Talk:Podcast/Archive 6

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article used to be about 3 times as long last week, and it contained alot of good information.  The editors who have adopted this article as their own keep deleting relevant content, and they won't let any alternate or related articles exist(podcast, podcatcher, list of podcatchers, etc), for some reason they keep redirecting them to this article without including any of the information contained in them.  This is a very important subject right now, if a few people want to micromanage this article, there's not much that others can do without getting into stupid editing wars, but allow alternate articles that can expand the topic in different directions.
:I agree. This article is a mess in its current form. Wikipedia is not the place for anti-commercial crusaders to play around with re-writing history. For starters, what the hell is that stupid Firefox thing doing at the head of the article? Where did the Apple ipod logo go? It's 1000 times more relevant. --Gene_poole 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FUC says we can't use the Apple logo. The "stupid" FireFox thing is a standard podcasting icon that is freely available for anyone to use. For one, this article is not for the history of Podcasting, that would be History of podcasting.  See the discussions above. Many things were removed for violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. These are policies and are not optional, no matter how useful that information might have been. That being said, it seems some editors are simply just over-reacting and making this a bigger deal than it is. I feel this article is just as useful as it was before. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the @#!& happened to this article? 

message: Per some previous discussions and such, Podcasting as moved to Podcast. All the double redirects are updated and I'll go over some of the direct linking now that I have a day off from work. Just thought I would mention this. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro needs to be rewritten - it starts out defining podcasting not podcast. - DavidWBrooks 01:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job! Thanks! Peter S. 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcasting moved to Podcast 

message: I noticed that the Podfade stub has been merged with this article but I do not see the term added to the page. Will definition of podfade be incorporated into this article
? Ccadenhead 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podfade Merged with Podcast? 

message: This article has been delisted, primarily for the rather extensive problems and allegations mentioned above on this talk page, but also due to reference problems and stability concerns. Dispute archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7 Homestarmy 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Dispute 

message: I like podcasts with Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) file format. (please sign with ~~~~)
Me too. The Ogg format is also free to use compared to mp3. Anyway the mp3 is supported on the majority
of portable players. SNx 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ogg Vorbis 

message: Should something be said about the fact that "podcasting" is such a revolutionary idea that it's only something anyone with a microphone, internet connection, and a pulse has been able to do twenty years before the technology came out? Damien Shiest 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hm 

message: I just thought I'd mention to anyone who lurks here, that if you do a Google search for "en.wikipedia.org", the first hit is the Main Page, and the second is this article.  Why do you suppose that this is, do you think a lot of places on the web have links here in order to inform people what a podcast is?
Or, should I suspect Google bombing?
I suppose it doesn't really matter.  It is just surprising that of all the topics with articles on Wikipedia, "podcasting" is the one that comes up... Spebudmak 02:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is tops on Google 

message: I typed in Netcasting and this article came up.
That isn't right as I see it. Just as Youtube isn't consider a podcast and for the same reason e-radio stations that don't offer subscription seriveces or on-demand content are not podcasting.
So what are they doing?
I've always called it netcasting to indicate streaming media being transmitted over the Internet.
Either the Redirect should be sent to streaming media or a sentence or two making clear the distinction should be inserted in this article. Really both articles should clarify the term since over 1,300,000 sites use the term netcast. Agreed?JussD 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition you accept for "netcast" doesn't match the mainstream media that has been following recent usage of that term. Your definition falls in line with webcast, which has key differences from podcast, as you mentioned. "Netcast" has been controversially proposed as a replacement for the word "podcast," to remove any reference to Apple's iPod. Because "netcast" has become a widely accepted synonym for podcast, it redirects to this article. BJ Nemeth 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I'd forgotten about the term "webcast." Still, don't you think there should be some mention of the technical difference between the two in this article. I still propose that where the alternate term "netcasting" is proposed in this article, webcasting should be briefly mentioned with a clarrification to the download difference between them.JussD 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a sentence or paragraph contrasting "podcast" with "webcast" would be a good and useful addition to this entry, but I don't have time to do it right now. Any takers? BJ Nemeth 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Netcasting? 

message: I'm just wondering why I haven't bee able to find articles about specific podcasts. I see there's some controversy about this because of the possibility of commercial abuse  but I've found pages for other things, like web comics, which I think are simmilar. Is there a particular reason there are no podcast articles? I would write articles myself but I fear the wrath of people who have adamant feelings about the subject and the same ammount of influence as me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.152.160 (talk • contribs) 03:32, November 22, 2006
:I think the controversy you're referring to might be the one about linking to podcasts from this article.  Because there's no good way to decide which podcasts should and should not get a link from this page, it's best just not to link to any specific podcasts or podcast directories: otherwise we'd either wind up with a massive list of links or just debate endlessly about how many podcasts to include and which ones make the cut.  
:But wikipedia does allow articles on individual podcasts: see :Category:Audio podcasts for the ones we already have.  Not every podcast (or web comic, or circus performer) should have an article, though, so before you create any new articles you should also check out WP:WEB for some notability guidelines. If an article doesn't satisfy the requirements in that page it will probably be deleted, either by speedy deletion or by the articles for deletion process.  -- Vary | Talk 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does wikipedia have articles about specific podcasts? 

message: I have created a new external link to 'Podcast', this link is to Podcast User magazine. This magazine in PDF format, issued montly and covers all aspects of podcasting, from listener to producer. We are proud to be independant of any podcast (or commercial) organisations.
Our ethos is to educate, inform and entertain. All the items writen are by podcasters themselves, the reviews are personal views and use and not sponcered by the manufacturers. We explain in simple english what's involved, how to find media and aviod the pitfals in what can be a confussing subject.
We have recently nothched up our 100,000th download and are received in over 101 countries.
Jimmy
halfajob@ntlworld.com
Halfajob 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link 

message: as mentioned before the wayback machine at archive.org shows that podcast.com far predates the 2004 article that recently got cut due to no means of corroborating the account. Here is the wayback machine archive.org search that shows that the term obviously goes back to at least 2002, a good year+++ before the Gaurdian article that Hammersly so often gets credit for.
Here is the link: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://podcast.com
Thanks
71.234.110.209 06:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this is supposed to be showing. Since the site has no content prior to 2005, we don't know why someone registered that name. It could be that someone at the time wanted to name something else "podcast" and that it was unrelated to the current use of the word. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammersly, the Guardian, and "coining" podcasting 

message: "An amazingly sweet podcast is a multimedia file distributed over the Internet using syndication feeds, for a wicked sick playback on mobile devices and personal computers. [1] Like 'radio', it can mean both the content and the method of delivery; the latter may also be termed podcasting. The host or author of a podcast is often called a podcaster."
"This thingy is so awsome<3"
Uh, "amazingly sweet", "wicked sick", and an out-of-place "this thingy is so awesome"...? In an encyclopedia? I'm going to leave those items where they are, because it seems astonishing that they have not been removed yet unless they are there for some specific reason, although that doesn't seem to set a tone one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.39.161 (talk • contribs) .
:I'm a bit confused, it doesn't say that at all, and it doesn't seem like it has said that in the article history any time recently. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of article cleanup? 

message: I was wondering, how about creating some big topic, like "New Media" or something and in there explaining what is IPTV and what's it's connection with podcasting, this kind of things. For me the way it is done right now is a bit confusing. It could be a big WikiProject. (Madmck 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with webcasts, iptv, etc. 

message: Been a while since I stopped at this entry, it actually looks nice and clean, right to the point and it does a good job of describing the mechanics and concept without getting into polemics or irrelevant content related to the name itself. I recently tried to clean up the external links section. Any feedback would be appreciated. Good work peoples 71.234.110.209 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Someone with the ip address 69.234.130.122 continues to submit the website Podcastexpert.com to the external links section of this article. Myself, and others have removed it and cited wiki policy on why it should not be included. Despite our efforts this user continues to submit this link with no explanation of their actions, no justification or attempted discussion on inclusion. 
Here are the previously stated reasons not to include this website as described in the article:
"PodcastExpert.com Links of "how to" articles across the Internet on everything from creating RSS feeds to recording equipment
1: It read's like ad copy. "articles across the internet on everything..." not neutrally written. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
2: "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." WP:NOT#IINFO 
3: The link in question is a redirect that links to the New Media Expo website, this is a conference company's website. "Do not use URL redirection sites in external links." and "It is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link." are direct quotes from Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites policy.
4: This site is not symmetrically related to the term "podcast itself", particularly in contrast to the others listed. See more about symmetry under "Links normally to be avoided" here -> WP:EL
5: This site also appears to be mainly promoting itself and its conference company, which is the website itself that's being linked to. As opposed to the other external links that also link to subsections of other websites. Those sites differ because they are filled with they type of content that is implied in the article itself and the individual descriptions of the content. The entire website is set up to promoting a growing tech/podcasting conference company and they happen to have a small resource section and it keeps getting submitted as the top external link in the Podcast article in wiki? Seems a bit fishy knowing the google ranking of this article if you do a search for "podcast". 
I also believe this is probably some devoted fan of the Podcast Brothers or a friend trying "help", I think its clear that this sort of wreckless reposting sans discussion is harmful and not in the spirit of wikipedia. I suggest ip#69.234.130.122 check out the Wikipedia:Spam policies before resubmitting this repeatedly rejected link. At least be a part of the discussion. Thanks 71.234.110.209 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcastexpert.com re: 69.234.130.122?