Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Article titles

With Host

I've noticed there are quite a few podcasts with article titles formatted as "<Podcast name> with <host name>" and I was wondering if the "with <host name>" is really appropriate in light of MOS:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, which seem to suggest that titles should be kept as short and succint as possible. Would it make sense to change titles like these by removing the host from the title? Some examples include Off Menu with Ed Gamble and James Acaster, ID10T with Chris Hardwick, How Was Your Week with Julie Klausner, and Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern, Blank Check with Griffin & David, Bullseye with Jesse Thorn, Something to Wrestle with Bruce Prichard, The K Ohle with Kurt Braunohler, Under the Skin with Russell Brand, WTF with Marc Maron, Why I'm Not... with Brant Pinvidic, and You Made It Weird with Pete Holmes. If we did decide to shorten these names some of them would need to have "(podcast)" added after the name. Would it still be worth it in those specific cases? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be a case-by-case assessment, but I believe some of those come down to not being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or the title already bein in use. Because disambiguation is needed, the creators chose to use a WP:NATURALDAB as a preferred option over a (podcast) parenthetical dab. If you think that most people would not recognize the full name, a redirect can be made to help in navigating to the page (WTF (podcast), for example) or a requested move can be made. If the shorter name is available, it is worth considering a move, but it's really only needed if the full title is truly not the common name. -2pou (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ending in podcast

I've also noticed that quite a few article titles end with the word podcast. Sometimes these are clearly part of the podcast's title and other times I can't tell. For instance, all of the artwork on the official website for European Skeptics Podcast as well as the official cover art include the word podcast, the title appears to be shortened to ESP by the creators of the podcast, and podcast platforms like iTunes include podcast in the name. However, there are others that only appear to include the word podcast at the end on Wikipedia. For example, Mormon Stories Podcast does not appear to use the word "podcast" in it's artwork and it's not included in the title on platforms like iTunes. So my question is whether it's okay to shortened names like these and if the title without "podcast" is already in use wouldn't it be more appropriate to include parentheses? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's unclear if it is part of the title or not, we should go with what reliable sources refer to it most frequently per common name. If that doesn't clear things up, it's probably best to trust in the article's creator that they chose the correct name. In the case of Mormon Stories Podcast, the artwork in the image suggests that it may have at one point gone by the full title. If they have dropped it recently, and that is reflected in reliable sources, then yes, (podcast) would be preferred. The history at Mormon Stories doesn't help clarify things much, since it also referred to the blog, but if the blog was not notable, and "Podcast" has been dropped from the name, an RM could be opened. -2pou (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll list more examples here. American Girls Podcast uses podcast as something like a subtitle on the official website and includes "pod" in the URL, but podcast is not included on iTunes and similar platforms. Beef And Dairy Network Podcast includes podcast on the cover art, but it doesn't appear to be included on most podcasting platforms. Casefile True Crime Podcast's official website includes podcast at the end of the name, but it's not included in the cover art or on podcasting platforms. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm curious what the intended uses were for some of the Template:Infobox podcast parameters. Particularly the format, audio format, video format, and picture format parameters. These seem to be used for a wide array of things throughout podcast articles. Things I've seen for format include audio, podcast, mp3, and itunes. I've seen a similar variety for the medium specific formats, and I've never even seen picture format being used. I'm also unclear on the usage of ratings, cited for, and cited as. They all seem to be used in various ways. And lastly I have no idea what Motion graphics is.

I would also like to discuss the possibility of adding parameters for the different types of podcast proposed by RadarForest. For instance, the release type, style of delivery, and the ficticiousness of the content.

It looks like you're not alone in your confusion about formats, at least. Broccoli and Coffee asked the same at Template talk:Infobox podcast, which went unanswered. I personally would just leave them blank. Existing documentation isn't helpful at all. I'm guessing that at one point motion graphics was something used for something like slidecasts/enhanced podcasts. Picture format might have been if people uploaded things in different formats to their individual distribution platform like .mp4/.mpg/.mov/etc. but I'm not sure. Audio format may have been .wav/.mp3/.ogg/etc. This may have been more important at one point, but become obsolete with current distribution methods becoming more standardized? A lot of this is probably from when podcasts were just getting off the ground and nobody knew what would be used?
"Cited for" and "Cited as" are described in the documentation as being for awards received by the podcast (probably deemed important per podcast notability WP:WEBCRIT bullet 2). Ratings is unexplained, but perhaps there were thoughts that itunes downloads or something similar to Nielsen ratings would come about, or it could have been intended to capture the star ratings of platforms. I would leave that blank moving forward since the multitude of platforms now makes that hard to track.

