Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Progress On the Template

Hey Sdkb, was Template:Podcast platform links ever finished? Did it still need some work and testing or can I start adding it to pages about podcasts? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to use since it's tagged as beta. The main thing left to do, if I recall correctly, is just adding Wikidata properties for more platforms. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It'd also be nice if we could get it to work on mobile, but that'd be tricky, as navboxes aren't set up for that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've started adding the template to any podcast article that has at least one platform link already available (so far I've checked every podcast starting with the letters A through G). Would you mind giving me a quick demonstration of how to add Wikidata properties for podcasts so that I can add the template to every article dedicated to a podcast? I rarely touch anything related to Wikidata (the only time I've done anything related to Wikidata has been stuff related to this template), and I'd like to do it correctly if I'm going to add the data for a ton of different podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly! So I just did it for Google Podcasts for More Perfect (podcast). First, I added {{Podcast platform links}} to the page. Then, I went to the Google Podcasts page and copied the relevant part of the URL. Last, I went to the Wikidata page (accessible from the left sidebar), clicked "add statement", typed in "Google Podcasts show ID", pasted the result, and clicked publish.

Ultimately, we'll want to do bulk imports, and I think I've requested that somewhere on Wikidata, but for now, that's how to add missing data manually. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant and Sdkb: Question on this template - is there a way to specify a specific Wikidata property rather than having the template identify it automatically? An editor over on Wikidata spilt the podcast info off of a main property (Critical Role (Q22079668) to Critical Role (Q109341430)). Per their talk, this is standard. However, this means the template breaks on this end (see Critical Role). Not entirely sure how to fix this. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The best way to handle this is probably to handle it similarly to {{Authority control}}: modify the template to have a |qid= parameter so that it's possible to override the item, if it's not the most appropriate. If anyone knows of an elegant way to do this, please do so; I can try my hand at implementing this if not. Vahurzpu (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu: That sounds great. Thanks for your help! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Assessment Outliers

I recently noticed some outliers on the assessment chart and I don't understand why they aren't acting the same way as other pages with the same assessments. For instance, the redirect for The Signal (podcast) is listed under the "???" column rather than "NA" despite the fact that the redirect has no importance rating just like the other 133 other redirects which all automatically sort as "NA" rather than "???". I also noticed that Draft:Beach too Sandy, Water too Wet is listed in the "stub" row despite the fact that it has no assessment, and every other draft without an assessment is listed under the "Other" row. Obviously these aren't a big deal, but I thought they were kind of strange and I was wondering if anyone knew why this was the case. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Short Descriptions

I've started to go through and add or improve short descriptions related to the podcasting WikiProject. I was wondering what other users thought the format of most short descriptions should be. For instance, when writing a short description for a podcast article should the short description only say "<genre> podcast" or should it say "<genre> podcast by <production company>"? Should it include other details like the host or format (i.e. interview, scripted, etc.)? What about the start date of the podcast? Should it include where it was produced (i.e. "American podcast", "British podcast", etc.). TipsyElephant (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would skip the company, unless the company pretty much owns it, like any BBC or NPR podcasts where they might swap out hosts as people come and go. I say that because creators that are only using the company to publish can always take their podcast to another network. I lean towards keeping the descriptions pretty simple. I like genre if it is very clear, if it's a mix, I'd omit. Similar for the origin; if it it really defining where it came from (or there's another podcast from another place), go for it. I'm on the fence about the year. (Remember you're targeting ~40 characters to display on an average 3-inch wide screen.) Side note: if you like the Wikidata description, ShortDescHelper will automatically capitalize for you if you hit Import as opposed to manually doing so. -2pou (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving the entrys for indivual episodes

I noticed the there were a lot of entries for the excellent Lex Fridman podcast (Q109248984) in wikidata but not all complete as each other.

I put a basic query in the talk page for it in wikidata that uses listerirabot for listing them out,I hope its useful for others to

{{Wikidata list
|sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE {
   ?item wdt:P179 wd:Q109248984. 
  }
|columns=label:Article,description,P577,P5030,P2364,P2561,P1476,P1651
|section=131
|min_section=3
|sort=label
|links=all
|thumb=128
|autolist=fallback
|summary=itemnumber
|wdedit=yes
|sort=P2364
}}
{{Wikidata list end}}

Back ache (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Back ache, that's been helpful for episodes of The Magnus Archives. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Importance scale and podcast categories

Did we ever end up officially recording/implementing the importance scale that was made a few years ago? Also, has there been any progress on the categorization of non-fiction and fiction podcasts? starsandwhales (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Starsandwhales: The WikiProject infobox contains a link at the bottom to the assessment page and the bottom of the assessment page has an importance scale (you can also click here). You can check the assessment talk page here for the previous discussion regarding the importance scale. If I remember correctly, the discussion regarding the categorization of non-fiction and fiction podcasts was unresolved for the most part due to ambiguity in reliable secondary sources and a lack of community consensus. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Members List

I was wondering if anyone opposed converting the current WikiProject Member list into something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio/Participants or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Internet#Participants. If we continue to use the current format where everyone resigns there name each year then the list will become unwieldy. This is especially true if the increases in media coverage and listenership is an indicator of how many people are interested in podcasting. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Podcast Networks

