Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 1

message: Since I was recruited for this project as a Podcaster, I'm not sure if I should add my own. It seems notable enough as the first low-carb Podcast and it's almost as old as the Podcast medium itself. However, In keeping with WP:OR policy, I don't think I should add it. Thoughts? BrianZ(talk) 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Project Thoughts 

message: One of the major things we need to work out is getting notable podcasts on, and non-notable off.  <Myself I created two articles on what I felt was notable: "The Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack", and "Off Topic with Matt and Dave".  Both I feel are notable enough, Off Topic is new...but has a rapidly growing fanbase.  Perhaps just an article on jay and Jack would be better.   But as for BrianZ's question above, I think that if you think that you're own podcast is notable...have someone else create the article.  Below I'm creating another topic on requested podcasts, and they can be reviewed and determined if notable.  If they are, and we make articles on them...we have to prove they are notable right off the bat so speedy delete-happy people don't shoot them down without giving them a chance. Ganfon 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could say a notable Podcast has at least one regular media (Print, TV, legitimate News organizations) mention to garner notable status. That kind of takes my Podcast (Atkins All The Way Weekly Wrapup) out of the running, but I've said before, I don't need Wikipedia to market my stuff. As far as my help on the project, I don't really listen to too many Podcasts because I'm busy creating my own podcast and my real life stuff is going on without a commute anymore. :) But I may be able to help with other things administratively and grammar-wise. Testerer, There is a pretty large list of Podcasts in the category section but agreed that we need to categorize better as I'm sure there are some stranded articles out there. BrianZ(talk) 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you can judge it that way, because really, how many podcasts are written about in the paper or have been mentioned on a TV show?  There's pleanty of podcasts out there that have hundreds, even thousands of listenrs and arn't written about.  And what about new podcasts? Podcasts that are still growing but are notable?  I think we may need a better system. Ganfon 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Notoriety is defined as "The quality or condition of being notorious; ill fame." or "Wide recognition for one's deeds." This is the problem with Podcasts. What I may think of as a great Podcast that tons of people listen to, may not be something you, and no one you know, ever heard of. The medium itself let's Jim from Nowhere, Iowa become a famous "radio" host. Jim will never be on Access Hollywood or the Today Show, but he's famous to alot of people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing my own agenda, but trying to trigger thoughts in someone else. Maybe we could use many of the Podcast Directory's ranking systems to make notoriety a changeable status. If we decide, as a group, which directories we'll use, that could be something that changes constantly. Otherwise, I can still see hundreds of arguments for deletion if we base it on our own opinions. It would be great to get a conscensus of popularity on iTunes. Considering its where 65% of all Podcast listeners download now. Thoughts? BrianZ(talk) 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reconsidering, I'll side with the whole media citation idea.  However, this means a lot of podcast articles are gonna have be tossed, and we're gonna have to do it. Ganfon 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Vs. Non-Notable 

message: Hello All,
I've created a small template to place on the bottom of all Podcast related articles. I'll go through some in the near future. Please give me your feedback as to how we can improve on it. I thought of some basics and just put them in. I'm definately open to suggestions and edits of the template. But I'll start adding the template to articles in the mean time. BrianZ(talk) 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast Template for bottom of articles 

message: *Jay and Jack
:Have two successful podcasts.  The podcasts in general maybe not, however the podcasters, i think, are.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, ramblecast is only avail bile in audio format.  The Lost Podcast has had a few vidcasts, but never the ramblecast.  My suggestion was not to make an article solely on one of the casts, but of the podcasting duo, with sections on both of the shows. Ganfon 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty notable for just starting out in my opinion.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now they're still in the early stages.  In their last episode they noted that they would soon be getting their main page set up (probably mattandave.com, judging by the show).  The reason they have not been highly rated yet is because they are still very new, however their feedback and popularity is very high for such a new, independent show. So if they're not notable yet, I'd say they will be before too long. (Testerer-would that friend be me?) Ganfon 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't seem to meet the notability requierments, sorry BrianZ.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, doesn't seem to be that notable.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Deleted and protected. Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted and Protected means exactly what it says.  If you go to it's wiki page, you'll see it says the same thing.  The statement means the article has been created several times, and deleted (via afd) each time, and now is protected from being recreated.Ganfon 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems notable, and possibly worth pursuing, but I'd make sure it's a well written, sourced article before posting it.(that applies to all podcasts).  On the surface it seems notable, but I didn't exactly go into a great deal of research on it. Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It also won two podcasting awards.
*The Seanachai
Winnder of a Parsec Award.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Podcasts/Podcast articles 

