Talk:Hello Internet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Freebooting

The article currently says: "The word 'Freebooting' was originally created by Brady on the podcast, and refers to websites taking videos and re-uploading them to their own website." Freebooting is an old term, derived from 16th century freebooter (pirate), and has been used for pirating generally; perhaps the author meant Haran created a new meaning/definition for the term? If so, a reliable source should be cited. Here's an 1828 dictionary definition of freebooting. Agyle (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agyle,

I made an edit to reflect that fact. You are correct, and even Brady Haran acknowledged that the word 'freebooting' had a prior meaning.

CSBurksesq (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

CSBurksesq, thanks for adding the reference to http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/5, but when citing audio or video content, it should also include a time for the reference. It's analogous to a page reference in a book, I don't want to read 300 pages or listen to an hour-long podcast to check if a claim is true. :-) If you just put in something like "12:34" after the URL, someone else can dress the reference up with nicer formatting. Agyle (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A few refs for those interested

Since I guess this is going to get AFDd again, I'm going to dump some links here of most of the third party coverage I could find: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I haven't curated these links for quality, but all of them mention the podcast. Finally, there is the fact that it was briefly number 1 on iTunes. I can't really objectively judge the podcast for notability: I think it is notable, but not by Wikipedia's definition (possibly due to inherent biases in the ways modern journalism works, possibly just because Wikipedia's standards are different to mine). —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Also on Intention Deficit, Mental Floss, and Portland Flag Association. For the #1 on Itunes we have Itunes Charts. That's all I could find. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I think the charting is the most compelling evidence of notability: The closest specific notability guideline is possibly WP:NALBUM, and one of the criteria there is The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. Of course, those criteria are not relevant to podcasts, but if there were specific criteria for podcasts I'd imagine they'd include a similar criterion. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Referencing tags

@Chris troutman: I saw you tagged this article with multiple tags. I agree with the use of {{notability}}, but I am not sure why you used {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}} or {{primary sources}}. The article is currently quite heavily (perhaps over-) referenced, especially for a stub, and any reference to a primary source is currently backed up by a secondary source. Could you clarify as to why you added those tags? Thanks —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Keeping it tight

We need to make sure this article doesn't get too bloated: there is a risk that something like this will get full of fancruft. Really, content should only be included if it can be verified with an independent reliable source: the article shouldn't contain original research. To confirm: a topic generally shouldn't be included if either the podcast itself or Grey or Brady are the only sources for it. Thanks for contributing! —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree with that. I understand the enthusiasm here but if the article fills up with fancruft then it will look more like a deletion candidate to a casual reviewer. I know some people may be tempted to feel that special rules apply here because this is clever people talking about interesting stuff but they really don't. This article needs to prove its notability just as much as it would do if it was about, say, a videogaming podcast and, as with any article, trivia and cruft only distract from that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the drivel about the "flag referendum" needs to be cut down to one or two sentences even if there are RS sources for it. If there are no good sources then it has to go completely. The penguin is the same. With RS sources it gets a passing mention, without RS sources, it goes. I am not ripping anything out for now but I have tagged for excessive use of primary sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think this revision was the last time that most of the article was backed up with independent sources. I'd love the other editors (Devodevo2002, Mr. Granger, TheNicolaScheme, and Chickentheswap, for example) to come here to give their opinion on how we can keep this article compliant with content policy, especially verifiability and no original research. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with what has been said so far—the penguin, the flag, and the like should only be mentioned if they are discussed by independent sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree but i have to say that i think the Nail and Gear can be discussed without secondary sources if there aren't any very good ones. Devodevo2002 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I once started a draft within my own sandbox [12] for these exact reasons. The show has had some impact on the external world, which might or might not have been referenced somewhere. In this list I do include the following topics : 'Freebooting' (discussed over the internet, eventually by a reliable source), 'hotstoppers' (which had a fund-raiser campaign organised and could have been mentioned in some news somewhere), 'C.G.P. Grey the Penguin' (which I was hoping to find some press release from the zoo eventually, and also had a sort of fund-raiser associated to it), and the whole 'Vexilollogy' topics (which seems to have some hold in the field). I do think the page has been resuscitated to quickly and it should have undergo a proper review first. That being said, there are a number of other topics from the show that definitely goes under the 'fancruft' category (basically what was in the HI Culture section in that revision [13]). To address Devodevo2002 topic, the flag can probably get a mention without any other source, but just the same extend as the podcast logo does. M'vy (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Freebooting will clearly make the cut: there are multiple reliable sources mentioning the podcast's involvement with that. Hotstoppers and the penguin I'm not so sure. Hotstoppers could theoretically eventually make a splash (hehe), but I can't find any coverage linking them with the podcast at the current time. Wrt the penguin, I can't find any independent sources talking about it (nothing published by Bristol zoo for example), so I don't think it can be included for now. [14] could probably be counted as an independent source for the flag referendum, so that can stay in. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Do and count as reliable sources to you? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