The pages dedicated to podcast networks appear very messy and long without much substance and I was wondering what other people thought about the formatting used throughout articles like Earwolf, Maximum Fun, WNYC Studios, and Gimlet Media. I was specifically wondering about the individual subsections for each podcast that take up the majority of the page. It seems excessive, unnecessary, and not focused on the network itself. I don't see any examples of these subsections in radio related articles such as BBC Radio, BBC Radio 1, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC Radio One, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Australia, NPR, or PBS. Replacing these short entries for each and every program with a list would dramatically trim each of these pages and cut back the number of sources that aren't strictly about the network itself. Similarly, many podcast network ledes include extensive comma-separated lists of podcasts on their network (i.e. WNYC Studios has a list of 12), which seem arbitrary and excessive. @Starsandwhales, Richard Nevell, 2pou, Sariel Xilo, and Sdkb: what are all your thoughts on this? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think some amount of discussion on individual programs is warranted, since podcast networks tend to have fairly few, and they impact the network substantially—the Gimlet Media lead isn't complete without mentioning Reply All. The Spotify lead needs to mention Joe Rogan. But the discussion should be limited to the basics and how the success or failure of a given program impacted the network (e.g. the implosion of Reply All). There could also be some overall discussion of the types of programs a network gravitates to. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: yeah, that makes sense. I think when it comes to the lead of an article I was mostly referring to pages that contain a long list of shows or podcasters without any indication as to their impact on the network. I was specifically looking at WNYC Studios at the time and now I'm not seeing any others, but a couple with seemingly arbitrary lists of podcasters include PodcastOne and QCode. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think podcast networks should be thought of as something closer to a production company versus a traditional radio broadcaster. If you take a look at some random production companies from List of film production companies & List of television production companies, the format of listing programs is fairly common. Mostly these are just lists or tables without much detail. You could potentially reduce many of these podcast sections into similar lists/tables if you think that is needed - something like BBC Radio#Programmes or NPR#Programming. I would also highlight some of these big radio broadcasters you listed link to pages that go into more detail (like CBC Radio#Podcasts). In general, I think a bit of detail is useful especially with shows that don't have their own articles (see companies focused on web series like Geek & Sundry & Critical Role Productions). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: I think I was leaning toward something similar to the filmography tables found in many of those film and television production company pages, but perhaps a solid paragraph or two like CBC Radio#Podcasts would be a better idea. It just seems like an in depth paragraph or two for each of the 60+ programs on Maximum Fun or the nearly 100 programs on Earwolf is unwieldy. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If a lot of those programs have good sourcing, you could always WP:SPINOUT out those into something like "List of Maximum Fun productions" (or whatever title is most accurate). The most notable podcasts get mentioned on the hub while the majority get moved over to a list article. Up to you; I only tangentially edit podcast articles as they intersect with web series articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I recently added a table to Luminary (podcast network) that encapsulates how I think the tables should be formatted if you want to take a look. The article didn't really have anything prior except a short and arbitrary list of podcasters associated with the network so I didn't feel like I was stepping on any toes by adding the table and removing tons of prose. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I like using the lists as it's even handed: there shouldn't be shows which are missed out. It makes sense to include key podcasts in the text, but as prose a list quickly becomes unmanageable. In theory, as networks get bigger lists of podcasts could also become too long to be useful so the approach used for radio broadcasters might be appropriate. But I'm not quite sure where the (soft) limit should be since there are some very long lists on Wikipedia. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Useful Sources

I was wondering whether it's okay to make a subpage for the WikiProject dedicated to where to find useful information and sources for podcast related articles. For instance, a list of awards commonly won by podcasts, websites, directories, and other tools that might be of use when working on articles within the scope of this WikiProject. As far as useful sources go I thought a list of "Best podcasts of <insert year>" might be worth the time because there is not a relevant Wikipedia list article that we can create related to those articles and they are a helpful starting point if someone wants to find older podcasts that might be notable. Unfortunately, in my searches I'm having trouble finding many lists like this that are any older than 2015. In fact, I've found it's quite difficult to find any online sources for podcasting pre-2010 or so. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking a list like this might be helpful. It's taking me a while to find a lot of these sources, but every article has dozens of podcasts that are probably notable. For instance, I've been going through the 2016 list from The Atlantic and so far I've gotten multiple of them through the AfC process and I already have drafts written up for others that are clearly notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mukilteoedits and FalconMillenium: what do you two think? You're the only other users who are listed as active in the project in 2021. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I think this would be super helpful. pre-2010 there really aren't many sources since podcasts often weren't taken seriously. Mukedits (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mukilteoedits: if we're going to make a sub-page here at the WikiProject what do you think the most appropriate name would be? References? Sources? Resources? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Of course it's OK! Remember to be WP:BOLD.

