Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Let's Get this Party Started

It seems to me that there has been some stagnation in the progress of this exciting, newly formed wiki project. Many quality discussions have taken place regarding specific podcasts themselves, related nomenclature, categorization and perhaps most importantly benchmarks for podcast notability in Wikipedia. I am gleeful that many users have taken interest in the development of this project furtherance of well constructed podcast related articles in Wikipedia itself. I do hope to see some future progress made in deciding upon key factors that will ultimately be used to judge individual podcast notability for inclusion.

So my fellow WikiProject cohorts, let us jump start our efforts in continuing the good work that has been done so far, I propose an extended discussion on what this project will use as a measure of what makes a podcast notable. I'd love to see some sort of definitive resolution on this particular issue within say, the next month. Now I know this is hopeful thinking, and I know there are other key issues involved with the maturation of this WikiProject, but I do feel that if we can determine project priorities we can really begin to see more rapid growth of both quality articles as well as the Project Podcasting's goals to more swiftly be met. Thank you to all who have been so helpful in working hard on this project, we have a long way to go so let's get this party started and resume discussion! Testerer 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Testerer is right, the project has been sailing on stagnant waters recently. I admit, I've been very busy and have had very little time to do a lot of things, so we all need to chip in and help a litle. Sixteen of you signed up saying you were willing to help this project grow, well now it's time to start. We need to figure out what makes a podcast notable.

In my experience, it's very hard to get notable/working subscriber-tracker sites, but I think that the number of subscribers is obviously important. Does anyone know of a way in which we can find accurate subscriber counts?Ganfon 04:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


FeedBurner is the only service that tracks feeds and their subscribers and also publicly display this information(that I know of). Obviously Digg and Itunes and Podcast Alley top ranked podcasts are worth a look. Advertisers themselves have a hard time getting the numbers we are talking about. I think Ganfon gets to the root of the matter in saying that those who've volunteered are now more than ever welcome to move things along. Notability standards are a priority like no other and I personally would applaud any efforts at solidifying agreed upon requirements for such status. Testerer 08:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Feedburner is not the only podcasting host that shows subscribers. Very many podcasts use Liberated Syndication libsyn.com and Liberated Syndication shows statistics of subscribers and downloads almost to the second after the download of the podcast is completed. Privately hosted podcasts also now have parsing programs used to show their bandwith and by using some simple math can show exactly how many total downloads they have had per podcast.Cachefly is also a notable podcast host. Just a few suggestions to let you know you are severely limiting popular podcasts by only going to Feedburner as a requirement. MenuetRanit 03:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Alright, so with that said here's what I propose. We form a list of traits that show notability. I will being this list below. We'll start with a boldface trait, underneath which we'll have a discussion until we get the trait the way we want it. Than we will put the finalized list on the main page, and begin to expand our project.Ganfon 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability Requirements

The following are a list of traits that merit the notability of a podcast, podcaster, or podcasting-related topic. In order to meet the notability requirement, the topic must meet two or more of these requirements.

  • Have at least 100 subscribers, according to Feedburner's subscriber count or Digg's Digg count.
What would be a good number?Ganfon 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Have some sort of news coverage.
From what sources?Elocina 17:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's say notable news sources like all major broadcasters and newspapers. Ganfon 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sponsored by a notable corporation or group
  • Hosted by a Notable individual or Group.

Notability and Farpoint Media

The above sounds good to me. I am working on reviving Farpoint Media, which failed an AfD a while back. I am holding off on reposting it until I am sure we have made notability clear and evident. I know it could pass all of the above measures as a company. Anyone want to help me out? If so, click into my sandbox (above) and help me get the article ready to fly. --Kukini hablame aqui 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think if you get some more references in there it'll be a big help. We've laid out four good-solid notability requirements that I think will help a lot. Ganfon 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an eye out for the Podcast and New Media Expo in a couple of weeks guys. I believe you will get your notability for Farpoint Media then.--Arkcana 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Diggs Should not be a requirement