References

In fact, I think that the flag referendum can even be cited to the HI website itself, per WP:ABOUTSELF. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the HI website is a reliable source for information about the flag referendum. The only question is whether or not the information is significant enough to merit inclusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that it passes all three core content policies, and is probably the most notable event of the podcast's history (considering it did get some coverage in two independent sources). I think that as long as coverage is kept brief and tone is kept suitable, it would be an acceptable inclusion. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not against it getting a sentence or two but nothing more. The results table was definitely overkill. The problem is that I'm not sure this is possible due to the level of idiotic editing this article receives. It is sad that an intelligent podcast seems to have attracted a few real idiots for fans and that this is both making it harder for Wikipedia to cover it properly and giving a poor impression of the fans as a whole. My advice to the fans is to start a fan wiki and fill it up with all the stuff that we can't have here. The internet is a large place. The fans would be much happier building their own place under their own rules. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pity if we had to request page protection. I see that an IP has just filled in the rest of the episode list. That is the sort of edit that would be prevented by semi-protection and I'd hate for legitimate edits to be prevented because a few people can't stop squabbling over flags. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I had already requested semi protection which only had lasted from May 25-28. I think someone should request for semi protection but I've been busy IRL recently so I can't do it. 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWooHoo (talk • contribs)

I agree, some semi-protection would be nice to avoid the regular pranker edits. Crh23, I saw you removed the Episode list for lack of added value and too many external links. Someone added it back with the show notes, so I will reformat it with the EpisodeList template (actually I do have a XSL stylesheet to convert from the RSS feed) keeping the summary of the show notes. Do you think this justifies the list inclusion on the page? M'vy (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The show notes as they appear on hellointernet.fm are under copyright, so I have removed them. I have no particular objection to an episode list, but any description couldn't be copied from the show itself (unless grey were to release the notes under CC BY-SA). Regarding the flag: I think the section as it appeared in this revision or maybe this one was acceptably concise, thoughts? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is already a fan wiki btw —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

One Potential Solution the Vandalism Problem

This article about the Hello Internet podcast is for the sake of documenting and preserving Internet culture right, well then don't you think it would be a good idea to even just have a reference to Flaggy Flag, you don't need to have the picture underneath Nail & Gear that would be a little much. But considering that the Nail & Gear VS Flaggy Flag conflict is a big facet of the show and how it contributes to Internet culture. It's my opinion that it would be much better if we even just put a sentence at the bottom that said something like "About a quarter of Hello Internet listeners, "Tims" as they're called are still in favour of the second place flag affectionately named Flaggy Flag despite Nail & Gear winning the election" Again, I apologize for all the trouble us Tims cause you we will be more peaceable in the future, please give my suggestion your consideration thank you. - Tim :) JBeags (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no RS references we can use to support it. If there were then I would say yes. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense, thanks for the speedy response! All the best! =D JBeags (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Divided into Seasons

This podcast is divided into seasons of 10 episodes each, I think that we should follow wikipedia standards and add the fact that it's divided by seasons, as is done with every other show. --Remi1771 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga:

Adding other official symbols as well

The flag is not the only official symbol they have; there are RS that state those other symbols and they are as symbolic and as official as the already added flag. I believe it would make sense if we add those symbols as well --Remi1771 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Remi1771: You should use edit summaries as often as possible to explain your edits. Your first two edits, under your anonymous identity, are restatements of what the edits do. Summaries are for explaining why you're doing edits, not what the edits do. I know that the second edit "Added other official symbols" because I read the text you added. The question is, why did you feel like it was necessary to add that text?

The first claim you made, regarding the number of episodes and how they're divided into seasons, was sourced to iTunes and PodcastChart.com. I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I don't see where either of those sources confirm the claim about how the show is divided into seasons.

You changed a section's title from "Official flag" to "Official flag and other Officially symbols." Did you mean to spell that word "official?" Why is the letter "O" capitalized? Why is there a period at the end?

And my concerns regarding fanmail are specifically about the text you added regarding the show's official bird, color, and Rice Rat (?). The statements about the show's official bird, color, and, uh, Rice Rat are not properly sourced (blogs are very, very rarely good sources) and I don't understand why they matter. When I say "fanmail," I don't mean that fans of the show shouldn't edit this article. (Hell, I'd bet a vast majority of this article was written by fans.) My concern is that it's such minor, hyper-specific stuff that the typical reader of this article, who probably isn't as big a fan as you seem to be, is not going to understand why tossed-off jokes are important enough to include here.

