Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Proposal for the Collaboration of the month

If anyone has a proposal for the collaboration of the month add it to the discussion here. I'll be changing it on August 1st. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we do a podcast related to police brutality, incarceration, or black lives matter.

—  TipsyElephant (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: This is not a bad suggestion, but do you have something more specific in mind? I would be willing to contribute, but offhand, I am unfamiliar with what podcasts might cover this topic. -2pou (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@2pou: Ear hustle is already an article, but one that I've been recommended that still needs an article is Behind the Police.

@TipsyElephant: I cant find much in terms of reliable secondary source coverage out there discussing this podcast. I'd be concerned of its WP:AFD survival chances. Can you find good coverage? -2pou (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: The goal of article of the month is to have the article to be certified as an Good Article, so we could potentially still make Ear Hustle the article of the month. Mukedits (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mukilteoedits and TipsyElephant: I just wanted to check, but to get to GA status, the assement follows this page, correct? Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting/Assessment.
Ear Hustle is currently a C-class article, but has anyone tried to assess if it actually got to B-class between the assessment and now? I'm just interested in coming up with a good checklist of steps to take for the collaboration. Also, curious if you thought discussion would be best to stay here or just go on the Talk:Ear Hustle page. -2pou (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The creator and significant contributor of Ear Hustle is Rhododendrites, a very experienced editor. I have notified them that the article has been selected and is being discussed here. With any luck, they should see the messages and respond. For now, I would say that C-class v B-class doesn't much matter. Good article is a good goal but it doesn't mean it will always happen, not with this level of activity, and there is no reason to think that it's a failure unless that happens. Improving an article should be the goal in and of itself. I would suggest finding/creating a template to add to the article's talk page to indicate that the article was selected for improvement by the project (like {{former TAFI}}). A new section at the article talk page informing and discussing the same, and notifying previous significant contributors to the article on their user talk pages w-/sh-ould also help elicit better participation. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, thanks for the interest in improving Ear Hustle! For background, I started the article before there was even a season 2. There hasn't been a ton of work done to it since then, with the exception of added episode tables. I haven't checked for new sources in a while, but here are some concrete things that could be improved. I've left a note on the article talk page (a better place for article-specific discussions). Good Article is a good goal, but a 4-season show that's mostly based on season 1 is going to need some work to get there. I'm happy to answer questions and help out a bit, but please ping me if you want to get my attention, since I'm mostly focused on "real life" stuff these days. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a bit late to this, but my idea for future collaborations of the month would to switch between fiction and nonfiction podcasts each month. There's a lot of incomplete coverage of fiction podcasts (ex. how incomplete The Magnus Archives is despite of its popularity), so I think collaboration could benefit them. starsandwhales (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey everyone! It's been a month since we started on Ear Hustle and we haven't made a whole ton of progress. Due to the lack of participation, maybe we should change the article of the month to something like the "Current Article Collaboration", and simply work on it until we think it's as good as we're going to get it before moving on to another article. I like the idea of alternating between fiction and nonfiction podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, giving people a fresh article to work on could help with editor interest. Maybe leaving it and then revisiting Ear Hustle later on could help with getting more people engaged? There really aren't enough people active in this project to do a rapid overhaul of any article. starsandwhales (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Starsandwhales:Hi there. New member to the project. I like the idea of rotating monthly through different articles, even if they don’t quite make it as far as we’d hope. Perhaps a list, as you suggested, flipping monthly from fiction to nonfiction, of articles to be worked on and articles like Ear Hustle get put back on the list repeatedly until they reach “Good” quality? - TimDWilliamson ^speak 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool, which podcasts do you think we should do? It should be something big and popular probably. starsandwhales (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It should also be current, meaning in production or at least relatively safe from podfade. I’ll look at the top lists on iTunes. Where are some other podcast ratings lists to check? I liked Blood Ties, and it even got a write up in the WSJ, but it’s wrapped. I’m at a disadvantage, because I listen through PocketCasts, which doesn’t use ratings. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 20:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This week's top fiction podcasts on iTunes are Dirty Diana, Hank the Cowdog, The Adventure Zone, Full Body Chills, The NoSleep Podcast, Blood Ties, Welcome to Night Vale, Scared to Death, Six Minutes, and Creepy. That gives us a starting list to chose from at least. Should we just pick a podcast that's trending that month? I think we should also be able include more "cult famous" podcasts w a big fanbase like TMA or ars Paradoxica. starsandwhales (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! We can check for trending podcasts and compile a list of cult famous podcasts to make a list for the next few months. We also have the "Podcasting articles by quality and importance" chart that we can work from. I'll make a new section for our list right below this one. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing about sorting the podcast articles like that is that the project is very incomplete. Working off of trending lists seems like the best way to start off, and then we can figure out how to continue from there. starsandwhales (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I redlinked some of the podcasts that Starsandwhales mentioned above. Potential short-term collaborations could also be to create new articles that should have articles. (Some of them above and listed below are not going to podcast pages: Dirty Diana, Hank the Cowdog, Scared to Death, Six Minutes). -2pou (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I should be able to get back to editing some more soon. I'm in the midst of Hurricane Sally cleanup, so a lot of my free time and free energy has evaporated. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 18:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations

This November, wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. As podcasting is an increasingly important component here, we hope members of WP Podcasting will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus Before Change

I wanted to see what a "good podcast article" was so I checked out Stephen Fry's Podgrams and I've got to say even after improving it a bit the article seems more like a Class C article of Low Importance not a "Good Article". The article only has ten sources after I added some myself, and five of them are references to his website and podcast. The podcast released a whopping total of nine episodes, one of which is only about five minutes long. From what I can tell the only reason it was even made into an article was because of it's connection to Stephen Fry, but I'm not sure it even meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Are there any objections to me changing the articles status?TipsyElephant (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I don't think that's a GA either. To change this, you have to delist it as a GA, not just change the way it's rated in the podcasting box. It's still notable because it was top downloaded at some point. starsandwhales (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I looked into the appropriate way to delist an article and I've started the Good Article Reassessment process if anyone from the wikiproject would like to provide input please visit the article's talk page. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cite podcast improvements

I didn't realize this project was active when I recently had a question about {{Cite podcast}}. It's at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_73#Podcasts_published_by_newspaper, and might provide fodder if anyone wants to try to improve the template. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely something we should eventually improve. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, we'll make sure to add it to the list of todos. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality & Importance (The Details)

I was curious about a few outliers and standard format conventions.

The first outlier is that our chart contains a row dedicated to "other" despite the fact that every article in the row has a "draft" class and WP:ASSESS contains a graph that displays a brown column dedicated to "drafts" not "other". TipsyElephant (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am one of those that rarely ever looks at these assessment tables, but from what I can tell, we don't need that to be consistent with other tables unless we really want to. Other seems fine, but if we want it to be "Draft" then that can be edited at this link: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Podcasting. As a point of reference, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Comics this table is also different. Don't feel a need to make everything match a golden example, because I doubt there is one. -2pou (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The other major outliers I've notice are the only remaining prose articles--from "Stub" to "B"--that still have an importance rating of "NA" link to pages with pre-existing importance ratings that are not "NA", which makes it impossible to change the importance rating from the current "NA". TipsyElephant (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure on this one... Maybe link to an example? -2pou (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I figured it out. They were redirects that had standard quality and importance ratings, but because they linked to a section in an article I didn't notice the link at the top of the page explaining that it was a redirect. I went through and corrected them. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

My first question concerning standard format conventions is how should tags be capitalized? Should "class" and "importance" ever be capitalized (I've only ever seen them lowercase)? Should "stub", "start", "c", and other quality ratings be capitalized or lowercase? Should "low", "mid", and other importance ratings be capitalized or lowercase? Should I just use whatever is already being used on the given talk page (what about when the capitalization is already inconsistent)? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't matter. Most templates and their parameters are not case sensitive. For example, if you use a {{CS1}} template to cite sources, the parameters don't matter if you capitalize them or not. As for the values, for these banners, the template will simply populate the banners with a fixed style display. If class=Start or Class=start, the box will still display a "C". -2pou (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My second question concerning standard format conventions is about the extra fields. I've noticed a couple of the tags have more fields than just "class" and "importance". I don't remember what they were exactly, but I was wondering if anyone had a link to a page describing the other fields so I can familiarize myself with them. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This is basically something that a very active project could customize. The Film project for example, depricated the Importance parameter, presumably because the project felt like nobody used that information in a useful way. You might have seen some Task Force breakdowns for large projects that have people that focus on one specific area. You might also see some finer "class" ratings that I think are some kind of intermediate step. Right now, article is Class C, to reach Class B, these items are achieved, or need to be achieved. Are things like Talk:Coraline (film) what you mean?
For further info, you should be able to go to the banner's specific template page. In the search bar, put "Template:" in front of whatever banner you're looking at. For example Template:WikiProject Film. -2pou (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My third question concerning standard format conventions is what order should the fields be arranged in? I've mostly seen "class" followed by "importance", but what if I introduce an additional field like I mentioned above? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

These can be done in any order. The template code should arrange things automatically into the format set by the template. As long as the parameter is within the curly brackets containing the template, it will automatically get placed correctly by the code. -2pou (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My fourth question concerning standard format conventions is about spacing. How should the tag be spaced? Should there be a space between each vertical pipe? A space on either side of the equal sign? Should each field get a newline? Or should I always follow the pre-existing conventions being used? TipsyElephant (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't really matter. Similar to the way the WikiMedia code will reduce a double space after a period to render as a single space. If you're within a template bracket, the code will really ignore any empty space unless it is part of a value assigned to a parameter. (E.g. if the code sees "| name = John Doe |" the only space that means anything, is the one betweeen "John" and "Doe".) The other spaces around the pipe will help user readability of the syntax, but they have no impact on what gets displayed. I prefer a space after the parameter value/before the pipe, but no space after, but I learned not to care once I put it in. Sometimes you will see editors remove all spaces from templates on a page, and then other editors adding spaces in... -2pou (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month for December: The Adventure Zone!

