Talk:Video podcast

message: Vodcast → Video podcast – {Agreed upon in talk page. New name is more commonly used and *much* more popular on google.Ehdrive 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Oppose Video Podcasts for the most part are (or should be) specifically designed for Ipods; this is a completely different meaning from "video clip"
Support Currently, "video podcast" redirects to this main article named "vodcast". From the table above, I gather that "Video podcast" is the most popular term (and nobody objects that those two refer to the same thing). I think it would make very much sense to move the the article to "Video podcast" and redirect "vodcast" there.
* Easier to understand when using the more popular term
* We regularly use the most easy to understand and popular term in the wikipedia to refer to things, not the shortest one
* Wouldn't change any way people interact with the article when using redirects
What does everybody think? Peter S. 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
There is a theory that video podcast and vodcast are not the same.  I don't have a reliable source for this either way. Stephen B Streater 14:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not about that discussion. Currently, both terms link to the same article, one of the terms is also the main article title. My proposal is to just take the other term for the main article title. No big deal. Peter S. 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Oppose Video Podcasts for the most part are (or should be) specifically designed for Ipods; this is a completely different meaning from "video clip"
Support Currently, "video podcast" redirects to this main article named "vodcast". From the table above, I gather that "Video podcast" is the most popular term (and nobody objects that those two refer to the same thing). I think it would make very much sense to move the the article to "Video podcast" and redirect "vodcast" there.
* Easier to understand when using the more popular term
* We regularly use the most easy to understand and popular term in the wikipedia to refer to things, not the shortest one
* Wouldn't change any way people interact with the article when using redirects
What does everybody think? Peter S. 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
There is a theory that video podcast and vodcast are not the same.  I don't have a reliable source for this either way. Stephen B Streater 14:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about that discussion. Currently, both terms link to the same article, one of the terms is also the main article title. My proposal is to just take the other term for the main article title. No big deal. Peter S. 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Some of this article seems blatant advertising (WHICH baptist church?).
213.84.239.37 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Don't merge. Steve Garfield
I agree, don't merge. "Vodcast" is a term used only by 1 company, as far as I know, not by any community of people. PeterVanDijck
: I've been vlogging since last year and I've often used the term vodcast.  I know it's not popular.  I've never really been comfortable with the term vlog.  Frankly, I think the sheer descriptive force of the term video podcast is going to win out ultimately.  Anyway, I think vodcast should be merged with vlog/videoblog. Oed 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content moved from Talk:Vlog

message: Vcast also refers to a technology for streaming data to mobile phones that may have nothing to do with video (some games use it for instance): http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=vcast_technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.18.224 (talk • contribs) 
: Verizon's technology has now been mentioned at Vcast, which is now a disambig page.—Tokek 06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vcast 

message: My original request was that articles referring to the same topic be merged. I wasn't advocating any title if there was a merge to take place. However, if it turns out that these terms are indeed referring to the same thing, and trivial cases such as minor trademark issues can be resolved with disambiguation pages, then some people may be interested in Google counts. So here they are, from highest to lowest:
Google search term	search count	English results only
"video podcasting"	6,090,000   	5,210,000
vlogging          	5,420,000   	4,380,000
"video blogging"  	4,280,000   	3,610,000
"videoblogging"   	3,910,000   	2,490,000
vodcasting        	2,720,000   	864,000
videocasting      	2,000,000   	2,110,000
vidcasting        	613,000     	511,000
"video casting"   	463,000     	378,000
vcasting          	287,000     	235,000
videopodcasting   	204,000     	49,300
Above: note the lack of vodcast hits for the English only search in the third column.
Dutch count
Since I am not familiar with the Dutch language, I avoided counting the "-ing" variations, which weren't affecting counts by a great deal anyway.
vodcast        	324,000
"video podcast"	71,200
videoblog      	51,100
vlog           	38,600
vidcast        	35,700
videocast      	11,200
"video blog"   	895
vcast          	360
videopodcast   	331
"video cast"   	323
—Tokek 07:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google count 

message: Because if a video podcast is a video blog, a podcast should be a blog.
-- 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Video Podcast can't be a Video Blog 

message: I would like to take a survey from the anonymous user(s) logging in from Dutch IP addresses if it's OK to say in the main article that the term video podcast is a synonym of vodcast? (Obviously, "vlog" is not liked by some person(s)). —Tokek 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video podcast 

message: Tokek, this discussion has been closed before and the conclusion was that a merge is not ok.
- A video blog is a personal website with videos
- A video podcast is an rss feed aimed at the iPod (hence the name)
- A vodcast is a tv channel, with VOD titles, fed through RSS, for any device
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs) 
:Podcasts have NOTHING to do with the iPod-- they are just an RSS Feed that carry links to audio. The name is misleading, but that's it. Vodcasts are essentially another name for a video podcast. A video blog most likely carries an RSS feed, a.k.a. a video podcast. Thank you. (And quite frankly, I think the name "vodcast" is awkward). bCube(talk,contribs); 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VODcast is not video blog is not video podcast 

message: I see there is no "See also" section to articles about tools which allow editing, publishing and hosting of video podcasts. Are there many of these?
My own company, Forbidden Technologies, makes FORscene, which includes upload from DV or mobile phones, editing, publishing for iPod and also hosting thrown in - a one-stop shop for video podcasting in fact. Stephen B Streater 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing vodcasts 

