Talk:Golden Age of Radio/Links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Current links[edit]

The discussion[edit]

And while I do realise there is a dissenting view I would like to look at the possibilities of dmoz. This seems possible dmoz Old-Time radio. I haven't checked out any duplication as I've had time out problems today.

These were my previously stated views and remain the same [1] seems to duplicate the program listings above to some degree

[2] is interesting but very limited geographically

My main issue would be good though they are there really is duplication. --Nigel (Talk) 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where to begin? Don't be misled by the name of The Metropolitan Washington OTR Club. It is far from being "limited geographically," since their Radio Recall provides specific in-depth coverage of vintage radio shows not available elsewhere in some of their articles. The RadioGOLDINdex is actually a coverage of the individual shows in David Goldin's own collection. It spans much material, but it is not a hyperlinked database. Pepso 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Throw in the fact that MWOTR charges membership tho and maybe it comes out. I have no problem with Radiogold - merely that there is real duplication at present. What I will get around to (tho it maybe tomorrow) is to check the dmoz listings against the sites here. Either way thanks for joining in Pepso! --Nigel (Talk) 12:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
PS kinda - in practice I think tidying up the Listings (for readability - it is a long list at present) - maybe throw in a Listen to or two and we would be getting somewhere --Nigel (Talk) 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Membership is not required to read those important Radio Recall articles. Pepso 14:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
These issues were pointed out to NigelR twice, with no response from him. But I'd reiterate the above from Pepso. Contrary to NigelR's contention, the MWOTRC is not, I repeat not, geographically limited in any way. The MWOTRC is comprised of some of the most influential, experienced, knowledgeable proponents of Golden Age Radio in the world--and all in one organization. The MWOTRC charges membership for obvious reasons, as does any self-supporting organization of such scope. It's absurd to think that they wouldn't. Another similar organization based out of the west coast carries much the same weight throughout the Golden Age Radio community. The California Historical Radio Society doesn't produce quite the prodigious output of articles as the MWOTRC, and I don't propose them as a link for just that reason, but to show, by contrast, the MWOTRC's exceptional contributions to The Golden Age Radio community. Any serious assemblage of helpful resource links to Golden Age Radio/Old Time Radio, must and should include at least links of the MWOTRC's caliber. Dnyhagen 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dave Goldin's RadioGoldIndex, is arguably the single most referenced radio program database in the world. It's not hyperlinked for obvious reasons. Mr. Goldin's proprietary--and breathtakingly prodigious--database has been the subject of repeated, non-attributed reference, link backs, and outright plagiarism. It would be pure folly for him to make it any more accessible than it already is. But as a reference work, it has no equal on the internet. None. By notability alone it merits it's own Wikipedia entry. This was also pointed out to NigelR twice without further comment. The non-inclusion of The RadioGoldIndex in any Golden Age Radio or Old Time Radio article would only serve to diminish it's usefulness and would be a disservice to any encyclopedic article about either subject. The RadioGoldIndex's own encyclopedic nature makes it a natural expansion of any encyclopedic reference to either subject. I'd go as far as to suggest that Mr. Goldin's encyclopedic collection of radio programs and radio performers of note, might be the best replacement for the huge, long, spam link prone list of Radio Programs currently listed in the article.Dnyhagen 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't my repeat other previous comments regarding dmoz's usefulness as a serious collection of reference links, but any close study of dmoz's reference links will show it's obvious slant toward commercial 'OTR' sites, and quasi- and self-serving or promoting reference sources. You may as well use Yahoo's OTR links. They're of the same caliber. Dnyhagen 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see any usefulness whatsoever in the Conrad Binyon link. None. I can't imagine how it even ended up here. Dnyhagen 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Elizabeth McLeod is one of the most authoritative experts in Golden Age Radio I've yet to read, and I'm sure my views are supported by any serious student of Golden Age Radio, or Golden Age Radio enthusiast. Dnyhagen 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Radiogold index comment actually referred to the listing provided above the entry on the article's page. Trim that and the site looks very good and relevant. Spending a (wet) day reviewing sites I fail to see the dmoz bias to commercial sites --Nigel (Talk) 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And the Conrad one I have no problem agreeing with you on! --Nigel (Talk) 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you chose the wrong link to use for dmoz, since the list of only the first page of links shows a preponderance of links to sites that are either commercial, a simple assemblage of radio episodes, self-promoting, or of little noteworthy value as a reference to Golden Age Radio. Dnyhagen 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Norman Corwin is already the subject of a Wikipedia Article. Why isn't a reference to him already present in the 'See Also' section? Dnyhagen 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Museum of Television & Radio also has it's own Wikipedia Artcle and should be a 'See Also' entry. Dnyhagen 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