  • I'd like to bring a few things to your attention regarding the Digg.com requirements for a podcast. Digg.com is a very good social news website but, the podcasting area is very flawed. There are two points I'd like to bring up to you before you use this as a requirement. The first point is, new podcasts submitted to Digg.com's podcasting area are never seen by the public. There is no way for Digg users to find a new podcast with 0 or 1 diggs unless they search for it and hope the description contains that word or, the podcasters themselves ask for Diggs. Many podcasters do not even submit their feed to Digg.com
  • Which brings me to my second point. There are many podcasts listed on Digg.com with a very low number of diggs. The podcasts themselves get thousands of subscribers and downloads. One in particular is a web development podcast who mentoned on their show they received in excess of 10,000 downloads that week. On Digg.com they have less then 20 diggs. Another show I know of is a smaller gaming podcast with over 2,000 downloads a week. On Digg.com they have less then 20 diggs. There is a podcast on Digg that I listen to with well over 100 diggs but, they only receive 1,500 downloads at the most. However, everytime they are on the air, they beg for diggs from their listeners which caused them to get the notoriety on digg.com.
  • A third reason is, podcasts never "fall" off of the pages. On the front page of Digg's podcasting area, there is a show listed that has not been produced since October of 2006. The hosts of that show have said they will no longer be producing it (unfortunate as that is). Because the users who dugg the show are still using digg, that show is still on the front page and, other shows are pushed down the list as a result. Which keeps users on Digg.com from seeing the other podcasts available.
  • And my fourth (and last) reason for this. Digg.com's podcasting area only shows you podcasts that are on the front page or, happen to get on the up and coming list. The up and coming list shows podcasts that get a certain number of diggs within a certain amount of time. Once they get too many or too little, they are taken off of the Up and Coming area and fall into the pages of podcasts on Digg.com.
  • There are many well-known and popular podcasts (within certain genres and circles)that can not even be found on Digg.com . Digg.com is known to most podcasters as a good way to get extra exposure but, it is not the way to gauge popularity of a podcast. Until the podcasting system on Digg.com is improved, only the certain podcasts will be shown and found by users. This is not a good way to determine a notable podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MenuetRanit (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Determining Prominence

While I certainly understand the need to do this, I see no objective way. Voting, at Digg, Podcast Alley, or any of the hundred other podshow rankers, has simply gone out of fashion, due to the absurdly skewed results that have been achieved, and the complete lack of agreement among the rankers. No one has any faith that the explicit talk shows all outrank everything else. Also, the shows that self promote vigorously get more votes.

Like books, Podshows is not one category. If your graduate level physics book sells 1000 copies in the first year, that is great; if your novel sells 1000 copies in the first year, there probably will not be a second. Thus Rocketboom and Ask A Ninja are wildly popular in their field, just as Lab Rats and I Make Things, which have vastly lower numbers, are in theirs. Podshows is no more a single category than are Wiki's.

How would you place Galacticast, Minnesota Stories, Richard Show, Ryan is Hungry, etc. all of which have great historical value, but none of which are going to rank highly anywhere? As Casey wrote back to me when I pointed out that there was a double entry splitting her vote count at Podcast Alley, "We don't care about getting a lot of votes there. We are much happier if you comment at our site."

Sites are going social now with their own social networking capabilities, e.g. Ning. In the early days, when there were only two or three rankers, and no individual social networks, determining prominence was simple mindedly easy, but not now.

Sounds like you need some people who are actually familiar with a broad spectrum of the Vodcasting world.

Also, a decision need be made as to whether to cover only those podcasts that have made a notable impact on the culture in general, there are about five, or to cover podcasting as a topic in and of itself, which would necessitate setting up subdivisions for the various generas. dmelliott 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think prominence and notability are words which can be used interchangeably here on Wikipedia. Have you had a chance to read Wikipedia:Notability (web) (abbrev WP:WEB)? Although not specific to podcasts, the guidelines do cover a broad range of web media.
Notability requirements for podcasts have been an ongoing issue for a long time. Unfortunately there's no clear-cut line in the sand as far as include / don't include. I agree every podcast show should be judged based on its own merits, and not bundled with others, but for now when assessing notability I'll stick with WP:WEB as our benchmark guideline. Unless a podcast notability guideline appears, gains consensus, and solves all our problems. --Breno talk 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

When I went to use the included infobox for the Cube news 1 article, I consulted several Vloggers. It was pointed out to me that no one cares what the formats are any more. This was an issue five or so years ago before Real died, but not now, since the browsers can play almost anything out there, and if not an invitation to down load the proper, free software will be given. If felt strongly, the formats can be given in the text for the links, see Cube News 1

What is cared about both by the Vloggers and the users is the personnel, for the same reasons that movies, plays, TV shows and all other performing arts including football have credits.

Also, in today's operations, many Vlogs have multiple RSS feeds for different feed sources, not just one RSS (family) and one Atom (family).