message: U, V, and W pages in :Category:Audio podcasts are complete. BrianZ(talk) 21:21, --> 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*Tips From The Top Floor- edited infobox and categories, added Podcasting template and project template on talk page. BrianZ(talk) 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed category Cleanup pages 

message: NOTEI think before we go nominating articles for deletion, we need to agree on a notablility process.  That way when we contribute to the afd, we can include 'Does not meet notablility standars of WikiProject:Podcasting.' or something like that.  That will show the project is running well, as well as show to the deletionists out there that we've made a notablility grading system for podcasts.Ganfon 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much agreed, I think you nailed it. We must come up with a standard of notability. Definitely a priority. Is there a way to build a To-Do list that is prioritized? I also think that an agreed upon, community standard of notability for podcasts, based on a number of considerations, could help educate those who may be quick to delete or may not be familiar with what makes a Podcast truly notable.Testerer 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The artile whiteroofradio.com also had external links to every archived show as well. I deleted them and noted the deletion on the talk page. Wikipedia should not be a repository for Podcasts. In essence, they are treating it as their archives. As a matter of fact, this article had many issues, including re-redirects and even a wikilink to a host with the same name as an olympic swimmer and it had a disambig tag leading back to the article (Not the hosts article, since he wasn't notable). If you want, check out what I did on the article and let me know what you think. BrianZ(talk) 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Articles 

message: I think I want to at least considering adding a section in the discussion page for Major Issue related to how podcasting, individual podcasts, Wikipedia and this WikiProject can be utilized and improved upon. I thought of this related to the ongoing efforts to improve and monitor very basic articles like Podcast, I also think that an article like History_of_podcasting while informative, is to cluttered with shamelessly promotional external links, many to shows that have no wiki entry, also, there are unsubstantiated claims that have been easily inserted into what has become a really troubled page. The timeline is especially bothersome, statements with no reference or that make claims like, Early 2005 - The term "podmercial" was coined by John Iaisuilo, a radio broadcaster/podcaster in Las Vegas, who promptly trademarked it. and Also in July, the first People's Choice Podcast Awards were held during Podcast Expo. Awards were given in 20 categories. and  The term "poditorial" was coined by author John Hedtke in July while writing half of "Podcasting Now: Audio Your Way!" and lastly Also in February 2005, Australians Cameron Reilly and Mick Stanic started a Commercial Podcast Network, The Podcast network. Reilly described his vision for the network to be the Time Warner of New media..
Maybe these things are true, maybe not, most link to some offsite company relate to podcasting or something but all in all, that timeline is a mess, Almost nothing is referenced and it seems too easy of a place for people to vandalize and abuse. I'm writing about it here because I am curious to know what other issues people consider. A few that I have are the numereous categories related to podcasting, how helpful are they etc. There is a catagory of podcasters and Audio Podcasts, ironically not all of the podcasters have Podcasts listed in any Podcast Category, and many of the hosts of the current articles are not listed in the Podcasters catagory. I guess I'm just saying that the meta of it all needs some cleanup, to avoid confusion.
I've also seen more than a couple podcasts articles that start out with this: ______ is a monthly podcast (Internet radio show).... Are we going to treat them the same, or should this be cleaned up. Internet Radio seems to be more streaming and thus perhaps should not be so boldly considered synonymous with Podcasting.Testerer 08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen what you are talking about with Podcasts not being listed, but the Podcaster for that podcast has a page and so on. I just chalk that up to the reason we are in this project. As for the History of Podcasting. Yesterday, I simply arranged the article by dates so that it was easier to read. I did not do any reference work and basically saw that it needs a lot more work.BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Testerer: I think there is an issue with the terminology. Most people introduce their Podcasts as an Internet radio show because they feel it's easier for non-informed people to understand what it is that they are saying. If it is truly an Internet Radio show that is streamed, then it is not a Podcast. If the show uses a RSS Feed with an enclosure, then it should be treated as a Podcast. BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Podcasting Related Article Clean Ups / Improvements