to both of these - maybe cos you've only just mentioned it - you are knowledgeable on this subject - I am not (& BTW I am in a different timezone to you!). Feel free to put them in - thanks --Nigel (Talk) 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Norman Corwin is linked in the tenth paragraph of the Old-time radio article, and this link has been there for at least two years. The MT&R is also described in the article, a paragraph and link I added March 28. Pepso 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks - looked at "see also" only --Nigel (Talk) 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the Norman Corwin article is devoid of commercial self-promotion. The proposed external link is not. Dnyhagen 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Professor Steven Schoenherr's History of Radio is an obviously useful Radio History reference. I can't imagine any useful argument to the contrary. Dnyhagen 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thomas H. White's "United States Early Radio History" is arguably the most thorough, all-encompassing internet-accessible treatise on the History of Early Radio I've ever seen on the internet. If anyone can show me how it lacks merit on any serious Golden Age Radio or Old Time Radio page, I'd be most interested to see their arguments against it's inclusion. Dnyhagen 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The University of Maryland Library of American Broadcasting--and it's component library of Public Broadcasting--is yet another fine collection of authoritative articles on The Golden Age Radio era. I can't imagine any objection to its inclusion, and if added, I'd also add at least three other such University sources. Dnyhagen 17:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And of course that wish to put in that number of other external links is why we are looking at this - dmoz would still be a way of covering "many extra sites" that will otherwise be proposed --Nigel (Talk) 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see any usefullness in the inclusion of the Vince Long timeline. I, and other's have similar timelines that are far more accurate, more complete, more interesting, and more useful. And to Vince Long, whomever you are, my apologies in advance, but I hope I'm forgiven for never having heard about either you, or your bonafides as a radio historian, in the 12 years that I've studied the subject. If we're going to include a usefull, authoritative timeline, I'd respectfully suggest we utilize something as authoritative as Thomas H. White's, Professor Steven Schoenherr's, or Elizabeth McLeod's. At the very least there wouldn't be any suggestion of self-promotion. Dnyhagen 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey - and assure you this is said with a smile - keeping up with you takes some doing & food is about to call in this neck of the woods! Get back to you --Nigel (Talk) 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Going to look at this heading tomorrow - maybe split it a bit --Nigel (Talk) 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would put a mention on this link discussion page that with Pepso's vote the tally for the link came to three in favor, two against. Not many opinions, but it certainly is not a consensus, so my proposal to include this external link has failed and this link should not be added. Arguments opposing this link are applicable to 'listen to' type of links in general, while supporters of the link were in favor of 'listen to' links provided those links went to non-commercial sites. Maybe in the future a consensus will form for 'listen to' links (and maybe not!), but it doesn't seem to be there right now. OldRadio 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As has all too unfortunately been demonstrated, "Listen To"'s were abused for at least 5 months, judging from the histories of the targeted articles--as were external links; to the point of outright wire-fraud in at least 8 instances that I noted. I had hoped the notion of simply uploading candidate examples would have received a bit more support, as it seems to be the most constructive compromise. Given that Wikipedia would be selecting, vetting, and delivering them, they'd provide the perfect postscript to the reading of any Wikipedia article regarding Golden Age Radio recordings or programs. I would hope there's still some steam behind that suggestion as it would seem to immediately diffuse all other potential controversies about rich media links. Dnyhagen 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