While this Infobox provides a good foundation for making one, it, itself, is seriously out of date. dmelliott 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah {{Infobox podcast}} needs a bit of an update to handle multiple feeds. Admittedly though it was designed more towards audio than video podcasts. I'm trying to find the guy who made "Infobox podcast v" (can't remember what it's called exactly right now) which was working on making the template better. I'll post it once I find it again. Otherwise I'll start working on doing up the current infobox. --Breno talk 11:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Joining

How about putting the instructions on how to join this group on the group page? I just edited myself in; I hope that is OK. dmelliott 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added a Project banner to the top to help introduce WikiProjects. The instructions to add user names to the list were in a comment, thus hidden to non-editing users. Instructions are now displayed on the page. Looking pretty good now. --Breno talk 10:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode lists

I noticed that a few podcasts list their entire collection of episodes on their article page. I'd like to get consensus to remove them from articles that do have episode lists, for the following reasons:

  • Links to the podcast's website and RSS feeds are supplied in the infobox - the episode lists are over there.
  • Supplying an RSS link is easier and cleaner than juggling wikitables on articles.
  • Depending on episode frequency, episode numbers can already be in the hundreds.
  • For an ongoing podcast, this is a never-ending job to continue updating episode lists.
  • Clutters history pages and watchlists when listing each episode as it's published.
  • Radio stations don't list their episodes on their article pages.
  • Finally, Wikipedia is not a program guide and the responsibility and ownership of managing an episode list should be the podcast producer's on their site.

Articles in question are:

After going through this article list I find that most (though not all) have an article list longer than the main article body. I'm doing this as I'd like to see a more manageable, equal list of podcasts here on Wikipedia. When responding, please don't use an emotional "but that's my podcast!" - all podcasts should have a uniform approach and easily navigatable. I look forward to your feedback. --Breno talk 09:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't showing on people's watchlist. I'll give it another day before I be bold. --Breno talk 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Um. Some of these are useful – I personally have found it quite helpful to be able to find short stories by particular authors which are listed on Escape Pod. I can't answer for the others. Cleduc 06:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


For what its worth, I think there is a worth to some of them, and I split the ep list for Are We Alone? because it was really long. But if we're going to prod it, I just put it back into the main article. So goes it. Not looking for a fight, I just see a purpose for that info in this particular case. Guroadrunner 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what is the worth to keeping some of them, specifically? Also, if episode listings have encyclopedic merit, then should all shows under this wikiproject have them? I notice that articles of some shows that regularly make top 10 Podcast Alley don't need episode list filler to make a complete article. --Breno talk 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a part of this Wikiproject but thought I'd contribute anyway. I removed the PROD for List of The Ricky Gervais Show episodes for a couple reasons. I'll try to justify why in correspondence to your bulleted list. First, it's not just a list of a hundred or so shows with just title and air date and I don't know if the RSS link contains all the information since it isn't linked to one. The linked website, rickygervais.com, gives a brief history of the podcasts but doesn't give a comprehensive list like ours does. In terms of maintainability, the show is currently not in production, and in total there are only 28 episodes. Since February of 2007 there have only been 10 edits excluding the PROD and its removal, so manageability and clutter isn't really a reason either. However, your final point is up for debate, since although Wikipedia claims it's not a programming guide there sure are a ton of episode lists, episode articles, character articles, etc. I think if you took it to AFD you might get consensus but since this might be the most "notable" podcast in history so far that might sway people. (I think we could do without listing the prices though.) The worth of this list specifically is that it gives detailed information on the contents of the shows: it's the equivalent of a plot summary essentially. And Wikipedia usually contains plot summaries of notable shows. --TM 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
For some podcasts I believe these are very useful. Show that are episodic in nature or done in the style of old time radio that tell a narrative over several episodes can benefit from Episode guides. --Toasterboy 07:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From Talk:Escape Pod (podcast)#Restoring Episode Table? in order to keepdiscussion together: I believe episode listings should remain off the article. My reasons for removal was not solely WP:NOT#DIR; other reasons were stated on the WikiProject talk page. The specific part I was referring to on WP:NOT#DIR is that Wikipedia is not an Electronic Program Guide, though historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Regardless of Wiki guidelines, episode listings seem to be overused by some podcast shows as article filler, and detract from writing an encyclopedic, FDL article. The reason why television shows may have episode lists is that due to the massive audience television has compared to podcasting, each tv episode has enough notability to merit an article on its own. An example being List of The Simpsons episodes, a featured article - note how each episode has its own notable article. Podcasts on the other hand, struggle to meet notability requirements for the entire show. The point of this exercise was to focus shows on writing encyclopedic articles, rather than copy-pasting from websites each time a new episode comes out. In order to keep discussion together, please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting#Episode lists, as this relates to a few shows maintained by WikiProject Podcasting. Thanks. --Breno talk 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
All podshows have episodes. All episodes have designations. Assuming that the article adequately described the podcast, there will be no new information in the episode designations. Unless they are extremely cleverly written, there is nothing of interest in them. Since they have neither information nor interest, they probably do not have to be re-listed in Wikipedia.
If an individual episode is worth comment, then more than just the title is needed. If the total number of episodes is of interest, one sentence should cover it. dmelliott 05:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks dmelliott :) what I'm trying to explain getting my point across. --Breno talk 10:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Archiving podcast notability requirements

