Talk:Podcast/Archive 4

message: Anybody up for writing a tutorial / manual at Wikibooks?  Would end the problem of having tutorials in the external links. Joe D (t) 23:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and started one: Wikibooks:Podcasting.  So far I've written about RSS feeds and outlined possibilities for expansion. Joe D (t) 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibook? 

message: I think that *one* and only one link to a podcast directory is okay and will help in dealing with people asking "why can't I list my site/podcast".  A quick google search found http://podcasts.yahoo.com/ that I think would best serve the purpose.  Interestingly, this Wikipedia article is the #1 google result for "podcasts", though the Yahoo site comes up in the first ten google results.  
I think the other top ten-listed sites (listed below) are less suitable as a general podcast directory. 
* http://www.ipodder.org/directory/4/podcasts - open source, no ads makes it consistent with Wikipedia
* http://www.podcast.net/ - uses AdSense too much.
* http://www.podcastalley.com - significant use of ads
* http://www.apple.com/itunes/podcasts/ - requires user to download iTunes
* http://audio.weblogs.com/ - doesn't seem useful to me, as a podcast directory
* http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_directory.php - Only NPR podcasts
* http://podcasts.engadget.com/
I think it's worth discussing here on the talk page and reaching consensus on which podcast directory, if any, to include.  I see that you do include http://www.podcast411.com, and maybe that does serve the purpose better.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck - a quick search of the history of this Talk page finds discussion at least as far back as March 2004 about which podcasts to link to. Personally, I think podcasts are so easily found now, on so many different search engines, lists, etc., that we don't need any such link in this article. But I don't think that opinion is in the majority. - DavidWBrooks 02:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second it.  Joe D (t) 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I defer to whatever way you think best deals with linkspam and appreciate your comments.  I'm working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to help combat linkspam and this article seems to attract a lot of linkspam, and I'm willing to help keep watch on it and find ways to help minimize linkspam.  I like how you have commented out why podcast411.com is included and what should and shouldn't be linked, when one goes to edit the external links section of podcasting.  Another approach I've seen on other articles is linking to http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Podcasts/. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've used a DMOZ link as an excuse to delete all the contentless local business directory sites from British county and town articles several times, that could do the trick here... Joe D (t) 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I only somewhat recently added this article to my watchlist, so for now I'll just keep watch on it and see how the linkspam goes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast directory 

message: Any chance of shortening the article and splitting some stuff off?--BozMotalk 15:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The History section needs its own article.  If there are no objections, I'll split it off, unless someone beats me to it. --ozzmosis 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done... --ozzmosis 10:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: People use Wikipedia for a lot more than merely definitions. They are looking for resources as well. Links to sites are constantly taken down from this article and give the users not only a better understanding of podcasting, but also a good understanding of what the technology is being used for. I've found that most big sites that have a list of "podcast directories" are either incomplete or favor commercial music. Wikipedia is by the users for the users, So please stop trying to police articles like you own wikipedia and know what's best for everyone. Let the users read what a podcast is and then link them to, not only more sites about what podcasting is, but also, sites that show the users how podcasting is being used. (posted Jan. 4 by anon i.p.)
:Thank you for taking the time to talk on this talk page and share your concerns with us.  I encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and make contributions to the Wikipedia.  It is a process that takes less than five minutes, and you do not even need an email address to sign up (we encourage users to supply an email addres so users can privately communicate with them, and so that passwords can be emailed to users that forget them.  Wikipedia, I assume you, will never use your email addres to send you spam).  However, as you have discovered, you are perfectly free to make edits from your IP.  
:You may wish to read Wikipedia:External links (click on this blue link to read the article in question).  Basically, we generally do not have commercial links on Wikipedia since Wikipedia's mission is to provide information that may be useful to its readers, not be a link repository.  Right now, the consensus seems to be that a link to a list of podcast search engines is OK (indeed, we have this link on the links section); however a link to a indivual podcast makes the page to vulnerable to link spam (there are a zillion Podcast search engines out there).
:Again, I appreciate your contributions as a new editor of Wikipedia, and hope that you become an active editor who makes many contributions to the Wiki.  Finally, to sign an entry on a talk page with your name (or IP) and the date, place this at the end of your entry: ~~~~. Samboy 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not have a set of links to podcast directories? 

message: Due to the recent explosion of *cast related terminology flooding wikipedia with arguably useful small articles about niche activities (Photocasting anyone?), it has been proposed on various *cast related AFD's to create something similar to a List of blogging terms for podcast-related crapola. It has been suggested to create a Podcasting genres and derivatives article and move all that crap there under a single list. Opinions? Better name for the above mentioned list article? Feedback? Also note, when (not if, but when) this list is created, all the tiny little articles related to *casting will be redirected to it, after merging the contents. Discuss. --Timecop 00:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. Can't think of a better name, though: Podcasting genres seems adequate but awfully pompous. - DavidWBrooks 13:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting feedback 

message: This re-naming, so to speak, is mentioned in the article during the discussion about the name, and does not need to be inserted into the introductory paragraph. It is not important enough to be that high in the article.  - DavidWBrooks 17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is still there. i was looking for it here, and it seems like a backronym to me. delete it from top or regard it as backronym, at least? 143.106.1.146 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "personal on demand casting" 

message: Submitted for (Community) Consideration: At the risk of providing commercial promotion for yet another profit-driven (though not nearly so) entity, might we here coin a definition for "POD" (v iPOD) as a/any "Personal Odio (pronounced "Audio") Device". "P" could also be thought to suggest "Portable"; optional, as there is no such requirement for RSS transmissions. Hopefully, keeping notions of "CASTing" safely in the hands of the "people", not the $$$'s !. re: RSS - NOT sure how to account for non-audio material. (1st-time WikiWriter) Pygar 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your wish to dilute the iPod monomania, wikipedia does not exist to coin terms or try to change people's behavior. POD could stand for any manner of things {perfectly ordinary digi-music, maybe) - but it didn't when it was created, and for the vast majority of people it still doesn't. We can't pretend it does. - DavidWBrooks 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NAME" Section: coin "POD" 

message: Read this. Nicholas 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't show up for me - maybe it's a Firefox issue. Care to make a quick summary? - DavidWBrooks 20:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone tried to trademark this WikiPedia Podcasting article. There are 5 pages in PDF format they submitted and it was rejected. --Scott Grayban 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, it was a patent application. A trademark is a different thing altogether. --ozzmosis 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark rejected 

message: Hey guys, is there consensus for editors just remove (as many times as needed up to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule) a link on the external link section that a given IP/user tries to add to promote their own web site?  One repeated conflict I have seen in this article is that someone adds a link to their own podcasting-related web page, I remove it, and then they put it back.  When they put their link back, they go to some effort to explain how their particular web page is important enough to be included in this Wikipedia page.
The problem is this: Like most Wiki articles, the number of editors looking at a given article is relatively small.  More to the point, it takes a few days for another editor besides myself to decide that a given link is self-promotional, and remove the link.  I try to follow Wikipedia:One-revert rule but I feel it will help this article if I can break the one-revert rule when the editorial dispute is over whether a given link is notable enough to include in this article.
Considering that this article is the very first result of a Google search for "Podcasting", there is a lot of temtation for people, who otherwise don't contribute to Wiki, to add a link to their web site here.  I think allowing for some extra vigilance in removing links to stop "external links" from becoming too spammy is called for.
Again, I will not break Wikipedia:One-revert rule on this issue unless there is consensus from other editors that doing so to keep link spam under control is OK.  Samboy 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey guys, can I just repeatably remove self-promotion links 

