Talk:Rover's Morning Glory/Archives/2013

October 2008

There are all kinds of issues with this page. Several of the statements near the bottom of the page, regarding individual members of the show's staff, are clearly vandalism of this Wikiepdia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.207.138 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you. This page sucks and is in desperate need of a rewrite Jfiling (talk)

Any proof that Rover is #1 in Rochester? The station he's on isn't doing well overall.

Link added

I have added a link to a Rover's Morning Glory fan blog to this page 4-5 times. The creator keeps removing the link. I have attempted to contact him to discuss this issue. The blog site has just as much right to be linked to as the 'Rover's Army' fan site.

I have added some brief explanations for the different show bits, since not everyone may be familiar with them. Apologies if I step on anyone's toes, this seems to be a touchy page. Wtbe7560 18:39, 25 October 2006

Edit war over external links

There seems to be an ongoing battle over external links here. Would the editors involved please consider working it out on the discussion page, rather than just reverting each other's edits? Also, some of these edits are undoing other changes (disambiguation of Butterbean). Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to just keep reverting to *your* previous version of the page.

Another point - someone keeps adding external links near the top of the page. These are misplaced (links should go in the "external links" section), and they are also duplicating links that already exist in "external links". Dsreyn 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gone from Cape Cod/Massachusetts market?

I heard Pixy 103 ditched Rover in favor of Opie and Anthony. So I took the Pixy 103 station off the lists of where its syndicated. If I am wrong, please edit back. David Reject 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WKRK 97.1 in Detroit recently did the same move. Does anybody know how bad Rover's ratings are? JPG-GR 06:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Show fans adding fluff bits

I deleted the "NATIONALLY KNOWN AND OFTEN COPIED" line from the Dare Dieter segment portion. Obviously this is not Rover's MySpace page and fan POV lines do not belong here. Also removed the reference to Duji's forehead from the "Show Bits" section, I will create a seperate "Inside Jokes" section that this and other references can be added to. Wtbe7560 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rmg logo no border 200x.jpg

Image:Rmg logo no border 200x.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The work this article needs

I've seen quite a few problems with this article. There seems to be POV wording all over the place, and there needs some significant wikifying.

I've nominated it as an article needing cleanup. Phuzion 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rmg logo no border 200x.jpg

Image:Rmg logo no border 200x.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats the status?

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not the show is being broadcast. According to information that I have, the show is NOT being broadcast right now, so the article, in its current state, is NOT true. However, I would like to see some information to back up anything before we start changing things around. I personally spoke with Karen Mateo, the Vice President of Communications of CBS Radio, and she told me that the show is NOT being broadcast by any CBS station at this time, however, she is unable to comment on affiliate stations. This leads me to believe that the show is still in a non-active state, so the article should be edited to reflect that state. I'd like to hear anyone else's comments and opinions, however. Phuzion (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Right now, no new shows are being made. "Best of" rerun shows are currently being broadcast in Rochester and Memphis. The show is off completely in Cleveland. WilliamPorygon (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material from this article

There seems to have been a large amount of WP:BLP material added to this article in what looks like an edit war recently. I have removed a lot of uncited or improperly cited trivial and BLP material. Please do not restore any of this without ensuring it is encyclopedic (WP:what Wikipedia is not) and is cited properly, particularly with reference to WP:BLP --MegaSloth (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

these "biographies" do not violate WP:BLP; they are not specifically about the actual people but rather the personalities they use for the show (in other words, it's meant for entertainment- most if not all of this info has been talked about openly on the air). I could understand removing certain bits, but completely removing these personality bios is both unconstructive and goes againt the general spirit of Wikipedia-- it hinders those of us editors who are trying to add citations to appropriate encyclopedic content. 71.64.103.117 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So make it clear in the text. It's the person who adds material's responsibility to get it right; any correction and editing by others is a courtesy not an obligation. --MegaSloth (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if these "biographies" are works of fiction, please have regard for the manual of style for writing about fiction, particularly WP:INUNIVERSE. Thank you. --MegaSloth (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The user posting this reply also made the edits currently under discussion (seen here, including the "3 intermediate edits not shown").