message: I reinserted the original research message box removed by IceHunter.  The section in question violates WP:VERIFY.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.   "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Ehdrive 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research Message Box 

message: Someone recently added their opinion that 'video podcast' and 'vodcast' are redundant terms. They based their remark  on the argument that podcasts have always contained video, and that "the term video will usually suffice instead of the cumbersome 'video podcast' or now redundant 'vodcast' as downloads of videos have become so commonplace in countries where broadband is affordable."
A few points:
Firstly, according to the history of podcasting, podcasts were initially all about audio, just like iPods were all about audio. Not until later did video start appearing in the enclosure tags in RSS, but by that time "podcasts" were well and truly associated with audio. Therefore "video podcast" or "vodcast" was and is a great help in distinguishing  video subscriptions from their audio siblings. 
Secondly, when a website chooses to use "video podcast" or "vodcast" to describe their video subscriptions, they do so because that's exactly what they are. Using just the word "video" means that the crucial information is missing - that this is a video subscription (as opposed to a video stream, or manual file download).
Lastly, on the remark that "downloads of videos have become commonplace is countries where broadband is affordable"... this is not a reason to declare terminology universally redundant. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that not all countries have affordable broadband, and that not all people can even afford "affordable broadband". 
Identifying video podcasts as such, can only ever be a helpful thing, and whether that identifying comes from 'video podcast' or 'vodcast' is not only acceptable, but is currently in use by a few major media broadcasters. Plazma351 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''== 'Vodcast' lives on == or does it == yes it does if NASA and Commercial TV Networks use it''' 

message: I did not base my remark on 'the argument that podcasts have always contained videos'. I didn't say that and don't know where you got it from. I said that for web visitors, what matters is whether you are clicking to get a podcast (audio) or a video (vodcast as you insist on), not what the technical term is and what the technical term means. It is either audio or video. Indeed you agree with this yourself when you say "Therefore "video podcast" or "vodcast" was and is a great help in distinguishing  video subscriptions from their audio siblings. " This page is dominated by arguments about what terms mean to those that develop the tools and services, and in defending niche terms that may be useful at the point of development but quickly become unhelpful to a general user. There is very little discussion here about what a web visitor finds helpful.
With regard to your comment "this is not a reason to declare terminology universally redundant. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that not all countries have affordable broadband, and that not all people can even afford "affordable broadband". " - Your comment is a red herring and unnecessarily hostile... I very clearly said that where people can use broadband "in countries where broadband is affordable." (implicitly acknowledging that vast numbers have no access to the web and no affordable broadband) they are now used to seeing videos available to view online or download and so the term vodcast therefore just does not add anything to the experience and so is redundant (although useful when new). How does calling it a vodcast as opposed to a video help me as a user? You say: "using the word "video" means that the crucial information is missing - that this is a video subscription (as opposed to a video stream, or manual file download)." But excuse me for not being technical, these terms don't mean anything to me as a user. I would expect the difference to be spelled out to me on the web page if it required me to do anything other than just click to view it or download it - I would not expect the web editor to assume I know the distinction that you describe comes with the term vodcast - that is the definition of jargon. Editors edit, I did not make a universal declaration, I explained why it is redundant - in the same way you are defending it.
Obviously I did not convince you. 
The fact that I do not understand (as a simple user) that vodcast means specifically a subscription, indicates it is not a widely understood term. I am speaking up for all those who just want to keep editorial plain and helpful and not leave most of the arguments to the people who work with the technology or develop it. Podcast is not used exclusively to mean subscription (there are a huge number of audio offerings labelled podcasts which do not require any form of subscription, same with videos) so I would just expect any video output requiring a subscription to just say so, without introducing yet another term where an existing one suffices. I am not arguing against vodcast if it means something to techies, just please don't imply we must all adopt it when there is a more common term already in use.
I am enjoying the debate - you don't seem to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.233.12 (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''*In response to your remarks above:*''' 

message: The argument above is messy and all over the place. Not really sure you should be editing someone else's heading or copy on this discussion page either thanks. 
At the end of the day the horse has bolted on "Vodcast". Declaring it "redundant" is not helpful when sites such as NASA and major commerical TV stations and public broadcasters use it to describe both their video downloads and/or video podcast subscriptions. 
Consider the following scenario... Joe User arrives at NASA and sees a "vodcast" link. He doesn't know what vodcast means so he googles it and arrives at Wikipedia where he finds an awkward attempt to explain the redundancy of the term. This is not helpful. The simple fact is that 'video podcast' is interchangeable with 'vodcast', and so I will now re-instate the part where it says in brackets "sometimes referred to as vodcast" because that is both accurate and informative. I will leave your redundant paragraph because I am not interested in wiki-wars, even though what you write doesn't fit with the article - which I shouldn't need to remind you is about 'video podcasts' or 'vodcasts'. 
Plazma351 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''*Reply to above...:*''' 

message: This claim about redundant terms is fundamentally misconceived (quite regardless of the issue of factual accuracy, which you all seem so worried about):
# As a matter of principle, the existence of a more inlcusive term does not make a less inclusive term redundant. You might as well say the term sparrow is redundant because bird includes sparrows.
# The possible redunancy of a term is not an encyclopedic fact. Unless it were sourced from some expert work of lexicology, it is almost impossible to present this claim as NPOV, so it has no place here, and has no value. 
--Pfold (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant?