Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 2

message: The following are a list of traits that merit the notability of a podcast, podcaster, or podcasting-related topic.  In order to meet the notability requirement, the topic must meet two or more of these requirements.
*Have at least 100 subscribers, according to Feedburner's subscriber count or Digg's Digg count.
:What would be a good number?Ganfon 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what sources?Elocina 17:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say notable news sources like all major broadcasters and newspapers. Ganfon 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Requirements 

message: The above sounds good to me. I am working on reviving Farpoint Media, which failed an AfD a while back. I am holding off on reposting it until I am sure we have made notability clear and evident. I know it could pass all of the above measures as a company. Anyone want to help me out? If so, click into my sandbox (above) and help me get the article ready to fly. --Kukini  hablame aqui 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Farpoint Media 

message: *I'd like to bring a few things to your attention regarding the Digg.com requirements for a podcast. Digg.com is a very good social news website but, the podcasting area is very flawed. There are two points I'd like to bring up to you before you use this as a requirement. The first point is, new podcasts submitted to Digg.com's podcasting area are never seen by the public. There is no way for Digg users to find a new podcast with 0 or 1 diggs unless they search for it and hope the description contains that word or, the podcasters themselves ask for Diggs. Many podcasters do not even submit their feed to Digg.com 
* Which brings me to my second point. There are many podcasts listed on Digg.com with a very low number of diggs. The podcasts themselves get thousands of subscribers and downloads. One in particular is a web development podcast who mentoned on their show they received in excess of 10,000 downloads that week. On Digg.com they have less then 20 diggs. Another show I know of is a smaller gaming podcast with over 2,000 downloads a week. On Digg.com they have less then 20 diggs. There is a podcast on Digg that I listen to with well over 100 diggs but, they only receive 1,500 downloads at the most. However, everytime they are on the air, they beg for diggs from their listeners which caused them to get the notoriety on digg.com.
* A third reason is, podcasts never "fall" off of the pages. On the front page of Digg's podcasting area, there is a show listed that has not been produced since October of 2006. The hosts of that show have said they will no longer be producing it (unfortunate as that is). Because the users who dugg the show are still using digg, that show is still on the front page and, other shows are pushed down the list as a result. Which keeps users on Digg.com from seeing the other podcasts available. 
* And my fourth (and last) reason for this. Digg.com's podcasting area only shows you podcasts that are on the front page or, happen to get on the up and coming list. The up and coming list shows podcasts that get a certain number of diggs within a certain amount of time. Once they get too many or too little, they are taken off of the Up and Coming area and fall into the pages of podcasts on Digg.com. 
*There are many well-known and popular podcasts (within certain genres and circles)that can not even be found on Digg.com . Digg.com is known to most podcasters as a good way to get extra exposure but, it is not the way to gauge popularity of a podcast. Until the podcasting system on Digg.com is improved, only the certain podcasts will be shown and found by users. This is not a good way to determine a notable podcast.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MenuetRanit (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diggs Should not be a requirement 

message: When I went to use the included infobox for the Cube news 1 article, I consulted several Vloggers.  It was pointed out to me that no one cares what the formats are any more.  This was an issue five or so years ago before Real died, but not now, since the browsers can play almost anything out there, and if not an invitation to down load the proper, free software will be given.  If felt strongly, the formats can be given in the text for the links, see Cube News 1
What is cared about both by the Vloggers and the users is the personnel, for the same reasons  that movies, plays, TV shows and all other performing arts including football have credits.
Also, in today's operations, many Vlogs have multiple RSS feeds for different feed sources, not just one RSS (family) and one Atom (family).
While this Infobox provides a good foundation for making one, it, itself, is seriously out of date. dmelliott 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah  needs a bit of an update to handle multiple feeds. Admittedly though it was designed more towards audio than video podcasts. I'm trying to find the guy who made "Infobox podcast v" (can't remember what it's called exactly right now) which was working on making the template better. I'll post it once I find it again. Otherwise I'll start working on doing up the current infobox. --Breno talk 11:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: How about putting the instructions on how to join this group on the group page?  I just edited myself in; I hope that is OK. dmelliott 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a Project banner to the top to help introduce WikiProjects. The instructions to add user names to the list were in a comment, thus hidden to non-editing users. Instructions are now displayed on the page. Looking pretty good now. --Breno talk 10:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining 

message: * --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion 

message: The proposal of notability requirements on the main page has been posted for a very long time, and does not seem to be going anywhere. Reading the two archive pages on this talk page, there was no concensus to support taking the proposal further. As the Wikipedia community outside this wikiproject have not discussed or agreed on the proposal, it becomes a little confusing to other editors when this proposal is quoted as a guideline, when it definitely is not. Some of the Afd discussions above treat the proposal as a guideline, which is what I'd like to sort out.
I would like to archive these off to a sub page. If someone would like to continue the proposal they are more than welcome to restore it, or alternitively begin writing a brand new one. Will give it a couple of days here on the talk before I actually move it. --Breno talk 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving podcast notability requirements 

message: I think if a podcast has a pattern of having on notable guests (published authors, people deemed sufficiently notable to have their own wiki page, heads of notable organizations deemed notable enough to have their own wiki page) this should be a gold standard test of a podcast's notability. As well, any podcast that ranks on the first page of its iTunes category page (science, arts, etc), that should as well be a sign of its notability. We should also use the iTunes own notability criteria regarding comments. More comments a podcast has, higher its popularity ranking. I just find it a little ironic that wiki, of all places, seems to not deem something notable until some form of old media deems it so. We should not have to wait until the New York Times starts talking about podcasting to start documenting podcasts. Mindme (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determining Prominence 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Podcasting 

message: I'm having a bit of trouble with an article I'm trying to promote to GA. Does anyone know where I can find a link to a website which contains the top five podcasts on iTunes?
Thanks,
ISD (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stephen Fry's Podgrams]] 

message: I've gone through one guideline after another and I'm hardly any closer to determining if SpaceVidcast is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about it. It has had guests like John D. Carmack, Ken Davidian (Program Manager, NASA Centennial Challenges), William Pomerantz (Director, X-Prize Space Projects), Blair Allen (NASA Edge co-host), teams competing for both the Google Lunar X-Prize or the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X-Prize take part in the web-cast as guests. A local TV program called Twin Cities Live did a segment about SpaceVidcast where it interviewed the hosts. The Star Tribune did an article about SpaceVidcast as well. The hosts were also guests on Flak Radio. I will be grateful for any help you can offer. Thank you. U5K0 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this podcast notable enough to be written up? 

message: Hi, we need articles that describe the specs of HINA-DI and LIRS (found many information in the net, but all in japanese and babelfish is not very good in transating ^^), but I'm on the way to get the information to write articles. (for the lirs article the infrastructur is created). can somebody help/japanese? --mabdul 0=* 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles 

message: why mking two templates? podcasting and aggregators? that doesn't make sence, there is to much tht is overlapping! mabdul 0=* 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, now i see why the use of 2 templates. I will create a third! Iwill change the aggregator template template and remove the "technologies"-group and I will create a new template for collecting all syndication in one. see List of content syndication markup languages. the more is history and new cats and correcrtring the cats ion my liost. maybe all this week! mabdul 0=* 12:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  two templates 

message: I'm extending this alert to the Podcasting Wikiproject as this article is within your scope as well.
Previously, there was a slow moving edit war Anime Pulse regarding referencing and cleanup tags and the inclusion of some nominations in the Podcast Awards. Now it has turned out that the editor that was removing the cleanup tags and edit waring over the inclusion of the nominations is connected with the podcast.
Therefore, I am requesting members of this Wikiproject to evaluate the article on its content, tone, references, and notability. Because the way things are going now, there is a chance this article may become a candidate for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 04:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Alert: Anime Pulse 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: :Any chance we can revisit the notability requirements? Mindme (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old comment moved here from Article Space 

message: I have concerns regarding Masters Cast it does not seem to satisfy any third person verification or ascert notability.
Dwanyewest (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Masters Cast notable?