message: I have removed, for the second time, a link to (((URL removed because it's a blacklisted WEbsite and so I can't save this page with the URL on it!))) .  The IP added the following comment in this edit:
::Samboy - this link is not spammy, it follows the guideance set out above; "External links should explain Podcasting ... from a different angle" please contact me jrda _at_ lycos.com
Here is my reply to jrda; I may email him and tell him to discuss changes in public on the talk page if he has a disagreement.
:Thank you for taking the time to comment and share your point of view with us.  I always welcome new users and the contributions they can make which will improve the Wikipedia.
:I encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and make contributions to the Wikipedia. It is a process that takes less than five minutes, and you do not even need an email address to sign up (we encourage users to supply an email addres so users can privately communicate with them, and so that passwords can be emailed to users that forget them. Wikipedia, I assume you, will never use your email addres to send you spam). However, as you have discovered, you are perfectly free to make edits from your IP.
:My concern about the link to blogs.wwwcoder URLs is that this article appears to be a promotion for "Large Blue"  instead of an article to help people learn more about podcasting or set up podcasts.  In particular, the article just talks about the importance of podcasting and then has a commercial link to "Large Blue" at the end with the caption "Let us know if you'd like a hand"--instead of freely offering help and support.
:This in mind, I have removed the link.  I encourage you to continue making contributions to the Wikipedia and encourage you to add links to the podcasting page which both follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links and follow the consensus on this talk page (Namely: 1. Don't link to non-GPL podcasting software.  It is not sufficient to call the software "GPL"; we need to verify that the source code can be downloaded.  2. Don't link to a podcast search engine, but feel free to link to a list of podcast search engines)  If you disagree with this consensus, you are welcome to share you feelings on this talk page.
:Again, thank you for your contributions and discussing the issues here. Samboy 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia Podcasting article itself is the place to explain 'what's podcasting?' and their popularity.  If you think the Wikipedia article falls short in some way, you're more than welcome to improve it.  And, Wikibooks is the place for a tutorial on podcasting. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment in link I have removed 

message: Why not remove ALL the external links? I'm serious.
What makes http://www.mypods.net/ and blogs.wwwcoder.com/jrda/articles/podcasting.aspx
notable enough to be included? They're just explainers, like a zillion other sites these days. 
http://www.musicpodcasting.org/ hasn't been updated in two months - kill it. Kill it even if it has been updated; it's unsufficiently unusual. 
http://peterchen.members.grokthis.net/research ... that much-debated Podcast411, hasn't been updated in six weeks. There's nothing there worth keeping. In fact, two of the links are Podcast411 - that's definitely verboten!
This http://peterchen.members.grokthis.net/research is OK, but podcasting research is also widespread. 
Adam Curry's explanation? ... hmmm, maybe keep it. But why not stick it up as an external link with his text? 
Just delete them all - none are particularly impressive, none find things that people can't find very easily elsewhere, all beg for spammers to follow suit. That's my opinion, anyway - DavidWBrooks 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  just kill ALL the links 

message: I think the introduction is too technical. A reader should see a clear definition in the first sentence of the article without having to know what "RSS syndication" is.
: Quite correct, but attempts in the past to write a layman's intro have drawn hosts of nit-picking techno fans, who slowly turn it back into jargon mush, alas. Perhaps a braver editor could try again!- DavidWBrooks 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave it a burl.  Is it any better? --ozzmosis 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too technical 

message: List of Podcatchers was listed as a AfD and was deleted see -> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Podcatchers --Scott Grayban 11:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List_of_Podcatchers]] link removed from article 

message: Hi all, I just created a ref-tag-useable wiki-template for citing podcasts-- initially for use on the Lost (TV series) articles. Please take a look at Template:Cite podcast to see if it meets your needs, and if there are changes/corrections that need to be made. Thanks! -LeflymanTalk 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for citing podcasts 

