Jump to content

Talk:Security Now

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pnm (talk | contribs) at 07:43, 23 January 2011 (→Coverage in reliable sources and list of episodes: Removed; see diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This Week in Tech?

Why does this redirect to This Week in Tech? Is it not a totally unique podcast? 137.186.22.19 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Security Now! is not part of TWiT, it is only mentioned so Leo Laporte's recognition from TWiT fame is acknowleged.
  • Even though Leo Laporte is on the receiving end of the call or chat, the idea for the show is Steve Gibson as mentioned in a past podcast. Therefore I would nominate Steve Gibson as the host or both Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte as co-hosts.
I believe the files used to be tagged (I say used to as they don't seem to be tagged anymore...) as Steve Gibson with Leo Laporte. Although really I think its kind of a pointless debate, they're both equally important, so why not just list them both as hosts. --Falcorian 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Episode numbering

The special edition episode is not numbered on the GRC's official Security Now website. The last episode as of 3/8/2006 would be numbered 29, not 30.

I will renumber this in the main article.--BorisFromStockdale 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote this article and I hope I've combined the best bits of both. I converted the episode list into a table from the number list. --vortex talk 13:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! --Falcorian (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I agree with Boris, they are on Gibson's page, and they have little place here. --Falcorian (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was a disruptive edit IMO. --Tim1988 talk 16:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list

The episode list is now getting quite large so I've made it "hideable". It seems like the list is expanded by default though I do believe it would be possible to have it collapsed by default, allowing the user to show the episode list if they want to. Perhaps this would be better than having the table showing by default? I'm not sure how to do this though. --Tim1988 talk 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, nicely done. --Falcorian (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Podnova ratings has changed to http://www.podnova.com/top40/. How are link changes in references sections handled in general? -- Raffen 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 20:00, May 28 2007 (CET)[reply]

List Updating

The list needs to be updated more often I added 97 but someone still needs to make sure the list stays up to date. --Bob12321 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding them when I remember, however I am not exactly brilliant at writing short and concise descriptions of what was discussed. -- RpgCyco 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try as well to remember to update the page. I noticed that episode 105 was missing so I added it. As for the descriptions could we use the descriptions on the TWiT.tv SN! page. Or would that be a violation of one of the copyright rules? Lcarsos 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would violate the license wiki works under, so better to just summarize in one's own words. --Falcorian (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailbag Episodes

Is it a good idea to have a coloured background for the new mailbag episodes? -- RpgCyco 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be good to differentiate the Mailbag episodes from the standard episodes just as the Q&A episodes are, perhaps with a different color. Lcarsos 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this problem has been solved now, thanks to the mailbag and Q&A episodes being merged into a Listener Feedback episode. -- RpgCyco 03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I've noticed in the past, that while we are linking to Gibson's security now page, the dates have been taken from Leo's twit.tv website. Shouldn't the dates be taken from grc.com so it's all consistent? That's my opinion anyway. :) -- RpgCyco (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Highlighting for Episode 209?

I just added Eps 207 - 209, and stopped short of using the blue highlight for Ep 209, as the blue seemed to be used for Out-of-band updates (extra episodes not released on the official release day of the podcast.) However, it DOES seem like there should be some special notice of this episode due to it's being mostly devoted to Steve's discussion of Vitamin D, and very little about Security. If no one objects by next week, I'm going to choose an appropriately DIFFERENT color and highlight it. NipokNek (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now done my edits and choose a shade of yellow (#FFFF99) for this occasion. NipokNek (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am temporarily removing the reference to the podcasts copyright status. Leo Laporte's page references the Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.5 license, however Steve Gibson's page says "The contents of this page are Copyright (c) 2008 Gibson Research Corporation". I'd be willing to bet that the license on Steve's page is just a boilerplate, and I'm going to send him a message about that, but until there's a clear answer it should probably come out of the article. NipokNek (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they very helpfully went and specifically mentioned the CC license in episode 212, so I put it back. http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-212.pdf NipokNek (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Episode List?