External directories[edit]

Could we shift discussion on dmoz/msn/google to this heading for readabilty? --Nigel (Talk) 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this particular thread certainly merits it's own discussion. Dnyhagen 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to propose dmoz, you may as well propose Yahoo or MSN. Indeed, Google is the only true assemblage of categorized links of any validity, since Alexa/dmoz's, Yahoo's, AOL's, and until only recently, MSN's are all merely derivative--and self-evidently cherry picked and commercially motivated by design--of Google's crawls of the 9 Billion worldwide websites. Microsoft/MSN mistakenly believe that their new, and inferior, crawls are more useful than Google's, but I'd challenge anyone to conclude that their technology is more effective in it's current form. I'd be far more inclined to see more authoritative Golden Age Radio experts or enthusiasts wade (weigh?) in on this one. The dmoz's is merely a very very small subset of the available Golden Age Radio reference sites throughout the world, and, as such, is inferior in that aspect alone. I mean no disrepect in pointing out your apparent lack of experience with Golden Age Radio, but I'd respectfully point out to you that I and others have lobbied for years with the dmoz, to create a separate category for Golden Age Radio History, which would quite naturally create an assemblage of truly valuable, serious, and useful Golden Age Radio History sources in one place. I regret that the inertia at the dmoz continues to create it's own lack of serious value with it's collection of links, but I, and others, have been ineffective thusfar in persuading them otherwise. Here's two current Google crawls of "Golden Age Radio History" and "Golden Age Radio" History. I'd respectfully suggest that, if you ignore my own several allegedly self-serving results in those lists, you'll note the caliber of Golden Age Radio history links I'd consider valuable to any serious student of Early Radio History. Dnyhagen 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dnh - see your talk page! Time out for now, I'll catch up with the wide variety of contributors tomorrow! Best --Nigel (Talk) 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I find these two google crawls examples mentioned highly unusual when talking about significant old time radio links ("Golden Age Radio History" & "Golden Age Radio" History.). These two search terms are choice for Dnyhagen's commercial interest, Digital Deli (whose website has optimized on these keywords and is currently within the top ranking google list on these particular searches). I would suggest that Wikipedia editors outside of the commercial OTR community (without the heavy influence of Dnyhagen who has a very much invested commercial interest in the development of this policy) be solely responsible for developing the external link policy. Wikiotr 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect to the respondent, whomever he may be, I specfically took great pains to avoid that response via my disclaimer, which the respondent apparently overlooked. The topic of discussion for the most part, in this particular thread is Golden Age Radio 'HISTORY' links. I won't belabor the argument, nor will I reiterate the above disclaimer. The respondent's history of arguments belies the usefulness of his comments. If The Digital Deli Online is, as the respondent alleges, 'optimized' for Golden Age Radio responses, perhaps he can explain why Alexa continually ranks the site in the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites in the world? The response isn't on topic. The Digital Deli Online has no more commercial interests than the MWOTRC organization under discussion. Let's continue an intellectually honest discussion of the relative merits of the links, and attempt to avoid all further unfounded, unhelpful, and specious off-topic mud-slinging. Dnyhagen 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The differences between "Golden Age Radio" and "Old Time Radio" is merely a transposable linguistic one and not worth any futher debate. I would repeat my response: Digital Deli is a commercial old time radio site and because of its commercial self-interest, its webmaster, Dnyhagen, should respectfully avoid any involvement in approving or managing any such external links or external link policy on Wikipedia. Wikiotr 20:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The vast chasm between "Golden Age Radio" and "Old Time Radio" will never, ever be bridged. The deteriorating dialogue on the Old Time Radio discussion page only proves that. If WikiOTR were to fully disclose his own self-interests it might provide a bit more helpful reading of his completely unhelpful comments. But all further continued attempts will fall on deaf ears. This whole Old Time Radio area of Wikipedia is intellectually bankrupt. It's time to move on to an area with a bit more integrity. This area of Wikipedia has become irrevocably co-opted and unconstructive. Just as--with a rare few exceptions--virtually everything the words 'Old Time Radio' or the initials 'OTR' tarnish by their imprimatur lately. I leave you to run the asylum with your fellow inmates, WikiOTR. Dnyhagen 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A very dramatic exit! Actually the Wikipedia OTR section is strangely silent as somebody has deleted all the "Listen to" links. Dnyhagen -- perhaps you can focus on filling the 'intellectual' 'chasm' of the articles and leave the external link policy (and removal and additions to external links) to 'insane' 'inmates' (editors) whom don't have a commercial interest in OTR.Wikiotr 05:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Tune in tomorrow! Pepso 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It is tomorrow! The next exciting episode will be along shortly, got some stuff to do then I'll be back! --Nigel (Talk) 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" so far[edit]

