Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Alsee (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: So it's pretty clear that, while some may want to see a notability guideline for media, neither the current text nor the rewrite are it. (That said, some of the rewrite text may still be used to make the page easier to read and less US-focused.)
I'm listing some potential actions here and want some thoughts on them.
# Remove the text . It might have 14 years ago, but it quite clearly doesn't in 2021.
# Change to an essay, at least for the time being, which would remove the last "explanatory supplement" in notability. If this is to stay as an essay, the newspaper and academic journal sections should be dropped and defer to the essays at Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) and Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).
# Add a box emphasizing that media outlets should be evaluated by GNG alone and noting that the programming section generally is accepted at a near-guideline level. (I really want it spun out, but I'm deferring to the pace of the NTV draft project.)
# Improve WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, perhaps using some of the rewrite text.
I also wonder if a split into print media, broadcast media, television programming (to be replaced by the WP:NTV draft), and radio programming is merited. Broadcast media is the heart of this RfC and, as we saw, its most contentious topic. The radio program area really has nowhere to go if this page is refocused into focusing on media outlets and the new NTV is accepted. The print media section could even be unnecessary if the periodicals and academic journals essays are treated as guidelines.
There was some interest in a guideline (and obviously any guideline made on this topic would emphasize the GNG). Given the number of interested editors, I found it hard to manage collaboration on-wiki. I had a triple edit conflict occur to me during the RfC, and I found it difficult to keep people engaged. I wonder if a forum or Discord server might be a more productive hub to figure out what a GNG-based media notability guideline might look like.
Please share your thoughts on these or other changes that should be made after this discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I hope you realize that it is completely inappropriate, in every way, to suggest that on-wiki changes should be discussed toward consensus off-wiki on "Discord" or a "forum". The answer to that is absolutely not, in any case, ever. Changes to this page are to be discussed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , that's fair, and I only said the word wonder. It was an exploratory remark. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I think it's reasonable to draft with other users off-wiki, then bring on-wiki for discussion. As long as this is all clearly disclosed, I don't see a reason why working out some issues can't be done with particular users in private. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the RfC: now what? 

message: This is a notice that an RfC has been started requesting comment on if the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (television) should be implemented as a guideline and a WP:SNG. Comments are welcome at the discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC notice for establishing [[Wikipedia:Notability (television)]] as a guideline 

message: Based on the feedback I've reworked the criteria and provided four possibilities. We could also combine multiple of these if you'd like. For instance, we could do the prose version with notes. I decided not to include awards such as the Pulitzers prize, Murrow awards, or Third Coast Festival awards because I don't think they have widely established themselves in the podcasting medium and they are not specific to podcasting. However, if we decide that we do want to keep examples we can discuss these options more thoroughly. I also haven't created a new criteria based on the podcast's host because I'm still not convinced it's worth including, but if we discuss it more and come to the consensus to include it I'll revise the criteria. The biggest change I've made is add the phrase "produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company", which I think we came to a consensus on above. I've also provided examples of what it would look like with notes and how it'd look as a paragraph of prose rather than a list. Let me know what your thoughts are and which version you prefer. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks TipsyElephant. My first thought would be prose, but add the footnoted examples. The third criteria might still need a little more work to make clear what "an extended period of time" means. Is it for four consecutive weeks? Is it repeated (but not consecutive) appearances in the top three? How ever it is clarified could also been in a footnote instead of in the main text, unless it's pretty straightforward and simple to state. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I'm not really concerned with how long the show has been on a chart or how high the show was on the chart. What I think is more helpful in establishing notability is that the appearance on a chart has been noted by a reliable secondary source. For instance, a few examples of articles I've written that have had reliable secondary sources discuss a show being on a chart include Blood Ties, Boomtown, Case 63, The Cipher, Archive 81, Eleanor Amplified, and Inside Psycho. I have occasionally seen editors cite websites like Chartable and iTunesCharts.net, but I'm not fond of using these sources.  Perhaps something more like:  What are your thoughts? Should we simply specify a spot on the charts and a period of time or specify that reliable secondary sources need to take notice of the appearance on the chart? I would also be interested in hearing what  thinks. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems be a move to removing charting as a possible indicator of notability. If a podcast's chart position is reported in a reliable secondary source, then it would seem to be either 1) an article about the podcast, so the chart position is just part of an article that otherwise would contribute to GNG; or 2) it's a report on the chart, and the mention of the specific podcast would be more likely than not a passing reference. This proposed guideline would maybe make the case that an otherwise passing reference would contribute to notability, but is that really the right marker to set? Compare to the first criterion at WP:NSONG: . It's the appearance in the chart alone that matters. If we're saying podcast rankings are a possible indicator of notability, then it's about appearing in that chart, not secondary reporting on the appearance. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the wording for that SNGs criteria and would be open to adopting a similar wording for the this SNG. I don't think we need to specify a position on the chart or a length of time, but we should clarify that it may indicate notability not that it automatically qualifies as notable. I do think making it onto a chart is an indication that the show is popular and more likely to be notable than a random show that has a few dozen listens. On the other hand, just because it appeared briefly in position #25 of a specific genre doesn't mean it necessarily received significant coverage. If we specify a position on the chart or length of time it will end up being arbitrary, but if we don't clarify that notability is not automatically obtained when there has been an appearance on a chart then editors may point to the SNG when a podcast appears very briefly at a low position on a chart. If we specify a position or length of time I still think we should use vague language such as . Or completely omit the length of time like  TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the latter works, and maybe down the road we look at trying to develop guidelines similar to WP:CHARTS to make clear what charts are significant. In the meantime, maybe adding a footnote after "" that says "" or something like that. We'd probably also need to add the word "significant" ahead of "chart" in the main text, too. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third attempt 

message: so this is what we have so far:
Do we want to adjust any wording or make any further changes? Before we add this to the essay, should we open an RfC to make sure it has consensus? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked with a few folks as well as well as taking a look myself. I think this is very solid! The one piece of feedback I heard was that, in part because it is a marketing communications effort, there is not a great deal of respect among professionals for the BPA, my sense of things being Third Coast is more noted, but I understand that as an award with a Wikipedia page it intrinsically meets notability, and discussion about that would really be a conversation for the page. Also, WP:CHARTS is pretty specifically about music. I understand what you are saying here is that it should follow the same rules as the music chart rules, but perhaps "The chart should be a significant chart following guidelines similar to WP:CHARTS" to make it clearer? These are both stylistic changes, so if you feel significant opposition to changes along those lines, I think it is fine to submit as-is. This is great work, and thank you for the taking feedback so gracefully here! Phifty (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this looks good, . , I think your suggestion regarding WP:CHARTS makes sense, but I would leave the BPAs in the list, if only so that it's not just U.S. awards listed. (It may be more of a marketing showcase, but that doesn't detract from notability in the WP:N sense of the word.) To the other question, this is an essay, not a guideline, so I think it's fine to be BOLD and to add it without an RFC. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the content to the essay. Should we create a wikilink for the section such as WP:NPODCAST, WP:PODCASTN, WP:NPOD, or WP:PODN? Are there other potential wikilinks that would be better? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:NPOD (and maybe WP:NPODCAST make sense. Thanks! ‐Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final draft