Talk:Southern Television broadcast interruption: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:53, 4 February 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southern Television broadcast interruption article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 26, 2011, November 26, 2014, November 26, 2017, and November 26, 2020.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hampshire

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Hacking incident

The rationales for deleting the sourced signal hijacking/Tomalski content are all invalid. The cited source is not Primary. See WP:PRIMARY. WP:N is a guideline for inclusion of content in Wikipedia and has nothing to do with sources. WP:TRIVIA is irrelevant on its face. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Identification cited to The Interruption

Some edit warring going on about the podcast The Interruption, which I guess said they've determined who did this. I don't agree that a podcast is necessarily an unreliable source, but I don't see any reason why this podcast should be considered reliable (per WP:RS). There's almost no coverage at all of this podcast that I can see. A search for '"the interruption" "Tommy Trelawny"' returns three hits: two press releases and the Apple Podcasts link. We need evidence for why this is a reliable source. Ideally, we'd also include a citation to another independent reliable source reporting on this particular fact from the podcast, too. Unless something can be found other than the podcast itself, I think we need to err on the side of omission per WP:RS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing. I've asked for more opinions regarding reliability at the RSN [1]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative phrasing of the findings by the Interuption

Having established that The Interuption may not conform under WP:RS, it may still be counted as one theory or explonation for the interruption - for reference to anyone in the future working. Is there a way to note the findings under "In popular culture" or "Theories" or something similar? -- The duke of now (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has it received coverage in other media sources; newspapers etc? doktorb _words^deeds 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We typically just don't include sources that aren't reliable. It's surprising this hasn't gotten any coverage anywhere, considering it's a fun bit of pop culture. I think we're probably just going to have to wait until a reliable source mentions it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a follow up to my response which I'll type here for want of anything else. If, by now, there has been no follow-up then the podcast couldn't have had that much reach, so if we keep our Wikipedia hats firmly on, the podcast can't be that important or notable so the findings can't be that notable either... doktorb _words^deeds 21:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On reliable sourcing

Hi! Discovered this discussion after listening to the podcast. It seems from what I've read that the main issue people have is whether the podcast comes from a reliable source. I checked out the website and though the journalist himself is a relative unknown, the company producing the show, Stak, is pretty noted. Stak is the current producer of The Football Ramble. They've collaborated with other noted personalities, such as Clive Anderson. They've won multiple British Podcast Awards. All evidence seems to indicate that it's a reputable publisher. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:52, 4 February 2023 edit Krisgabwoosh (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 41,336 edits →On reliable sourcing: new section Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:53, 4 February 2023 edit undo Krisgabwoosh (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 41,336 edits →On reliable sourcing Tag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 39:		Line 39:
	== On reliable sourcing ==		== On reliable sourcing ==

	Hi! Discovered this discussion after listening to the podcast. It seems from what I've read that the main issue people have is whether the podcast comes from a reliable source. I checked out [https://stak.london/shows/the-interruption/ the website] and though the journalist himself is a relative unknown, the company producing the show, Stak, is pretty noted. Stak is [https://stak.london/shows/the-football-ramble/ the current producer] of ''[[The Football Ramble]]''. They've [https://stak.london/articles/introducing-my-seven-wonders-with-clive-anderson/ collaborated with other noted personalities], such as [[Clive Anderson]]. All evidence seems to indicate that it's a reputable publisher. [[User:Krisgabwoosh\|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh\|talk]]) 03:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)		Hi! Discovered this discussion after listening to the podcast. It seems from what I've read that the main issue people have is whether the podcast comes from a reliable source. I checked out [https://stak.london/shows/the-interruption/ the website] and though the journalist himself is a relative unknown, the company producing the show, Stak, is pretty noted. Stak is [https://stak.london/shows/the-football-ramble/ the current producer] of ''[[The Football Ramble]]''. They've [https://stak.london/articles/introducing-my-seven-wonders-with-clive-anderson/ collaborated with other noted personalities], such as [[Clive Anderson]]. They've won multiple [[British Podcast Awards]]. All evidence seems to indicate that it's a reputable publisher. [[User:Krisgabwoosh\|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh\|talk]]) 03:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)