To be clear: I have not accused you of fabricating anything. I have no doubt that the hosts had a back-and-forth about official symbols. But we don't include stuff because it's true; we include it because it's true and because it matters. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga:

Summaries use noted, I wasn't aware of this.

"The first claim you made, regarding the number of episodes and how they're divided into seasons, was sourced to iTunes and PodcastChart.com."

My bad, I forgot to source it.

Source #1 "Grey & Brady on the season finale talk"

Source #2 "HI Season 2"

There you go, direct sources from the creators of Hello Internet.

"You changed a section's title from "Official flag" to "Official flag and other Officially symbols." Did you mean to spell that word "official?" Why is the letter "O" capitalized? Why is there a period at the end?"

This is just technicalities, I mean "official".

"The statements about the show's official bird, color, and, uh, Rice Rat are not properly sourced (blogs are very, very rarely good sources)"

Is this a joke? I'm honestly asking, I sourced DIRECTLY TO THE PODCAST and to BRADY HARAN'S BLOG Brady is the creator of the podcast so how can the blog of the creator not be a "good source" or what is worst, an episode from the directly related podcast a not good source?

"and I don't understand why they matter

Well, that's another thing but still. It matters as much as it matters to have the official flag. It is as important as the flag, which of course you could argue the flag isn't important but then again you should remove the flag. It is as official as the flag and even more important/official as there has been shirts sold with those official symbols.

"My concern is that it's such minor, hyper-specific stuff that the typical reader of this article [...] is not going to understand why tossed-off jokes are important enough to include here."

True, tossed-off jokes aren't important enough to be included but, then again, the official symbols of Hello Internet are important on the Hello Internet page. It is not as if I created a "Brady is hard as nails" topic or anything.

"But we don't include stuff because it's true; we include it because it's true and because it matters."

1) How do you determine what matters and what not?

2) Official symbols are as important as the already placed official symbol; Does it really matter the official flag of hello internet? No, specially since it has no use yet it is still there so it has been considered to matter and because it is as official as the other symbols, I believe that there is no difference in importance. --Remi1771 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are independent reliable sources that discuss the rice rat, swamphen, and so on, then that information might be worth including. Otherwise it seems like excessive detail or fancruft to me. See #Keeping it tight above for a related discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger:

I have read both the Fancruft page and the KIT discussion and I understand it perfectly. Having said that, I believe that it is worth to mention that the podcast as adopted an african penguin in their name as it is one of the main things they talk about and it can be outsourced (as there is a bristol zoo adoption certificate); other than that I think that the only other thing that should be added are the season division, as it is relevant.--Remi1771 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Remi1771: No. Absolutely not. The rice rat/ swamp hen nonsense is just more fancruft, of which there is already too much. It's debatable if this article should even exist. Please let me know when The New York Times writes about this podcast or any of the sundry trivia about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Remi1771: The podcast barely passes Wikipedia's requirement for notability as it is (although I still argue that it does), and adding more specific detail on the content is not going to make the article more useful for the vast majority of readers who don't already know about the podcast. The sort of "inside joke"-y material like the official rice rat or swamp hen isn't useful to the article and can easily bloat it over time. The reason the flag is included is that it is actually mentioned in a couple of independent sources. Regarding seasons: there hasn't been any meaningful season structure to the episodes since the season 1-2 border was mentioned, which is why the season information was removed originally. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding topic content

The hello internet podcast has some topics they almost always talk, such as vexillology and grey the penguin among other things, shouldn't that be included in order to inform a stranger what they talk about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.95.46.144 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No. This encyclopedia has sourcing requirements. The content you would want to add would only be sourced to the podcast itself since no reliable secondary sources discuss it. I can understand that fans of the podcast like writing and reading about this stuff but Wikipedia is not a platform for cruft. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a thing about cruft, it's just this page is currently uninformative and they don't tell what they speak about, it is, in essence, uninformative... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.95.46.144 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, per WP:RELIABLE about them speaking about those topics, only then you can add it. --Emphrase 05:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Vinyl episode?

There is mention of the Vinyl episode buy it is neither on the amount of list of episodes, nor on the actual table/chart or on the rest of the page as if it was forgotten... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.38.167 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I added it in this edit. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Rogue One Christmas Special

This episode doesn't have a episode number, so maybe it should just be a Christmas Special episode in the chart? CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should see what they label the following episode and decide based on that. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Flag referendum election results; include them or not?

