User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2011/October

Welcome Back!

Just seen you pop up on my watchlist. Hadn't seen ya in awhile. Glad to have you back. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — good to be back. I'm not sure how often I'll be around, or how much I'll get done while I'm here, but I just had an itch to scratch and it turned into a couple of solid days worth of my usual clean-up work. Looks like the place hasn't fallen apart without me, though. ;>) Mlaffs (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I was missing for two months too and checked in and pages were a mess, so I had to fix them, hence my coming back. Perhaps the Wikipedia gods (Jimbo) made it so we could come back. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

KEAS

Dang it, I hadn't realized they'd slipped away. That station has been on the air since 1953 before falling silent in 2009 for equipment and financial reasons. They actually found a buyer and consummated the sale but I guess the new owners couldn't get back on the air within the one-year limit. This economy is shredding small town radio and we're poorer as a society for it. - Dravecky (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The rise of satellite radio, I'd have to assume, isn't helping either. You're right, though — all you're going to be left with soon is a dial full of K-Love, Air 1, and sports talk. If I'd realized there was that much history, I might not have nuked all the redlinks. Feels like there ought to be a decent article there, if someone had access to the right resources.

And hey, good seeing you again! Mlaffs (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't forget about talk radio. There is plenty of that around the dial. In my area, we have 9 different AM stations that carry the same talk show....I'll let you guess which one....and they are all within a 60 mile radius of my house. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dang, the FCC makes data mining for deleted stations far more difficult that they need to. Difficult, but not impossible. Sorry it took me so long to get KEAS (AM) started. Here's hoping 56 years of continuous broadcasting generated a few more news stories, too. - Dravecky (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

KCTU redirect

Your revert [1] makes little sense to me. Outside of Witchita the KCTU is an internationally-recognised trade union, the confederation has clear primacy of use among WP:RS. [2].--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that the trade union is referenced more in books, but that's only part of what constitues reliable sources. Also, KCTU is only a tertiary reference for the trade union, as it's the initialism of the English translation of the organization's name.

I've done a lot of work with disambiguation, particularly with regard to cleaning up incoming links that are ambiguous. In determining a primary topic, I think importance and usage are the two major factors to consider. I think it's a reasonable argument that, in the grand scheme of things, the trade union has greater importance. However, I think it's equally arguable that usage — in other words, what's a reader going to be looking for when they enter that search term — would favour the TV station. In looking at a sample of article traffic statistics over the last year+, the TV station page has been accessed more often, and multiple times more often in some months. That doesn't come as a surprise to me, as when I originally created the disambiguation page a couple of years ago, it was because there were a lot of incoming links to the trade union article that should correctly have been pointing to the TV station. I cleaned them all up to use the correct call sign, but there's an editor behavior at work there that I think is instructive.

Given all those factors, I don't think there's a clear answer as to whether or not there's truly a primary topic. In that case, I feel using a disambiguation page is a safer approach. Mlaffs (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the logic cuts both ways, traffic over a few months or years can go up or down. "Popularity contest" (usage) measures suffer from numerous issues in this case, not least problems of WP:BIAS (and I'd say the incoming links are primarily the result of that). I just don't agree that a marginal TV station in a marginal part of the USA can be treated as having equal importance to an organisation with international recognition and extensive WP:RS. Pardon the pun, but importance here is far more important than (present) usage.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, neutral party here. Goldsztajn, in this case, Mlaffs is right. When there are two or more groups with the same acronym or abbreviation, then a disambig page is created. It doesn't matter if one is "bigger" than the other, they have seperate pages, people who search "KCTU" see both. Fair is fair.

Side note, while I agree that KCTU-LD is marginal, I highly doubt that the people of Wichita, Kansas (population: 382,368; metro area: 630,721) would consider their city "marginal". Also, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions is not "an organisation with international recognition", as a Google News search finds only a few stories from Korean newspapers, though admittedly one from Bloomberg. Anything else is about a trade union is China, nor Korea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My neutrality is no different than yours. I read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as indicating that in cases like this consensus should be reached. To me, it's a simple result of WP:BIAS that a marginal TV station in the US currently has higher linkages on wikipedia than a trade union confederation which has played a major role in the development of Korean democracy. I would also be careful about using Google News as some kind of measure here; a JSTOR search is much more insightful, meaningful and, importantly, provides copious WP:RS indicating the organisation is internationally recognised and historically significant. BTW, apologies to user:Mlaffs, perhaps this should be continued on the discussion page of the redirect/disam page...--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bias. If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Kansas. The KCTU page is there because of the Disambig rules. If are two entities that go by the same abbreviation, then there is a disambig page made. Neither KCTU-LD nor the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions use just "KCTU" or are named just "KCTU". So, there are seperate pages for both and they are linked on the KCTU disambig page.

Also, I think you are giving the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions a little more credit that it is due. It isn't internation, just Asian known (hell, I didn't know about it and I doubt many Americans outside Wall Street would either). I would highly doubt it is historically significant since it is only run in South Korea. Might be significant to them, but not to the world. Now, that is not to say KCTU-LD is more significant than the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, but calling it "marginal" isn't the way to go. I would again bet that the people of Wichita wouldn't consider their city or the station to be "marginal" and would think more of the station than some trade group in South Korea.

There is nothing to say, at this point, that the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions or KCTU-LD is more significant than the other. Neither are that greatly know and neither are getting that many hits. Also, neither show up that much on Google (I am not even sure what jstor.org is). So, the disambig page at KCTU stands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here regarding WP:BIAS. Anyway, this should be continued here...thanks/apologies to Mlaffs for "hosting". --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Mlaffs/Archives/2011/October! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey