This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable
podcasts and
podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia is not an episode guide. The information may well be permanently removed because it is not encyclopedic. See
WP:3RR for what happens if editing starts to go "back and forth.
doktorbwordsdeeds21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Can I respectfully ask, if Wikipedia is not an episode guide then why do most, if not all, television programme articles and “List of Episode” articles act as an episode guide with plot, episode title, ratings, air date, any guest stars etc? Where do you draw the line? Are these television articles also not encyclopedic? It doesn’t seem entirely fair that television shows can be held to a different standard to podcasts and other forms of media.
2A02:C7F:5117:5900:F92E:4B8D:F068:138E (
talk)
23:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Television shows are established as having structure, narrative, and a cast. Podcasts are ephemera, in many ways. You don't need to have a permanent record of a comedy show's punchlines. Most importantly, Wikipedia has an established policy on television and does not yet treat podcasts the same.
doktorbwordsdeeds00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
i'd argue that off menu in particular does have a set structure. sure, it doesn't have an overarching narrative, but there are lots of tv shows where you don't need to watch all of them, let alone in order. and in off menu, certain guest's menus are referred back to in later episodes. they're not just punchlines, but often are a journey through a person's life. it's a load of (relevant!) information and deleting it completely off wikipedia seems unproductive. i find your "most importantly" point to be unfair: wikipedia not having a policy on podcasts shouldn't mean that the information should be taken out, and one of wikipedia's five pillars is that no rules are carved into stone anyways! i personally am highly in favor of a "list of episodes" separate page to keep things in order.
Hillsyism (
talk)
01:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not fans of Off Menu. That Wyatt Cenac ate this and that on that day is only of interest to a very, very small group of people. Wikipedia is not about
WP:EVERYTHING.
And lastly, the huge table was
WP:PRIMARY sourced. It might show that it happened, it doesn't help with
WP:SIGCOV. It's completely out of
WP:PROPORTION: the topic is Off Menu, not the listing of episodes.
This is ridiculous, the content which has been removed is genuinely useful and relevant to what the page is about. For reference, here are a few thousand other
episode lists you might want to delete to be consistent.
Arbitrarily applying a rule which negatively impacts the utility of wikipedia is of interest to a very, very small group of wikipedia admins.
128.189.119.129 (
talk)
20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Large numbers of podcast include detailed episode breakdowns. These include
Revisionist History,
Welcome to Night Vale,
RHLSTP,
Radiolab and
The Adam Buxton Podcast to name a few. I also do not think it is trivia specific to the podcast; it is fairly obviously of general interest to know the favourite meals of Hollywood A-listers (such as Taron Egerton, Timothy Spall, Edgar Wright, Martin Freeman), as well as important figures in the world of food (such as Jamie Oliver, Paul Hollywood, Ainsley Harriott, Tom Kerridge). None of these are small names, so it is not simply trivia for a select few.
Galanthis (
talk)
19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree, but I don't think it being on a different page changes any of the issues with Wikipedia's guidelines, it just shifts them somewhere else. I don't really want to go to the effort of making the page just to have it removed. This seems like a happy medium of pointing people towards useful information, which they were using the page as a reference for, without hosting the information itself on Wikepdia.
Natrilix (
talk)
11:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Who on earth has deleted all this valuable information about the podcast episodes that fans have put together over years? Clearly some people don't understand that this is PRECISELY why people even visit this Wikipedia page in the first place, all the other info can easily find elsewhere. If you want to make yourself redundant, fine, go ahead. The hypocrisy of these mods is astonishing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:908:5C2:5E60:6330:460D:8788:AB9E (
talk)
20:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Who on earth has deleted all this valuable information about the podcast episodes that fans have put together over years?
That would be me. Check
the history tab to see past revisions of an article. See
WP:LONGTIME, doesn't matter it took people years.
Clearly some people don't understand that this is PRECISELY why people even visit this Wikipedia page in the first place, all the other info can easily find elsewhere.
Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of stuff. Feel free to start your own dedicated fanpage though. The internet's a big place. Fun fact: most of the internet doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia does, however.
If you want to make yourself redundant, fine, go ahead.