@Chris troutman: is of the opinion that the Hello Internet flag referendum results should not be included in the section about the official flag; he says it is "fancruft content over-reliant on self-published primary sources". I beg to differ. First off, wikipedia guidelines say that on occasions like this, Self-published sources are perfectly okay. Secondly, I would argue that adding the results gives insightful context into the election results, just like it does with political elections, making it not fancruft. Perhaps it would be more fitting to change the "Official flag" section to "Flag referendum", and go into more detail about it. --ArniDagur (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read the discussions above. We have continually pushed back against this content. That's the consensus here. Can you see the ongoing acculturation problem here? We keep getting new and uninformed editors who think they have a bright idea only to discover this has been discussed and rejected. I grow tired of this. I prefer editors LURK MOAR. If you want to challenge that consensus, consider getting a third opinion before starting an RfC. Pinging @Crh23 and DanielRigal:, as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about the limited use of some primary sources for additional verifiability. The problem is that there are no significant secondary sources for the flag referendum and we can't rely on the primary sources to show any notability. Clearly the whole thing was intended as a humorous educational exercise in electoral systems and if any serious political publications had picked up on this and covered it then that would have been enough to reference it properly. It doesn't sound like they did. All we have is one reference from an organisation that is interested in the flags themselves, which is not really the main point here even if some people do have strong preferences about flags. As it stands, we probably have enough references for a one sentence mention of the flag referendum. Not a paragraph. Not a section. Not a table. A link to the results might be OK but we do not need to cover them here ourselves. We barely cover, say, Student Union or Golf Club elections at all, never mind in detail, unless they receive significant independent coverage but those are, in their own minor ways, far more substantial than the question of what flag a podcast should adopt. We need to see some demonstration of significance here. We don't have that yet. Even if we did I don't see this justifying more than a couple of sentences. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that the HI flag referendum is more important than Student Union or Golf Club elections for two main reasons. Firstly, (a lot) more people followed and cared about the outcome of the vote; secondly, the HI flag referendum was more important to HI than most Golf Club elections are to the Golf Clubs. Furthermore, I see no reason why results of Student Union elections should not be added where they are discussed in detail; that kind of information would certainly interest a numbers person like me. Also, as there is no reason to question the authenticity of the primary source providing the election results, it is acceptable per WP:V. ArniDagur (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A simple sentence acknowledging that a flag was chosen by listeners is enough. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I fear ArniDagur knows little of golf clubs. They live for politics and backbiting. Playing golf is only something they do inbetween. ;-p More to the point, it is important to understand that Wikipedia can not decide what is important based on what seems interesting to us. Notability has to come from outside and it can only be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources. Certainly it would be unwise to try to base a notability claim on the importance of the referendum to HI relative to HI as a whole as (A) there is nothing to prove that and (B) that could just reopen the question of how notable HI is at all.

So, for example, a rare example of a golf club election being notable was the recent vote by Muirfield golf course to accept female members. We cover that at Muirfield#Membership_policy. This is justified by the national news coverage of the issue. The references include the BBC and several UK national newspapers. The choice to cover it is not arbitrary.

If there was anything comparable for this subject, even at a lower level, then we could cover it in slightly more depth. As far as I can tell there isn't. If just one major political journal had published an article with a title like "The podcast teaching the internet about voting systems" then that would do it.

As it stands I am going to propose a one sentence limit. I feel that this is possibly overgenerous but I don't want to stomp on it completely.

Actually, I do agree that it is interesting, but that is not the threshold here. I would also point out that there is nothing stopping you from writing about it in as much detail as you like somewhere else where Wikipedia's rules don't apply.

I am going to chop it down to one sentence, if that has not been done already. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. If it isn't then I assume that it will just get removed completely again. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

One sentence is more than generous for something so arbitrary and only of any significance to the unique listeners of this podcast. I also wish to note that this podcast seems to label many arbitrary things as the official "something" of the podcast. Mentioning that the podcast includes "frequent listener interaction" makes more sense to most readers than an "official flag".SomewhereInLondon (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The misuse of the word "official" to mean "Look at me. I assert my importance. Pay attention to me." is very common now and HI is well justified in poking a little fun at it with its silly "official" things. I just wish that things that start on HI as a joke didn't keep on getting misunderstood and added here as if they were serious. I mean, I could start referring to myself as The Official Annoying Pedant Of Wikipedia but it doesn't really mean anything officially official. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the section completely? No-one but you was questioning whether or not the official flag section should be there, but whether or not the detailed table showing the election results should. Simply stating that a "postal vote took place" does not add anything to the article, and its relative notability had already been established with independent sources. A consensus needs to be reached before taking such drastic actions.ArniDagur (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it does not justify a section at all. I kept the one sentence of it which has a semi-valid independent reference, even though that reference is not great. Please stop pushing your luck here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Ah. I see it got removed completely now. Oh well... --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

ArniDagur: The consensus is not in your favour. If you want more people to look at it then maybe start an RFC but you need to stop the reverts in the meantime. I really don't want to have to start handing out warnings for disruptive editing over this. Please just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass at least until the consensus here changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Revised proposal

We need to stop the disruptive editing.