The episode list is generally not up to date (almost five months missing as of now) and has already grown very long. I suggest removing it from this article and just link to the episode list on grc.com/sn. What do you think?

Ehamberg (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current way it's done is not good, but I would suggest considering to split it off into a separate article, like those "List of episodes" articles you see for TV-series. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. There appears to be clear consensus that WP:MOSTM applies here. --rgpk (comment) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Security Now → Security Now! — Official name see http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm and text in transcripts for every show. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • And that is done because of software limitation in handling special characters. So we as an Encyclopedia are actually going to make the article title knowingly wrong because some other websites software won't handle it. This article has been correct since 2005 until 23 December 2010 when it was changed without discussion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK but in the text (not just the URL) of [2] reference, no exclamation mark is used after the name. Changing my !vote to neutral since I don't see any persuasive arguments either way.--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It seems normal that reporters leave out special characters, the New York Times refers to Yahoo! as Yahoo in it's articles so it seems finding sources without an exclamation mark is going to occur constantly. If you arrived here 10 days ago and saw a request to move the page from Security Now! to Security Now would you have supported that? Would you support a move of Yahoo! to Yahoo on the same bases? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo!, like eBay, may be an established form; but we don't usually use eccentric typography which has been made official for publicity purposes - unless it catches on in independent, reliable, secondary sources. There seems some doubt that this has; and it is better to lean away from flackery. See WP:MOSTRADE for more reasoning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Astaro to Sponsor Security Now! Podcast from Marketwire. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an unedited press release from Astaro, which would be neither independent nor reliable. For those who disagree about that, it is a single data point; what we expect is a consensus of data. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I understand why your getting confused. That is not the official logo that is a distributor promotional logo. It's like you are mixing up a record company with a music group. If you look at File:Security_now_podcast2.jpg you'll notice the uploader refers to it as Security Now!. The official site you quote is again the distributor which is also incorrect. The correct site is http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm you can see from the show transcripts. Take a look http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-279.htm You'll see at the bottom of the page Leo from twit.tv "Leo: Thanks, on Security Now!." the copyright page contents is with Gibson Research Corporation. GRC.com is of course a WP:PRIMARY source but it doesn't make it an unreliable one. Regarding the move being 'uncontroversial' you didn't even mention it on the talk page. It's clear now that it's controversial and by the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle the page would be returned to it's original name. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry about that. I requested the move as uncontroversial in good faith. The article hadn't been moved before, there was no record of the discussion of the name, and the infobox showed a URL and logo which made the name change compelling even without considering WP:MOS. --Pnm (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, no problem. I know you made the move in good faith. It's not easy to know when to move a page with and without discussion, 95% of the time the move would be okay, but the 5% it's an issue because you can't undo a move like you can other edits(unless your an admin). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: Unless the closer sees consensus to leave the title alone, I request that the closer move the page back to the original title. In other words, please default to move in the absence of consensus. --Pnm (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pmanderson and WP:MOSTM. (The guidance is relevant even though it's not a trademark. Perhaps even moreso.) Removing the punctuation from the article title avoids drawing undue attention to the topic. It encourages standardized punctuation in prose and see-also lists. Security Now is grammatically correct as an article title is perfectly understandable, especially with punctuated Security Now! in the infobox. --Pnm (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coverage in reliable sources and list of episodes

I just spent 15 minutes looking for sources for this article, and I feel frustrated. I found several reliable, secondary sources which mention the show, but none which treat it with more than a trivial mention. The article has been tagged for "primary sources" cleanup for over two years. Has anyone else tried to locate any?

I agree with above posters that the episode list provides excessive detail and should be split, but can't justify that without establishing the list would meet the general notability guideline. For a list of episodes, that would mean reliable sources that have discussed the episodes as a group or set – in other words, sources which discuss more than one episode. If such sources can't be found, the list should be or linked from this article instead. --Pnm (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Not enough sources to justify the amount of detail. Regards, SunCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Removed; see diff. --Pnm (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Security_Now&oldid=409517406"