The proposal of notability requirements on the main page has been posted for a very long time, and does not seem to be going anywhere. Reading the two archive pages on this talk page, there was no concensus to support taking the proposal further. As the Wikipedia community outside this wikiproject have not discussed or agreed on the proposal, it becomes a little confusing to other editors when this proposal is quoted as a guideline, when it definitely is not. Some of the Afd discussions above treat the proposal as a guideline, which is what I'd like to sort out.

I would like to archive these off to a sub page. If someone would like to continue the proposal they are more than welcome to restore it, or alternitively begin writing a brand new one. Will give it a couple of days here on the talk before I actually move it. --Breno talk 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Determining Prominence

I think if a podcast has a pattern of having on notable guests (published authors, people deemed sufficiently notable to have their own wiki page, heads of notable organizations deemed notable enough to have their own wiki page) this should be a gold standard test of a podcast's notability. As well, any podcast that ranks on the first page of its iTunes category page (science, arts, etc), that should as well be a sign of its notability. We should also use the iTunes own notability criteria regarding comments. More comments a podcast has, higher its popularity ranking. I just find it a little ironic that wiki, of all places, seems to not deem something notable until some form of old media deems it so. We should not have to wait until the New York Times starts talking about podcasting to start documenting podcasts. Mindme (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Podcasting

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's Podgrams

I'm having a bit of trouble with an article I'm trying to promote to GA. Does anyone know where I can find a link to a website which contains the top five podcasts on iTunes?

Thanks,

ISD (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this podcast notable enough to be written up?

I've gone through one guideline after another and I'm hardly any closer to determining if SpaceVidcast is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about it. It has had guests like John D. Carmack, Ken Davidian (Program Manager, NASA Centennial Challenges), William Pomerantz (Director, X-Prize Space Projects), Blair Allen (NASA Edge co-host), teams competing for both the Google Lunar X-Prize or the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X-Prize take part in the web-cast as guests. A local TV program called Twin Cities Live did a segment about SpaceVidcast where it interviewed the hosts. The Star Tribune did an article about SpaceVidcast as well. The hosts were also guests on Flak Radio. I will be grateful for any help you can offer. Thank you. U5K0 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

articles

Hi, we need articles that describe the specs of HINA-DI and LIRS (found many information in the net, but all in japanese and babelfish is not very good in transating ^^), but I'm on the way to get the information to write articles. (for the lirs article the infrastructur is created). can somebody help/japanese? --mabdul 0=* 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

two templates

why mking two templates? podcasting and aggregators? that doesn't make sence, there is to much tht is overlapping! mabdul 0=* 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, now i see why the use of 2 templates. I will create a third! Iwill change the aggregator template template and remove the "technologies"-group and I will create a new template for collecting all syndication in one. see List of content syndication markup languages. the more is history and new cats and correcrtring the cats ion my liost. maybe all this week! mabdul 0=* 12:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Alert: Anime Pulse

I'm extending this alert to the Podcasting Wikiproject as this article is within your scope as well.

Previously, there was a slow moving edit war Anime Pulse regarding referencing and cleanup tags and the inclusion of some nominations in the Podcast Awards. Now it has turned out that the editor that was removing the cleanup tags and edit waring over the inclusion of the nominations is connected with the podcast.

Therefore, I am requesting members of this Wikiproject to evaluate the article on its content, tone, references, and notability. Because the way things are going now, there is a chance this article may become a candidate for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 04:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:33, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Old comment moved here from Article Space

Any chance we can revisit the notability requirements? Mindme (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who moved this off the main page. I didn't notice I got logged out. NipokNek (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Masters Cast notable?

I have concerns regarding Masters Cast it does not seem to satisfy any third person verification or ascert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting/Archive_2&oldid=1136412054"