I sense some additional policing would inevitably ensue for a few weeks until things settled in.  But given it's inestimable value to the reader of any particular Program Article or Golden Age Radio topic it would seem almost a disservice to the reader not to at least offer the opportunity to actually hear well-vetted examples.  I've been doing the same thing on my own site for years.  And it clearly seems to have been well received.  I dare not even begin to propose my own site for such links now, but I see an immeasurable benefit to a 'living encyclopedia' to present such a feature.  I frankly don't care how or where someone gets their first chance to listen to Golden Age Radio recordings.  But I'm very passionate about at least affording them the opportunity, while they're still available in any case--especially the more obscure, clearly public domain, and well encoded ones. Dnyhagen 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like to me the best idea is to simply upload the sounds to wikipedia. For public domian recordings we don't need an external link. I don't see any need to link outside of wikipedia for stuff that we can simply upload. We do have to recognize that any external links we add will be a traffic generator to whichever external site is chosen. This is why I would be happier with the sources simply uploaded to wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Any others interested in weighing in on a link to otr.net? Right now, Wmahan and Dnyhagen have expressed support for a link. Eagle (an experienced admin) prefers uploads to Wikipedia. (Side note: I will come up with some good uploads--see above--but large-scale uploading seems a bit crazy to me :-). With only three opinions, there isn't a dominant one yet and I'll leave my "vote" out for obvious reasons. OldRadio 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that there should definately not be individual links to seperate sound files on external sites, however if you can find an approriate context for the link to otr.net in the article, or write one, avoiding ad speak and making sure that you keep within the article scope. Don't add the link if what it offers can be achieved without adding it - so if you want audio links from it, which you'll use in the article, upload them (if the copyright is OK).  If you're linking to the site because it contains clips for people to listen to, I don't feel that it's appropriate to link it.  It's clear, from what I can see, that the site doesn't have information relevant to the article, so I don't honestly feel that it can be included without being considered linkspam (though it would be a great improvement on the long list of links we had before).  In summary, if you can write it into the arcticle in an NPOV and relevant way, include.  If not, don't, as it'll probably be removed.   M  a  rtinp23  21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Martinp23--thanks for the opinion. Right, no one was proposing linking to individual external sound files. Regarding the "no information" comment--I believe the audio on the site is the information and is relevant. (It is primary source material.) However, I sense you wouldn't find an argument along those lines pursuasive, so I'll add you to the 'opposed' column. :-) Updated tally: 2 in favor of link, 2 opposed (including an admin). OldRadio 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that "the audio on the site is the information," and any links from individual radio pages to the OTR Net Library can only enhance the value of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it also has obvious parallels with the way libraries kept pace with technology and were not just bound to the printed page. Libraries circulated 16mm films and LP records. After they next added audio cassettes, they then loaned out videotapes and eventually followed with DVDs. But as Nicholson Baker pointed out in his book, Double Fold, the librarians sabotaged their own collections when they were deluded by the false promise of microfilm and began destroying books and bound volumes of newspapers, denying users access to the original materials. Pepso 07:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if you'd pick up on that :P - I was thinking more along the lines of information as text for someone to read, but I'm sure you knwo what I mean :)  M  a  rtinp23  21:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reactions
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 - 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 --  M  a  rtinp23  19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are vested interests at work here. I strongly suggest that the warring parties refrain from removing each others links. I also suggest that both sides stop the flame-warring. Selectively removing links to individual sites without reviewing all the links in an article and pruning evident cruft can, especially if done by an editor with a vested interest, be taken as disruption and lead to blocking. Guy 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Links again
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)

External Link contorvsery
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Request for sources
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Return of links
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)
 * 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)
 * Links are back as per links discussion page --Nigel (Talk) 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
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)
 * Please! --Nigel (Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen to that! Dnyhagen 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

WikiProject OldTimeRadio
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)


 * There seems to be a generic radio wikiproject proposal already in place. Please add your support on WikiProject Council/Proposals or on the temporary project page at User:Badbilltucker/WikiProject Radio. --PhantomS 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A new radio WikiProject has been created. Please go to WikiProject_Radio and add your name to the participant list if you are interested in helping. --PhantomS 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Proportions
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)

Adding external link

 * 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)

Commercials vs. sustainers, other work needed
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)