message: Information on m4a enhanced podcasts seems to be missing from the article.
: Yes, there is that feature, and there are also some "podcasts" that are only available through iTunes and not standard RSS feeds.  It would have been a big help if Apple didn't use the same name for their proprietary extensions, so it would be clearer if this stuff should be mentioned in this article, or over in iTunes. --iMb~Meow 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhanced Podcasts 

message: Should there be an info box for podcasts? I've looked through the infobox list and on the pages marked as podcasts and couldn't find one, but it seems like something we should have, since podcasts are a medium just like tv shows and they are rising in numbers. JQF 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could copy Template:Infobox Television and modify to suit? --Billpg 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for Podcasts 

message: Is anyone brave or knowledgable enough to give the "comparison of podcatchers" section a first write up ?  It's on the podcatcher page.  Also see the talk page for some suggestions.  Hope it's OK to write this here. For me, I would be willing to help write it if someone can at least put a table together, like the other "comparison of.." pages (I can't fathom how to write a table - too old ! ) thanks--Phillip Fung 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcatching software 

message: Having the Apple podcasting logo on top of the page may give a false impression of Apple's ownership of podcasting.  I've therefore moved the Apple logo from the top of the page to the "Name" section, where Apple's role is properly explained.
 Uly 04:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple logo 

message: Podcast is described as a compound word in this article, but it is more specifically its a portmanteau. User: Cheeseball701
: This has been the topic of vast discussion over the past couple of years. Endless, really. At one point the synopsis was that portmanteau was a pompous term, unfamiliar to almost everybody and therefore unnecessary (that's also my opinion), but at other times "portmanteau" reigned for months at a time. - DavidWBrooks 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast a compond word? 

message: anyone know anything about the itpc:// protocol? we don't have anything on it and i can't find anything much about it on google (beyond that it is probably an itunes specific protocol for podcasting). The bellman 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  itpc:// protocol 

message: The current article calls 'podcast' a misnomer.  I don't think the word misnomer is particularly apt or neutral termninology.  Certainly the greatest uses of podcasting is by people who download their podcast directly to an ipod.  The dictionary also makes mention of the fact that broadcast is not exlusively known to radio transmission , so I believe the "cast" portion of podcast would not be confused with the radio.  As the article mentions, Apple embraced the podcasting technique in its software, and one can speculate this played a great deal in the success of podcasting (and thus the furtherance of the term).  Furthermore, the word 'podcast' cannot be a misnomer because it is simply a made up word.  It is what it is.  I suggest we rephrase that sentence to indicate the confusion the term podcast might cause, without using a word like misnomer, which would suggest some kind of error in its formation. --Mherlihy 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, most non-geeks believe that podcasts are "things you listen to on iPods", which is not true - so "misnomer" is the right word to use here. --Gene_poole 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is both a neologism and a misnomer. This article should not even exist -- "podcasting" (sic) should simply redirect to webcasting. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast = Misnomer? 

message: Surely the "concept" of Podcasting is just "providing audio files for download to listen to at a later date" that somewhat resemble news or magazine shows or whatever. This doesn't come from 2000, or 2001. Or anywhere close. RTÉ used to provide their radio shows for FTP download  in a manner which is effectively identical to podcasting (email notifications could be received, although they weren't available at the time of that archive.org capture and they'd moved to streaming by the time of the next one) in 1996, and I really, really doubt they were the first. --Kiand 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just providing the files, but providing the RSS feed or equivalent to update your "collection" automatically as soon as it's available, if you wish - that "push" aspect is what makes podcasts different that previous audio collections. - DavidWBrooks 12:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the email notification doesn't count as "push"? Indeed, the channel manager in Windows 98 -was- effectively identical, because if I, say, added 2FM to it I'd get notified as soon as I went online of new content. --Kiand 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, you'd get notified of the new content, but you wouldn't get the actual content - you'd have to take the extra step of retrieving it. It's the difference between getting a notice in the mail from my library saying that the copy of the book I wanted is waiting for me, and having a newspaper subscription that arrives at my doorstep. - DavidWBrooks 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Concept" from 2000?