2. I agree with User:MegaSloth in that only appropriate content should be added to articles and that all article content should be appropriately cited. I disagree that the content in question should be removed all at once and without consensus.

3. Recently there was a major revelation on the show which triggered a series of edits to the article 'biographies' (please view the "29 intermediate revisions not shown" via this link), many of which were clearly examples of vandalism. Action was taken, and this vandalism has since been removed. The edits currently under discussion were made after the semi-protect status put in place by User:JamieS93 expired. They were meant to be constructive and were submitted in good faith.

4. These 'biographies' aren't exactly "works of fiction"; they are brief summaries of the major life events and experiences of each of the show's on-air personalities, all of which directly relate to the show itself (radio personalities of this type routinely bring their personal lives onto the air, wholly or partially, for the sake of entertainment-- they are in the business of widely distributing information about themselves and/or the personas they adopt). One could hardly consider any these 'biographies' non-neutral if their content comes out of the mouths of the subjects themselves.

5. "So make it clear in the text. It's the person who adds material's responsibility to get it right; any correction and editing by others is a courtesy not an obligation." Properly citing this information takes time. There aren't exactly legions of editors willing to go about constructing an article the right way. Wiping out whole sections of articles isn't very helpful; it only makes it more difficult for those of us willing to gather reliable sources. Ideally, I agree that everything should be cited. That doesn't mean we as editors should go deleting every piece of info on Wikipedia just because someone hasn't found a citation yet. ReplyToMegaS (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation is very simple; either the information is not biography, but fiction, in which case it must be clearly labeled as such and then can indeed stay for a reasonable interval while citations are sought. Or it is biography of living people, as represented in previous edits, in which case WP:BLP applies, and uncited material may be deleted. Assertions such as "she underwent an artificial insemination procedure", "has an IQ of 69", "being the naked guy dancing around a reporter in the snow" etc. etc. count as "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (WP:BLP). When addressing claims about living people, whether the information is presented in a neutral way, or the edits made in good faith is irrelevant until it is demonstrably verifiable. I reverted additions, issued warnings and requested a page block in line with BLP policy and to protect the subjects and Wikipedia from harm, not to single out the behaviour of individual editors.

You allege that these assertions came "out of the mouths" of the individuals concerned on an entertainment show, but you do not even provide properly cited sources to demonstrate that. At least part of this entertainment show has been admitted to be "a theater of the minds", and at least some editors of Wikipedia regard these "biographies" as wholly or partly fictional; none of this even begins to establish these assertions as fact. Even you imply that it may not all be straightforward fact by saying these people have "personas they adopt".

If such information is deemed encyclopedic (I have my doubts but that is a clearly separate issue, to be dealt with in a very different way), then any encyclopedic entry must make clear that these are adopted personas, and not simple fact. Preferably it would clearly delineate reality from fiction. Is "Duji" really from Rockford, Illinois? Does she really like cats? Is she really pregnant? Was it really by artificial insemination? Was she really expecting twins and lost one by a miscarriage (long-standing edit prior to "vandalism" discussed above [1])? Is it even medically possible? I don't know. Wikipedia is here to answer such questions, not to provide a titillating advertisement to further the careers of the radio professionals who broadcast this entertainment.

I removed the entire section because, in my opinion, the prevalence of this kind of material brings the rest of the information into question, per WP:GRAPEVINE; I looked a reasonable way back and could not find a version that did not contain BLP issues, as far back as 2007. If you wish to restore a version that either:

1. makes it perfectly clear that these "biographies" are not factual, or
2. omits or properly cites (from respectable, independent reliable sources per WP:BLP) all potentially contentious material (and that is in my view almost all of the material; I suggest you err widely on the side of caution)

then in my view such an edit may remain, tagged as necessary to highlight any remaining issues, and subject to the regular consensus-based editing processes of Wikipedia.

--MegaSloth (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)