I propose:

1. Keep the flag image.
2. Lose the paragraph about the referendum.
3. Caption the flag image

   Nail & Gear – "official flag" of the Hello Internet podcast, chosen by a listeners' referendum

   with the Portland reference (and maybe one of the others although they are Primary and hence not great.)

That way we acknowledge the referendum in half a sentence without undue coverage in the body of the article. The use of quotes covers the humorous use of the word official. I really think that this is as good as it is going to get. I think this is more than fair. Do we agree? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I think your previously proposed one sentence limit works as well. The quotes around "official flag", however, seem unnecessary. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare. There's still a case for sending this article to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I have done more or less what I proposed. Even if this is not perfect it is clearly better than what we had before. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Coining "freebooting"

There are references that say that the podcast "coined" the word "freebooting". The trouble is that I don't think this is what the authors really meant, or if they did they were very careless in not checking the actual situation. I think they misused the word "coin" (and derivatives) because there was nothing to coin here. The word already existed (since at least 1853) and already meant piracy. This is not a new sense of the word. Wiktionary has an example from 1982 using in an IT context: [15]. This puts us in the awkward situation where we have references that say one thing but that thing is demonstrably wrong.

I was happy with the use of "popularising" but, given that "freebooting" is a term that has fallen out of widespread use then maybe "reviving" could also be considered.

Alternatively, this might all be considered too trivial to include anyway. Words go in and out of fashion and there is no need to document each and every ebb and flow.

Another possibility to shift that paragraph away from talking about the word and towards talking about video piracy. The word can then be included without any claim to coining it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am liking that last option more and more. I'll give it a try. If people don't like it we can revert it discuss further. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I think it works OK. It sounds less like boasting "Woo! They made up a word!" and more like "They made Facebook clamp down on stolen videos". I think this is much more substantive and also more dignified. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is also less supported by the sources, which say that Haran coined (or is credited with coining) the term, not that the podcast sparked discussion of the issue or made Facebook clamp down on stolen videos. I've rephrased the paragraph to reflect the sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. We are dealing with a source that is demonstrably incorrect in using the term "coining". The 1982 usage cited by Wiktionary proves this. We have to deal with the situation where an otherwise WP:RS reliable source is in error. This is less rare than we like to admit. Journalists make mistakes and the mere act of printing something does not make it true. (Although I did once have a colleague who, having had his birth certificate filled out incorrectly, had to live with a misspelling of his family name because the country he was from did not allow corrections.) I don't want to say "incorrectly credited with coining" as that, while correct, makes them sound stupid over something that isn't their fault. We need a word other than "coining" as it makes the article misleading. So what are our options? "Using", "popularising", "promoting", "reviving", "adopting"? "Using" is correct but too bland. "adopting" is plausible. What do you think? Is adopting OK? Should we have the paragraph at all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(BTW: I only put the bit about Facebook adopting new tools because I was a bit worried that mentioning that there was piracy on Facebook without acknowledging that they were trying to combat it might be unfair on them. I wasn't trying to say that HI was solely responsible for Facebook's changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC))

I think "adopting" sounds good, and I would also be happy with "coining", "using", or "reviving". I can live with "popularising" or "promoting" too, although I have some doubts about whether those two are an entirely accurate reflection of what the sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between Hello Internet inventing the word "freebooting" altogether, versus Hello Internet using the existing word "freebooting" in a new way. They didn't invent the word, but they did alter its definition: from simply "piracy" (or even software piracy, as in the 1982 usage) to rehosting streamable online media without permission. The new "freebooting" definiton is much more specific than its 1982 counterpart, so much that it warrants its own definition.

For listeners of the podcast, this distinction is clear. The reason Hello Internet brought up "freebooting" was because they needed a more specific term than "software piracy".