We can chose to discuss goals for this article in here or on the talk page over there. What improvements need to be made to bring this up before submitting it to be reviewed for GA? I think it's better than start class, which is how it's currently labeled. I'm pinging a few people who have worked on the article recently to see if they would like to join: ERAGON and Marlslee. After working on this I think that means we have to pick a nonfiction podcast for January. starsandwhales (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. To really lift this I think we should be potentially splitting Balance out as its own article and shifting all the sub-arc summaries there, as it does come off a little strange that we have way more detailed synopses for Balance than Amnesty say, leaving only a short overview on the main page. A Balance arc article should meet general notability guidelines with flying colours, similar to how Critical Role (campaign two) was set out. Secondly a slight reorganisation might be in order separating out primary seasons from minor arcs. --ERAGON (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I did the reorganisation bit, but splitting Balance out as a separate article is yet to be done. --ERAGON (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I have a lot more time for Wikipedia now, so I should be of more help. I think there needs to be a better way of showing which campaigns/episodes are freely available on the feed and which ones aren't. Both the Amnesty and Graduation summaries are pretty lackluster, but I haven't listened to Amnesty recently enough to write about it. I'll also look up some more info about splitting articles so we can split Balance into its own article. starsandwhales (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month for January: 99% Invisible!

Following in the fiction to nonfiction pattern, the next article collaboration will be 99% Invisible, which is currently a start-class article. starsandwhales (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A worthy choice! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Authority Control & Navigation Boxes

I've noticed that Template:Web syndication is used for a few podcasting articles. Would it be appropriate to include this on every podcasting related page or a specific type of podcasting related page? Are there other common authority control templates that would be useful to include in the guidelines for podcasting articles? TipsyElephant (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It'd be appropriate for some pages, I'd say, but we should neither require nor forbid it. It's just a navbox, not an authority control template, since it's linking to our pages about the concepts, not external links related to the specific page it's placed on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What would the criteria be for whether an article should include the nav box or not? I've noticed the nav box is mostly about blogging and other forms of web syndication so I'd assume it'd be most useful on pages with subjects like Google Podcasts and other apps/platforms, Horror podcast and other genres, or RSS and other technologies rather than on a page for a podcast like This American Life or 99% Invisible. I also noticed that {{Podcasting}} redirects to the Web syndication template; was there any intention for a podcasting specific template to be made? I just realized we have section with the different templates on the Wikiproject main page and saw that there is a template for {{Aggregators}}. Should that template be on every page for apps, platforms, and RSS related technology pages? And should both aggregators and web syndication be on all the same pages? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I'd agree that the navboxes should be used on pages like Google Podcasts, not specific podacsts like 99% Invisible. As for the whole group of navboxes, without looking into it, I'm not surprised to hear that that realm is somewhat messy. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be appropriate to create a new template specific to podcasting Sdkb? We could pretty easily use bits of each of the navigation boxes and just combine them. I also just discovered Template:Podcast distribution platforms and the "template section" of our quality and importance table. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it enough to say. We should try to avoid too much overlap, but if you think it's needed, feel to free to create. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Are you specifically asking about the {{Web syndication}} navbox? Or are you wondering what other kinds of navboxes might be appropriate? If you're interested in the {{Podcasting}} template, you can review this older version Special:PermanentLink/292390044 which was redirected way back when. The red linked deleted templates are a bit of an eyesore, but you can see what it used to be and see if there's a better way to re-organize and restore it.

For further WP:NAVBOX use on a more general level, really it comes down to if someone thinks there is a clear link between certain topics and navigating between them is something someone is likely interested in. Some podcasting examples I've seen are {{Gimlet Media}} and {{Night Vale Presents}}. Just be cautious with creating them as sometimes you can run into Navbox clutter (Disadvantage #10) if people start adding a Navbox for everything related to the article. -2pou (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was kind of just curious what navboxes we're actually relevant to most of the project's articles. Both Web Syndication / Podcasting and Aggregators seem irrelevant to most pages. The link to the old podcasting template was actually super helpful. I'll probably work on making a new one for Podcasting articles. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's an old revision, but you should be able to edit that particular version to undo the redirect. (Just FYI) -2pou (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)