As for new parameters, they can always be added. If it's something complicated, you might need to ask the WP:HELPDESK or a template editor, just make sure to clearly explain what you're looking for. -2pou (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

External links in the body of articles

I thought I'd mention these here in case anyone wanted to help remove some of these external links that someone added to all of the episodes of these podcasts. Getting Doug with High, European Skeptics Podcast, and Tiny Desk Concerts. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable Guests

I've noticed quite a few articles containing sections called Notable guests ane they often include a list or table of guests that have been on the podcast. I don't think these lists meet WP:SOURCELIST because most of them are completely unsourced or only cite the podcast itself and I don't see any benefit to them, especially when "noteable" is so arbitrary and leads to long lists of every guest to ever be on the podcast. Lately, I've started removing these lists entirely and I wanted to make sure that what I was doing is correct. Some examples of podcast articles that currently contain these lists are Keith and The Girl, Jaret Goes to the Movies, Innovation Crush, If I Were You (podcast), I Don't Speak German, Hollywood Babble-On, Gillmor Gang, and Getting Doug with High.

You're probably right that it's too subjective and that's it's better to be all or nothing, but note that there isn't anything terribly wrong with citing the podcast itself as an overall practice. You'd really only need to cite it specifically if challenged or contentious, though (WP:MINREF). Similar to MOS:FICTIONPLOT, some things are simply statements of fact, and if there is not interpretation or original research, a primary source can still WP:VERIFY information. Using independent sources can be preferable, but it's really a hard requirement to establish notability. You just have to watch out to not be a directory, etc. -2pou (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and removed the lists of notable guests from the articles I mentioned and cited WP:SOURCELIST and WP:WP:NOTDIR in my edit summaries. If anyone thinks that a guest is really worth mentioning they can readd them to the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Podcast by Country

I was wondering why we don't have categories for podcasts by country. We clearly have enough podcasts to make categories for the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. There's an article for Podcasting in India so I would assume that it wouldn't be too difficult to start a category for podcasts from India. I've been sifting through the articles lately and I'm fairly certain that we have enough podcasts to start categories for Australia, Germany and possibly France. Is there a reason that we haven't created these categories and would anyone be opposed to me starting them? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I can't say for sure, but I'd guess that nobody ever got around to creating them, or someone feared they'd be a series of WP:SMALLCATs. Given that podcasting is so prevalent now, I think the only thing that might limit growth is that this is the en wikipedia, and people are inherently less likely to create foreign language topics, or foreign language podcasters/listeners more likely to focus on a foreign language wiki. But on the basis of having the category, that is not a limit to the potential for growth. If you know a country that can be decently populated, there is no reason you cannot create these categories. -2pou (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to make a list here so it's easier to start each of the smaller categories. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I created the first category so we have a demo. I wanted to know if I did it right before making any more of them. I based the wording and formatting on Category:Canadian songs because I figured that's the closest to a podcast that we'll get. Is there any disagreement on whether to do "Canadian podcasts"? Should we change it to something more like "Podcasts from Canada", "Podcasts of Canada", or something like "Podcasts created in Canada"? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks to me like you did it right. Cats are pretty bare bones pages. These are self-explanatory, but just so you know about them, there are templates like {{catmain}}, {{category explanation}}, etc. and more listed in
Or you can always use regular text. These can help clarify what the category was intended for in the section above subcats and cat contents. Again, not necessary for this one. See Category:Burlington Indians players (1958–1964) for an explanation example and the general Podcasting category uses a {{catmain}}. <Country name> podcasts is good. I prefer it because it makes the sorting much easier than having to use a sortkey. It's also consistent with other country container cats like Category:Songs by country, Category:Art by country, Category:Books by country, etc. (Category:Works by nationality has to use a sortkey.) -2pou (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you might want to try HotCat as well in Preferences>Gadgets>HotCat. It makes adding cats to individual pages easier. It will save you some clicks which will add up in time if you are populating new categories. Cat-a-lot is good for moving cats, but I don't think that's what you're after. -2pou (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
So I'm starting to run into an interesting issue. Do I classify a podcast according to the country it's being recorded in or based on the podcaster's citizenship and heritage, and if the podcast is recorded in multiple places what do we do? I'm inclined to categorize a podcast under multiple countries if the hosts are from different countries, but I was wondering what other people think about it.
I was also curious what the protocol is for creating categories for such small groups like what we have left below. Is it okay to make categories with only one or two podcasts based on the assumption that an entire country will produce a few more notable podcasts. Would it be okay to translate articles from other languages to increase the size of these categories? I don't know much about the rules and guidelines concerning translations and I don't really know any other languages (I know a tiny bit of Spanish), but I'd be interested in translating a few articles. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Current categories:

India:

Irish:

Netherlands:

New Zealand:

Spain:

Hungary and Sweden:

Israel:

Japan:

China:

HK/Taiwan:

South Korea:

BBC, CBC, and other national broadcasting services

I was originally thinking I might add a "BBC podcasts" category to Category:British podcasts and do the same for "CBC podcasts" and Category:Canadian podcasts, but it doesn't seem like the right place when we have Category:Podcasting companies. However, the category we currently have for BBC is Category:BBC Radio and I was wondering whether we should create a new parent category called "BBC podcasting" with two child categories called "BBC podcasts" and "BBC podcasters". That would be similar to how Category:TWiT.tv is currently categorized. Or we could do a single category called "BBC podcasts" and include both podcasters and podcasts to avoid WP:SMALLCAT (Every other example in Category:Podcasting companies does that right now). TipsyElephant (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I found a podcast I really don't know how to classify by country. Revisionist History (podcast) is hosted by a Canadian who was born in England and has Jamaican heritage, but the different podcasting companies that have produced the podcast have all been based in the United States. So what makes a podcast from a specific country? Where it's recorded, who is recording it, or what company produced it? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How's The Josh? Podcast

Hey! This is Omkar Chaudhari, host of HOW'S THE JOSH? Season 3! Show must go on! I hold Engaging and Insightful conversations with stunning Bollywood Celebrities to Smart and Witty Entrepreneurs to the Brands that speak value! All you need, under one banner! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanchaan Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kanchaan Chaudhary: hello Omkar, is there something in particular you were looking for help with? From a quick google search I'm pretty sure your podcast doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are you aware of any news coverage the podcast may have had? TipsyElephant (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Podcast as filmography credits

In the Jasika Nicole article, it lists podcasts in the filmography. I have never seen in any filmography that podcasts are credits when a filmography is for TV, movies, and web video series. I have generally removed them from filmographies. Having never been here till now, has there ever been a discussion on including podcast as credits? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: filmography might make sense for video podcasts, but I would agree putting audio podcasts in a filmography is strange--it is voice acting though. I don't know if an audio podcast might make more sense in a discography or if there is a totally different word for a list of works that involves voice acting. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant: When you think of voice acting, it's in the realm of movies and TV series where there is animation. There isn't such a thing, but would "audiography" be more appropriate term? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
At some point it starts to be splitting hairs. It could be broken into a distinct section, but if a notable podcast, then it is still worth listing. It is essentially a credit for the performer. Breaking that into a separate section might seem to give it more weight, though... which doesn't seem right. I think most people just lump it in because it seems to fit close enough.
As a side note, a lot of podcasts featuring A-list talent are now covered by the Film/TV entertainment trades at The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Deadline Hollywood, and the lines are blurring a bit. IMDB has actually started tracking credits for some of these shows as well, as reported here. They're currently listed in the TV side of the house, presumably due to their episodic nature. See pages for Dirty Diana and The Left Right Game for example. -2pou (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@2pou: When adding, expanding, or formatting I've come across podcasts on IMDb as you said. If we don't add a separate section for podcasts, I will continue to remove them if there is no issue with that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Zoe Chace

I noticed that Zoe Chace was deleted via PROD in 2019. She's now hosted the latest season of Serial, so she at least seems important enough for a page, although I'm not sure about GNG-qualifying coverage. If anyone wants to expand our coverage of female podcasters, it might be good to recreate her page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing this for the collaboration of the month in September, but based on a few Google searches it looks like it'll be hard to find in-depth coverage about Zoe that isn't interview content or published by one of her employers. I'll do a more thurough search sometime soon. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jordan Maron#Requested move 27 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jordan Maron#Requested move 27 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Lists of Episodes