I think this discussion should be based on whether or not creating a new definition counts as "coining" a term. As I see it, they "coined" the term "freebooting", as it relates to the unauthorized rehosting of online media. I want to highlight that the 1982 definition is not an accurate example of "freebooting" as Hello Internet popularized it, its merely an example of "freebooting" as a synonym for generic software piracy. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This rant being said, I think the aforementioned "adopting" works just as well, and is less of a semantic headache. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

ArniDagur

To editor ArniDagur: This is your final warning. If you add any more content without getting consensus I'm going to consider taking this to WP:AN. You're being disruptive by continually adding poorly-referenced material when several editors have indicated that your edits are inappropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: What part of every single statement sourced is poorly sourced? This is getting absurd; please do not let your bias stand in the way of the improvement of Wikipedia. Anyone that has listened to as little as 3 episodes of the podcast knows that everything stated is true without any doubt. --ArniDagur (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ArniDagur: "Anyone that has listened to as little as 3 episodes of the podcast knows" This is exactly the problem, Tim. Wikipedia doesn't care about what's true. We don't include content simple because it's verifiable. You're a fan and too horribly partisan in order to understand that. You seem to think you have permission to write as if this is a fan-site. It is not. Wikipedia requires consensus. You don't have it; you should quit editing this article forever. Those are my terms. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: For the last time, my name is not "Tim", and I do not consider myself a fanatic; it's getting old. I do not see how adding a simple description of the show's format could possible be considered WP:CRUFT, better at home on a "fan" website. People go to this Wikipedia article to know what the podcast is about, but they leave empty handed; the article does not currently provide that information. How is this different from what is done in nearly every other podcast/tv-show wikipedia article? (see 1, 2) --ArniDagur (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To add, all of the statements, perhaps with one exception (very debatable), are 100% verifiable. --ArniDagur (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That other offending articles exist is not a reasonable excuse. It's clear to me that you can't see this objectively so I'm not going to attempt to explain further. I think this article should be merged back into CGP Grey or deleted, entirely. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We can discuss it here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Internet was recommanded in Business Insider last month

As "one of the 43 best website to learn something new". Could maybe be used in the article at some point? I'm not sure but it's there just in case.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-43-best-websites-for-learning-something-new-2017-3 Karlpoppery (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

See also

The only rationale given is "both podcast are so similar : 2 educational youtuber bantering" well I can think of other podcasts that are two people bantering so why are these two any more related to each other than any other combination you can think of? Nthep (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a "see also" that includes a link to "Dear Hank & John" because :

• Both podcast are very similar products. They are both about educational youtubers discussing random subjects, including their work. It's likely that someone interested in Hello Internet would also be interested by Dear Hank & John, or that they would be happy to discover that Dear Hank and John exists. John and Hank are similar to Grey and Brady in many ways; they often mention each others work (including HI mentioning DH&J) and share a significant portion of their fanbase.
• The Dear Hank & John article has linked to the Hello Internet article for more than a year. It would make a more coherent whole to return the favor. It's ugly if only one of those two articles is linked to the other.

Karlpoppery (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Long term plan

The text is crude, but I've put in my sandbox what I think this article should look like in the long term. This format is based on the article This American Life. See also the article for Radiolab. If we could pull it off I think that the article would look much better and be of a higher quality. It might be a challenge to find enough sources to make the article slightly longer, but I think it's possible. Tell me what you think. Karlpoppery (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Karlpoppery: I don't think that would be acceptable. You seem to want introduce more cruft, much of it reliant non self-published sources. How you want the article to read is not based off of the sorts of sources we require. If anything, this article should be deleted or merged back into CGP Grey. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer working on this anyway, but I do think it would be possible to have this format without fancruft. The article should simply be informative and give an idea of what the podcast is to someone who don't know. A quick summary of what the history, a quick summary of the format, that's it. (I know that the text in my sandbox isn't right)

The notability debate doesn't need to be reopened. This horse has been beaten to death already. Karlpoppery (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Coining "freebooting" 2

Right now we have "popularizing". This seems a bit wrong to me since it implies that Brady popularized the use of this term to mean copyright infringement, but that other less known people used it like that before him. I have the same problem with "adopting". We need a word that conveys the fact that this was Brady's idea. "Coining freebooting" doesn't work either because it's not a neologism. The most appropriate phrasing i can think of is to say "coining the use of the term freebooting to describe copyright infringement ". This is what Brady did, he didn't invent the word, but he invented this usage of the word.

Unless someone objects or finds something better I'm gonna change it back to "coining the use of". Karlpoppery (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. Haran did not coin it in this context. Wiktionary cites its use in a computer software/content context dating from 1982. Also, as it is a centuries old synonym for piracy it is obviously a plausible term to use for software/content piracy so there is nothing to coin. The references that say "coining" are mistaken. Even reliable sources make mistakes. My preference is for "adopting" as this uncontroversially correct, if a little bland. "popularising" is also acceptable. "Coining" is not. Also please be aware that the entire paragraph is very close to being deleted as unnecessary trivia and constant demands that we inflate the significance of the matter by pretending that he invented an existing word are not making it any more likely that it will be kept. Finally, please consider that we don't want to make Haran and Grey sound like idiots and having a claim that they coined an existing word reflects badly on them as well as on Wikipedia. Please do not change it back without consensus here. Continued edit warring around this will be considered disruptive editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't want to go to war over this. "Adopting" is clearly inaccurate but I'll live with it. Karlpoppery (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that "adopting" is uncontroversially correct. As I alluded to in my edit summary, adopting could be understood to be an internal action only. When an entity adopts something, it adopts it for itself, not for a broader community. Only when something that an entity has adopted then spreads to other entities would you "credit" the first entity with being the originator. The use of "credited with" is incongruous in the first case. I don't care if "popularizing" stays or not, but I don't think "adopting" is right. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