The last two are slightly different in that they are really only providing guidance if a common source is considered reliable or not. I put some pseudo-subpage examples of the VG project to illustrate that they list a reference desk, and some seriously dedicated editors combed magazines (or lists) and linked each page that is reviewed, discussed, etc. Then you can see what has red links, and what does not, and if clicking a redlink, you can see if another subpage links there as well to see multiple sources. Quite impressive, but probably took a LOT of effort of some dedicated editors... -2pou (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: would it be appropriate to make a template like Template:Find video game sources short for podcasting or is there a more general use template like this that I'm not seeing? I did some minor work with Template:Podcast platform links, but I personally haven't made a template before and would want to read up on some of the guidelines and policies before starting one. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: At first glance, I'm not really sure what the benefit of using that template is other than shortening the search type to its first initial. I could be wrong, but it seems like a short denotion for {{Find sources}}. Maybe the RS option filters out sites not listed as reliable for the project? There very well be advantages to it, and if any user utilizes them, then it's worth having it. There's no reason you can't create a similar template if you would find it useful; you just have to be sure the time you put into developing it will save time later that the general Find sources template does not provide. There is also {{Search for}}/{{Search for expanded}} for general use that provide more robust search options. Saw that used in an AfD and was impressed with the options, though I haven't used it much. -2pou (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Progress Report

I went ahead and created the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting/Sources if anyone is interested in contributing. I'm still working on filling in the tables with relevant information, but I've accumulated quite a few sources and awards as well as yearly lists that might be helpful in the future. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I would move Podcast Review and Podcast Magazine out of the "Situational sources" section unless you have a note to add for these. While not listed at RSP, this is probably due to them not being challenged at the WP:RSN. Both works list editorial oversight teams with appropriate mastheads. Podcast Review is also run by the LA Review of Books overall. -2pou (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: I wasn't sure yet and wanted a second opinion. I opened discussions at RSN but only got a response regarding Podcast Review. I'll start adding notes and more thuroughly filling out the tables in the coming weeks as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived award

If anyone is able to find an archive of the award I mentioned on the sources talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Sources please let me know. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Going back to the last edit before you tabulated the section at Special:PermaLink/1072441824, the line read The Naked Scientists was also one of the five finalists in the 2006 World Podcast Awards and has received two nominations: one for "best produced", and one for "best science and technology podcast" at the 2007 awards. It was also a top-five finalist in the 2008 and 2009 awards. I have to think that based on the dates, they were simply adding the word "World" to the Podcast Awards. The statement dates back to 2009 (Special:Diff/332649111) for the latest, and way back to 2007 (Special:Diff/106949851]]) for it's initial addition. It's not a sentence that reads very well, but I don't think anything in that statement actually claims a win—just a "finalist" or a "nomination", which I think are effectively the same thing for this particular award.

If you look at the awards archives, this seems to make sense: 2006 results listed them with a nom in Technology/Science (with only 5 entries), 2007 results list them under "Produced" and "Technology/Science" (several noms without shortlisting?), 2008 results and 2009 results list it once for "Technology/Science", but I don't see any correlation to a "top five" statement. Note that they appear to have also received a nomination in at least 2011 (not seeing more very quickly). Overall inconclusive, but I think I'd give it a 90% certainty in my own mind that this is just the old-school, original Podcast Awards system. - 2pou (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@2pou: that makes sense. I looked for a while trying to find somewhere that linked to it and I even tried inputting random URLs like worldpodcastawards.com at the Wayback Machine, but I couldn't find anything. By the way, what do you think of putting the awards in tables like that? I'm a little unsure whether I should be using Template:CFinalist for awards because it looks like the "c" stands for "casting," but I can't find an alternative template. (I realized retrospectively that the "c" stands for "contender" not "casting." I'm not sure where I read that it meant "casting" or what that would even mean now that I'm thinking about it.) I think the tables look rather nice for pages like 2 Dope Queens, Timber Wars, and WTF with Marc Maron but I wonder if it's overkill for pages I can't find more than one award for like Oh No, Ross and Carrie!. It also seems like overkill when a podcast has won or been nominated dozens of times like Fantasy Footballers. Should nominations not be added or insignificant awards not be added if the table becomes extensive? Or is it not that big a deal because the table doesn't take up that much room and people can scroll past if they like? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Podcast platform links template

@MJL: You can restart the discussion here (link to previous archived discussion). 🙂 Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

List of lists

Would Category:Podcasting lists be WP:LISTOFLISTS material? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, I believe that is referring to actual list articles that are in the main article space, not to categories. This type of category is not uncommon. See Category:Lists of films by studio for example. Further diffusing would not be bad (if desired). I considered diffusing to lists by country, for example, but hesitated due to cases like the Native American list. -2pou (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@2pou: I meant more like, would it be appropriate to create an article titled Podcasting lists with the contents of that category. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, if you think it would provide enough navigational assistance to satisfy WP:LISTN, go for it. I don't think it would satisfy the criteria of being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so it would depend on if you think it's going to help people find things. Consider how you think people might end up on the page and if it's increasing or decreasing the number of clicks to get somewhere. -2pou (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: What about a template to serve as a navbar at the bottom of articles? Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: that's a good idea. I totally forgot I was working on a template a while back and I just kind of mentioned it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting/Archive_5#Podcasting template. I'll work on improving that template but perhaps I can make a separate one exclusively for lists. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)