Talk:Spill.com

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Hello everyone, I'm really trying to create a spill.com that is acceptable under all Wikipedia standards so I would welcome all suggestions to help it comply. Particularly with the merging of multiple footnotes into one source at the bottom or reference cleanup I need help with. I read the description and it was incredibly confusing and I'm unable to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithers45 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smithers45, don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes (~) Michael Hall (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Review Section I find the language to be inappropriate. It's use in the list is fine as removal would detract from the facts of the article, however please attempt to reword the paragraph below. See

) 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC) thanks for the suggestion, I added asterisks for some letters to make them not profane, I can't completely reword it because it is a direct quotation. I have only left it in the list and when its used for a description of the rating later in the paragraph Smithers45 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC) So are you saying that I should remove the entire quote that includes profanity or will asterisks instead of letters work? Smithers45 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to clean the section up however I had removing the quotes in mind and replacing it with information that construes the point. Since I haven't had to deal with profanity before except for vandalism, I have placed a cleanup banner in that section so that somebody a little more experienced in dealing with profanity in articles can advise you. I have removed the new and unreviewed article banner though as I feel the article now meets the basic requirements. Congratulations on the article! Michael Hall (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article! Because the quotation is a rating that the site gives, I feel a discussion of its creation by its creator is intrical to the section. However, I'm very inexperienced with Wikipedia so your correct, we should let someone more experienced decide, thanks for the input! Smithers45 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored; plain and simple. I have restored the language, replacing the asterisks with the actual language. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh good, I'm glad it doesn't have to be censored, it is much better this way. 128.101.216.56 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh that's great to finally know! Thanks for the input Orangemike - Michael Hall (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Review section it's mentioned that "Korey and Co Host lambast..." Is this referring to Co-Host 3000? If so it should be changed to his exact name as to avoid confusion, if not that it should probably be written as "Korey and co-host <person> lambast..." or "Korey and <person> lambast..." Michael Hall (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I changed it to Co-host 3000 thanks! Smithers45 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to completely disagree with the suggestion from Orangemike that Spill.com isn't notable. Under the specific criteria for notability for web content located atWikipedia:Notability_(web), it mentions that only one of the listed criteria must be met for the page to be considered notable. The second listed Criteria for web content goes as follows,"2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Obviously Orangmike must have not read the entire article because there is an entire section dedicated to awards in which it is mentioned that they won the 2009 best podcast for the movies/film section from The People's Choice Podcast Awards, better known as the Podcast Awards. Clicking on the wikilink or going to their website at www.podcastawards.com and scrolling down the page, on the right hand column, will find that Spill.com has won the award. The podcast awards are the preeminent awards for podcasts in the world and are most definitely an organization. Other winners include This American Life and ESPN so it is very well known, I really don't think there are any disputes of that. Also, user Gogo Dodo has backed this article up in saying that it is notable. On my talk page he has said, " The awarding of a 2009 Podcast Award would qualify Spill.com per the notability guidelines." I have no objections to recreating the article because now the site meets the notability guidelines" and you can visit the top of my talk page to confirm that. Smithers45 (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was found inadequate, the page also includes references from 5 different independent, neutral press articles with 4 different publications, 3 of which hail from outside the Austin area which are nerve.com, wired magazine and acedmagazine.com. This would allow it to be considered notable under criteria 1 of Website notability, "1.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."Smithers45 (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to figure out your claims of notability if the footnotes were properly formatted as explained at

WP:CITE. Raw URLs are impossible to decipher without following each link individually. I'll format one for you just to show what I mean. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In all fairness, I overstated my case, and I apologize; but most of the "references" are simply URLS because they do not link to an

reliable source but rather back to spill's own website (notoriously not a reliable source). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I believe only one third of the references are links to spill sites and thats simply because they denote specific things on the site like podcasts and other pages where they have displayed or announced things directly relating to the company but still in third party ways, like a simple number of users on one page and the announcement of spill.com's sale to hollywood.com in another. Smithers45 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but aren't there 5 different newspaper articles, the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 20th and 21st reference, that are sourced properly and not just URL's? aren't 5 articles enough to warrant notability? Most of the spill references are not in relation to their history or importance, but actual parts of the site that can't be found on any other site. 128.101.216.56 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC) That last edit and the one about censorship was from me, I forgot to log in and I'm on a school computer. Smithers45 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know where Orangemike' original notability concerns are written as they are not in this talk page and not on smithers45' talk page. A quick word I would like to mention is that not everybody is a Wikipedia expert, there is a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia and it takes time to do so. Smithers45 has already noted on this talk page that they are attempting to sort the references out in accordance with the guidelines given. Michael Hall (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found in the editing history of the page, Orange mike originally suggested the article be deleted because spill.com wasn't notable outside austin city limits, he didn't go on to futher explain this but it seems that he has taken back his argument with the caveat that i fix the references, I will reformat that references but i have to take a final tonight so i will probably do it late tonight or tomorrow. Smithers45 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did some basic cleanup, fixed grammar issues, removed unencyclopedic memes and cruft, changed it tonally to make it sound more encyclopedic. Citations need to be expanded on, haven't gotten to that yet. --Tonystark500 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations look good now; thanks to Tinton5! --MattMauler (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, he's no longer part of the site, but he was for quite a while. Besides, who can forget the time when he claimed that The Lion King was a film promoting communism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.236.241 (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'recurring jokes' section is enormous and may qualify as trivia. I realize several people probably worked hard on it, but I don't think it belongs in the article. It would probably interest only those who are already fans of Spill. What do you all think? --MattMauler (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain this is trivia. A "Running Gag" section at TV Tropes would be a better place for this. Bakazuki (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to future readers: recurring jokes section deleted 19 April 2012) MattMauler (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section labeled “Controversy” is, indeed, controversial and unsourced. I have removed the “Controversy” section for the second time, but many other users have done so before. It is continually reposted in the exact same form…with no sources.

I do not object to the content per se. That is not the point. I am saying that in order to post something like this, you need to cite. Perhaps LDT is racist, enough so to make some listeners uncomfortable. Perhaps CoHost does get less air time now that Billy is involved…but if these things are true, back it up with sources. All it takes is citing the podcast/review in which Korey, Leon or someone addresses the issue (e.g. stating that they’ve received complaints, etc.). Same with the CoHost’s airtime (and his “religious fanbase”); the page can’t just say there’s a ‘controversy’ just because it seems like one exists. The section will keep getting removed unless we have some sources. --MattMauler (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the information in the 'Former podcasts' section still relevant? I would vote 'no,' but I'd like to hear other people's views before preceding with the deletion.

• The 'Spill Call-in Show' is listed among the current podcasts. Is it indeed still happening? I have not seen it up for several months, but it's possible I could have missed it.

--MattMauler (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it seemed okay, but most of it was either unnecessary or (IMO) inaccurate. I'd be happy to entertain a discussion on the revisions. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]