In some ways, that almost sounds like an argument for removing it completely but I'm not trying to be difficult here. "Popularising" is fine. I don't think anybody can argue that Haran's use of the term made it slightly more popular. I'm going to switch it to the UK/Australian spelling with an "s" so don't panic if you see me in the edit history. I'm not reverting it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we all calm down in this talk section? Everyone is at everyone's throat in this article, it would be nice to see some collaboration instead. We all want to make the article better, at least I hope that's why we're all here. Karlpoppery (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If my comment above sounded not-calm, I apologize - no un-calm-ness intended! I was only trying to point out that in this case, wording that might be obvious to one editor may not be universally understood to mean the exact same thing by all readers. In changing the article to "popularis/zing", I was trying to find a compromise, apparently unaware that I was wading into an existing debate... --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to point to the discussion above, in which I tried to explain that the 1982 example isn't accurate with regards to the Hello Internet definition. Granted, the has been used in the context of software piracy, but the podcast's definition is more specific than a simple synonym for "piracy". Regardless of all of this, adopting/popularising also gets the point across, and I fully agree with Karlpoppery that (as stated in the administrators' noticeboard) this talk page could cool down a bit. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Some other words that could be used: "reappropriating", "reclaiming", "suggesting", "Proposing" Karlpoppery (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare said above, the Hello Internet definition of freebooting is more specific than a direct synonym for piracy; thus, the 1982 example is irrelevant. Furthermore, all of the articles I have seen use the term "coined", that is not an accident. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2017/04/filter_bubbles_revisited_the_internet_may_not_be_driving_political_polarization.html, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34106475, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/80747/20150831/facebook-piracy-video-fullscreen-youtube-content.htm.

Anyhow, I suggest using the word "neologised" - "to make or use new words or create new meanings for existing words". --ArniDagur (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, it solves both issues. Good find! Karlpoppery (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I stopped following this conversation before this resolution (or simply forgot), as when I just happened to see "neologising" in the article, I couldn't believe it was a real word. Sorry... --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I do like reappropriating, it was one of my suggestions at the time. "Neologising" used to link to an article about the word "neologising" that gave a definition appropriate for this context, but now it redirects to "neologism", so it makes less sense. KarlPoppery (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Everybody so far seems to like "reappropriating", i.e. nobody has said anything against it since it came up. I think it is the perfect word for what we are trying to say and I'm only sad that we didn't seize on it before. Despite this, it got reverted again, back to "neologising", which is not only a damn horrible word it is also simply untrue.

Can we all agree on "reappropriating"?

BTW, my spell-checker wants a hyphen in it (i.e. "re-appropriating") but Wiktionary disagrees and I'm much more inclined to agree with Wiktionary. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we all agree. Hopefully there's no need for another talk-page diarrhea over one word. The spelling is also correct (see 1), spell-check is wrong on this one. KarlPoppery (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the main reason I chose that word is that it's the one used in the article freebooting links to. They probably haven't debated it as vociferously there, but I thought it sounded good when I saw it. I've looked up neologise, incidentally, and I don't believe it can technically be a transitive verb. Maybe that's why it struck me as so wrong... But since we all seem to be OK with the current (accidental, really) solution, it's irrelevant. :) --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Unecessary inclusion of list of episodes

The inclusion of Hello Internet's list of episodes is an unecessary piece of fancruft which goes against the precedent set by other major talk podcasts (See: Nerdist Podcast). SomewhereInLondon (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're right or wrong here regarding the merits of an episode list, but there are episode lists on other podcasts such as Serial (podcast). So I don't really buy the precedent thing here. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I just now noticed that you said "talk podcasts", so perhaps my above example isn't the best. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As a big fan of the show, I agree -- the list of episodes needs to go. If someone needs to look up an episode, they can EASILY do so on the podcasts website. This is not vital information to the article by any stretch of the imagination. Air♠Combat_Talk! 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the list now. If somebody can come up with a good, valid reason to include it, then please discuss that here before re-adding it. Air♠Combat_Talk! 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this removal. One of my concerns when this article changed from being a redirect was, beyond the notability issue, that this article would be a magnet for cruft from Tims (fans of this podcast). The episodes aren't independently sourced and (as you can see above) some editors believe the article isn't "informative" if it doesn't list all the sundry non-notable minutiae that this podcast features. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are lists of episodes for TV shows deemed useful, while for podcasts, or at least this podcast, they are considered fancruft? It seems a bit arbitrary. Jhtx (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

An example of how lists for shows should be done is Big Brother 18 (UK). There is an accepted list for the show called {ta da!) List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)‎. Go figure. Anyway, this is not an exception: a properly formatted and sourced list of episodes in an article separate from the main article is perfectly acceptable. And much more easily edited.