I've noticed that a lot of podcasts have their episode lists split into seperate articles (i.e. The Last Podcast on the Left has a separate article called List of The Last Podcast on the Left episodes), and we even have a category dedicated to these lists: Category:Lists of podcast episodes. I've been going through and proposing splits for articles that have lengthy episode lists, but I was wondering if this is the correct course of action or not. My reasoning has been that when an episode list is lengthy and takes up the majority of an article that it meets WP:SIZESPLIT (sometimes due to a large number of episodes and sometimes because there is a lot of prose i.e. Limetown) and that the episodes constitute a different article because they are a slightly different subject which meets WP:CONTENTSPLIT. I've come across multiple instances where people respond to the proposal with fears that splitting the episode list from the article will leave the article a stub or very small article (i.e. Talk:The Adam Buxton Podcast and Talk:Up and Vanished). My response has generally been that the episode list is entirely supported by primary sources and that if the article can't produce more content from reliable secondary sources then perhaps the article does not meet WP:GNG. However, I've also noticed that some articles format their episode lists very neatly in seperate collapsable tables for each season, which doesn't take up much space in the article, and I was wondering whether these episode lists really meet the requirements of a stand-alone list. I would think that a list of podcast episodes is definitely bordering on too narrow of a subject as outline by WP:SALAT and the content policies for WP:SAL says that each list is subject to standard Wikipedia guidelines. This means that every list of podcast episodes needs reliable and independent secondary sources that demonstrate notability and according to WP:LSC every episode would need a reliable source. Some examples of nicely formatted and collapsed tables include Ear Biscuits (by season) and Doughboys (podcast) (by year). Would it be better to use nicely formatted and collapsable tables instead of splitting these all into seperate articles? Some articles don't even do a list of episodes but instead do a table containing information about the different seasons (or years) such as Judge John Hodgman, Heavyweight (podcast), or Binge Mode. Podcasts like Critical Role and The Adventure Zone do something similar but focus more on the story arcs and campaigns. Do the episode lists even meet the requirements for a regular list because I've seen some episode lists removed (i.e. Sawbones)? I would be inclined to say no due to WP:SOURCELIST and WP:NOTDIR. What are all of your thoughts on this subject? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I just discovered WP:MINREF so perhaps every entry in these lists do not need a reference. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant:I don't think we're going to come up with a catch-all criteria for such a small project. One guideline you might follow is MOS:TVSPLIT. That seems to provide some general guidelines on a suitable threshold for splitting episode lists. Keep in mind, though, that TV episode list entries are typically more verbose than podcast episode entries. They also tend to break down via seasons, and those seasons are typically covered in a way that there is plenty of coverage. Even there, the isn't a universal guide, though, as I have seen some 3-season shows be reverted back to a single main article listing.

I am a fan of collapsible tables if there is not a lot of information in each entry. This seems to provide a decent compromise between maintaining the content and keeping readers from having to go through a excessive scroll to reach the bottom. Interested readers can then uncollapse the table. I think a standalone list page would be good (if sizeable enough) for lists that have a large number of actual links in them instead of a text only list. Several links would help with navigation to other topics per WP:LISTN (second paragraph). List of My Favorite Murder episodes for example provides nice links to different cases.

A few comments on some of the links you posted: Limetown episode summaries are too long and ideally somebody would trim them down. If desired you could tag the section with {{long plot}}, but it may not prompt anyone to actually do the trimming. I've seen several tags like that linger for years. Both The Adam Buxton Podcast and Up and Vanished look to have won decent awards, so they would meet WP:WEBCRIT #2, even if the size of the article is only a few paragraphs. Some primary-sourced content could then flush things out a bit. I think Up and Vanished probably has a decent size even after a split, but I don't know that it's necessary. Adam Buxton is probably better as is (or collapsed) unless you can expand it further. I might have argued that the Sawbones list provided some useful navigational assistance, but it was borderline. Side note: the final removal of the list was done by an editor that also tagged it for notability which is doesn't seem to be justified after a thorough search. -2pou (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: I think the collapsible tables are the cleanest way to present the information and keep the content in the article. I would question whether anyone would really look through an article dedicated to a podcast's episodes rather than simply looking through the episodes on a platform they can actually listen to the podcast on. Using Pageviews Analysis for the list of episodes category shows that most of the episode lists get very little attention, but when looking at Audio Podcasts I suppose it's not much different than the lesser known podcasts in the project. If I wanted to close the split discussions I've opened can I just mention my reasoning, remove the tags, and convert the tables into collapsible tables by season or year? Or do I need to go through a lengthier consensus process and have an admin of some kind close the discussions? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant: Sorry, I thought I replied, but I did not. There is no requirement on how to do it, but the bare minimum is to simply remove the split tag from the articles. No formal close is required, but if you'd like to add a note just to close the loop and not leave it hanging, you're welcome to do so. You can also follow the WP:PROSPLIT steps to make it explicitly clear that nobody is really seeking to split it anymore. You can use the {{Discussion top|result=<INSERT TEXT HERE> ~~~~}} / {{Discussion bottom}} or a Discussioncloser script to do this. -2pou (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@2pou: I started closing some of the split proposals that I'd previously opened and collapsing their episodes lists. On one of these occasions I came across an editor who mentioned that collapsible tables are deprecated (Talk:Up_and_Vanished), and looking at WP:COLLAPSE it appears that collapsible tables aren't generally used, but the last few senetences seem to indicate that it still might be acceptable in this specific circumstance. What do you think? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I asked about whether collapsible tables are allowed or not at the help desk and was told only pre-collapsed content is deprecated and that regular collapsed tables are fine in this situation. So I'm going to go ahead and close any split discussions I've opened, and make the tables collapsible. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting/Archive_9&oldid=1060538802"