Frankly it has not been impressive - if this is the usual approach of Wiki editors in a discussion the sooner I'm away the better. We are not looking for back biting and negatives - we are looking for constructive solutions. I see little in the discussion so far that has focused on that.

It does seem that the Norman Corwin and the Museum of Television & Radio have proved their point in Wikipedia and I have put them into the links section. As they are relevant Wiki links not external ones there can be no controversy about them and it will give readers of the article some further information.

I am now increasingly intolerant of the attacks on Dnyhagen (& will take the same view of any by him). I was going to comment on the brand new editor's single contribution on the talk page but I see that this and the editor has been dealt with already. I will not hesitate to seek a block on any editor making personal attacks. I do not see eye to eye with Dnyhagen however the one thing I do know about him is that he has been open about his position - I have serious doubts about that in respect of some other editors involved in this topic.

The only way to tackle the "Listen to" links in my view is to follow the suggestion made by Eagle and upload media to Wiki.

Can we now have constructive discussion about the external links section. However,in the absence of really constructive discussion, I am minded to place the dmoz one in addtion to the two above and ask any Wiki editor to revert any further links that are placed in this article for a 3 month period to allow some cooling down. --Nigel (Talk) 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth McLeod[edit]

Leading authority:

to my mind that looks good thanks Pepso - no we just wait for other opinions! While I'm here do you have (strong) views on dmoz? Thanks --Nigel (Talk) 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, what is with the picture of a disk? Dose that site come with some text? I am sorry if I am missing something here. (I Know nothing about Old-time radio, I am just simply an admin hanging out) Oh, and if it is playing music, I am deaf, so just tell me it is and I will hush up.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Being dead picky (& sarky) if you click the disc.... - actually better might be [3]?? ;-) --Nigel (Talk) 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would pick one or two, of the links from midcoast, certainly not more then that to put on this article. I would really like to see some of the links and infomation given in the midcoast link incorporated into some citations. Other then that, I would try to limit the number of external links. Remember, the sound itself can just be uploaded to wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Links to infomation and sources for this article are by all means good, follow WP:CITE and WP:RS for that infomation. If you need help formatting citations let me know. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess my aim (in terms of external links not citation) was to look for just two more for now (allowing the nuclear dust to settle a bit). In that respect at least one that was a "link to links" seemed to have a real value - dmoz (allowing the arguments) being an alternative. There are now the two Wiki links which provide valid further information to the article (I hope people would agree?)
I was not planning on tackling citation - I do not have enough knowledge in this field. --Nigel (Talk) 10:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If you give me what you want to cite, I will do it for you. Citations beat the crap out of bare links any day. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got to remember I'm a stranger around here too - I know nothing much about the subject and I am really only here to deal with links. I had hoped that some of the experts would have assisted but since Dnyhagen became less active the majority of the others appear to have melted away! --Nigel (Talk) 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The links[edit]

Ok sufficient time has passed for opinions which seem to have largely dried up. In the next 24 hours I intend to put the "Elizabeth McLeod" link referred to above and the dmoz link (I know one disapproves but no one else does apparently) on the page and close this discussion. I intend adding a hidden message requesting that no further links are placed for now without discussion on the talk page. This page can then be considered closed & I shall "melt" away with the others --Nigel (Talk) 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)