Hmm, I just realized that it's a list of characters. But the analogy still applies. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 01:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

On the first line, could you change "Hello Internet is an audio podcast hosted by YouTube content creators CGP Grey and Brady Haran." to "Hello Internet is an audio podcast run by host CGP Grey and vice host Brady Haran who are content creators on YouTube." Neverend314 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: There were jokes made by the two. Nihlus 06:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Other Flags

Does anyone know whether the other 4 flags on the shortlist are copy-write free? And if so could you add them to the Flag Referendum section? Mindi Crayon (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You probably mean copyright. AFAIK, they went through some editing and were released into public domain. But it's not worth it adding them to the Flag Referendum section. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

They are in commons:Category:Flags of Hello Internet. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

They are not doing any harm there but they should not be added here. I see that the coverage of the listener's referendum has been removed entirely. That is fine by me, as I see it as funcruft. I would not object to a single sentence and a reference on the subject, at least not strongly enough to remove it, but I would strongly object to anything more than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

Change 90 podcasts to 91 2602:30A:C7FB:2610:D5B7:BD6D:9FBA:D667 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request:

Can you add ‘chosen by listeners’ to the sentence referring to the Nail & Gear flag? Not to restart the referendum debate, but I feel that this is an important piece of information that directly pertains to the topic of the sentence that is fundamental to the flag itself. If you disagree, I don’t mind, but at least provide reason. Rdf7 (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the Episodes have their own page?

I added in episodes but I think the list may be too big. Should they be moved to a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownM1 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the list because it seemed to be copied directly from iTunes or from Hello Internet itself. We don't want a lot of content copied from other sources but what we can do is link to it instead. I'll add the link to their episode list under External Links. That way anybody who wants to see it can find it easily without us having to copy it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's too much detail then give it its own page. TV shows have dedicated episode pages because people sometimes want more or specific information, without having to jump through hoops to get to it. Being one click away is easy access. I appreciate the desire to keep it simple but it's at the point of not having enough information for people to get an indication of what the podcast is about. -- UnknownM1 (talk) 8:124, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Significance of fan podcast and discord

The fan podcast Two Tims Talking was started very recently, has 4 episodes in total, has no reviews or ratings on itunes, and is not ranked on third party services. (at this time)

The discord server is fan run, not affiliated with the show in any way, and not of substantial size compared to servers run in the name of similarly popular podcasts or internet celebrities.

The inclusion of these two insignificant fan projects is only an advertisement for them.

173.225.176.11 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"One Hundred and One Episodes"

I believe the correct phrase is "one hundred one episodes". Could this please be fixed? -- Anonymous (talk) 4:444, 7 May 2018 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:8104:D007:9C17:1DA5:6C06:7BE8 (talk)

I believe "one hundred and one" is correct, at least in American usage. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In British English as well. Saying "one hundred one" sounds more like an American colloquial usage than a British one to me but, either way, it isn't correct formal English. Also, there is no user called "Anonymous" and 4:444 is not a valid time of day. It's like H. P. Lovecraft round here. I fear for my sanity. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Format section

I suggest adding a Format section to the article that details the content and structure of the podcast. Many other podcasts have similar sections on their articles, such as My Favorite Murder and My Brother, My Brother, and Me. This section could discuss the self proclaimed "two dudes talking" genre (source), the follow-up prominently featured in the first half of every episode, as well as some of the recurring segments such as Plane Crash Corner, Brady's Paper Cuts, and Things People Do While Listening to the Hello Internet Podcast Corner.

I would totally understand if this was considered fancruft, which is why I didn't just add it myself. Let me know what you think. BanjoZebra (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

New Podcast episode released, ups the total podcast count to 111 LigioWiki (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: updated to 112 based on the cited source. feminist (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

1. of episodes is not up to date. There are 114 episodes, not 112 Caseacorn (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I added an "as of" template. There is no need to update this count every time a new episode comes out, IMO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Days of HI Christmas episodes

It says only 11 have been released. That is incorrect. All 12 have been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crockett623 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Verified on official website and updated - thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2019

Change number of episodes from 121 as of april to 123 as of may Ianielas (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)