Talk:Dread Broadcasting Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] User:Bright_orange-y

Hi there, you contacted me through email with the following message. I am reposting it here so it forms part of the discussion on WP of the issues with this article.

I hope you don't mind me getting in touch but notice you've been patrolling 
and making changes to the entry DREAD BROADCASTING CORPORATION. I was 
interested at your constructive contribututions, and wanted to mention that 
as one of the original members of DREAD BROADCASTING CORPORATION,  I would 
like to maintain the original edit (along with our other original members), 
knowing first hand the history, despite technical improvements being of 
interest. To that end I've reinstated the links. DREAD BROADCASTING 
CORPORATION was always widely known as DBC to it's listeners because it's a 
pun on the BBC here in the UK, even though DBC is used in other contexts 
now.
Would you be able to explain how we could add photos?

As a member of DBC you should note two things. First, it is not recommended to write articles about yourself or your own organizations; it isn't prohibited but it's hard to be neutral in these cases. On this score, I think the article is not too bad, and can definitely be made appropriate. The second thing to note is that here on Wikipedia, no one owns their documents; just because you are involved in DBC and participate in the creation of the article it isn't yours per se. Although of course it's fine to have an interest in keeping it up and making it the best it can be. I don't make these comments to be discouraging, but rather to set up the lay of the land. You are welcome here as an editor, but I want to make the point that an article about something you take a great interest in may be a difficult first article.

I note you've reverted almost all my edits to the page that I made. Let me explain why I'm about to go in and revise many of them back again.

  • Lepke link: According to the naming conventions pages should be linked to with the most popular name. Thus DJ Lepke is a better choice than DJ Lepke, although the best choice would be a link to the person's real name with explanation there about the alias. I'm restoring DJ Lepke.
  • Links to DBC and Rebel Radio: From the style guide: "The purpose of links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles." The links to DBC don't follow that because the page you get to is not related to Dread Broadcasting Corporation. There's no point in linking someone to a different meaning of the acronym. A more appropriate way to handle this would be to go to the existing DBC article and put the {{Otheruses4}} template on it. Rebel Radio is a link to the existing article so there's no point in having that link. I'm reverting both of these changes.
  • Link to reggae: The linking style guide says not to repeat links. I'm removing the second link to reggae.
  • Ranking Miss P: I see no reason why the additional information about the relationship to Lepke, I'm restoring this edit.
  • Final sentence: Ok, if you like yours better I'm fine with that

As far as linking to images goes, the instructions are here. One further note, according to wikipedia policy, one topic should be discussed on its own page. Therefore, duplicating this information at other places is not right. Just as I replaced Rebel Radio with a link to this article, I'll be doing the same for Rebel radio.

[edit] Debate about changes...

Hi cmh Thank you for the communcation (we would have used the discussion board also, but are new to Wikipedia).

We won't perhaps agree on the minor details you are keen to change back, but that's ok for now. I must however question why you have removed the REBEL RADIO stub altogether (which we did not start but changed to address some factual errors in the spirit of Wikipedia, editing not removing). Would you not reinstate that, if just for the principle and have it re-direct or link in another way to tie up the two identities?

Hi there. I think this may just be a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Links in this article are pointers to other entries. So making "Rebel Radio" a link here has no impact on people finding the document under the name Rebel Radio. You will see if you simply type "Rebel Radio" into the search field that you will automatically be redirected to "Dread Broadcasting Corporation". There is no need to duplicate the information in both places because someone searching for Rebel Radio will find the "Dread Broadcasting Corporation" entry. Having information in both places just makes for twice the work of keeping it up to date. -- cmh 20:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)