Thank you, I'm very glad to have your support in this matter. If I ever feel like it, I'll certainly will.
The hypocrisy of these mods is astonishing.
Wikipedia has administrators, or admins, not mods. I'm not one though. Are you sure you know what hypocrisy means? It's not like I'm removing this table while at the same adding massive amounts of trivial episode listings to other podcast articles.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK22:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ratings 4.7894736842105265/5
The Publication section of the Infobox currently says:
Ratings 4.7894736842105265/5
But ratings is not supplied in the source for the Infobox. What is this strange information? I will note that 4.7894736842105265 is very close to 91/19.
Brentonb (
talk)
18:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable
podcasts and
podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia is not an episode guide. The information may well be permanently removed because it is not encyclopedic. See
WP:3RR for what happens if editing starts to go "back and forth.
doktorbwordsdeeds21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Can I respectfully ask, if Wikipedia is not an episode guide then why do most, if not all, television programme articles and “List of Episode” articles act as an episode guide with plot, episode title, ratings, air date, any guest stars etc? Where do you draw the line? Are these television articles also not encyclopedic? It doesn’t seem entirely fair that television shows can be held to a different standard to podcasts and other forms of media.
2A02:C7F:5117:5900:F92E:4B8D:F068:138E (
talk)
23:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Television shows are established as having structure, narrative, and a cast. Podcasts are ephemera, in many ways. You don't need to have a permanent record of a comedy show's punchlines. Most importantly, Wikipedia has an established policy on television and does not yet treat podcasts the same.
doktorbwordsdeeds00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
i'd argue that off menu in particular does have a set structure. sure, it doesn't have an overarching narrative, but there are lots of tv shows where you don't need to watch all of them, let alone in order. and in off menu, certain guest's menus are referred back to in later episodes. they're not just punchlines, but often are a journey through a person's life. it's a load of (relevant!) information and deleting it completely off wikipedia seems unproductive. i find your "most importantly" point to be unfair: wikipedia not having a policy on podcasts shouldn't mean that the information should be taken out, and one of wikipedia's five pillars is that no rules are carved into stone anyways! i personally am highly in favor of a "list of episodes" separate page to keep things in order.
Hillsyism (
talk)
01:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not fans of Off Menu. That Wyatt Cenac ate this and that on that day is only of interest to a very, very small group of people. Wikipedia is not about
WP:EVERYTHING.
And lastly, the huge table was
WP:PRIMARY sourced. It might show that it happened, it doesn't help with
WP:SIGCOV. It's completely out of
WP:PROPORTION: the topic is Off Menu, not the listing of episodes.
This is ridiculous, the content which has been removed is genuinely useful and relevant to what the page is about. For reference, here are a few thousand other
episode lists you might want to delete to be consistent.
Arbitrarily applying a rule which negatively impacts the utility of wikipedia is of interest to a very, very small group of wikipedia admins.
128.189.119.129 (
talk)
20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Large numbers of podcast include detailed episode breakdowns. These include
Revisionist History,
Welcome to Night Vale,
RHLSTP,
Radiolab and
The Adam Buxton Podcast to name a few. I also do not think it is trivia specific to the podcast; it is fairly obviously of general interest to know the favourite meals of Hollywood A-listers (such as Taron Egerton, Timothy Spall, Edgar Wright, Martin Freeman), as well as important figures in the world of food (such as Jamie Oliver, Paul Hollywood, Ainsley Harriott, Tom Kerridge). None of these are small names, so it is not simply trivia for a select few.
Galanthis (
talk)
19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree, but I don't think it being on a different page changes any of the issues with Wikipedia's guidelines, it just shifts them somewhere else. I don't really want to go to the effort of making the page just to have it removed. This seems like a happy medium of pointing people towards useful information, which they were using the page as a reference for, without hosting the information itself on Wikepdia.
Natrilix (
talk)
11:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Who on earth has deleted all this valuable information about the podcast episodes that fans have put together over years? Clearly some people don't understand that this is PRECISELY why people even visit this Wikipedia page in the first place, all the other info can easily find elsewhere. If you want to make yourself redundant, fine, go ahead. The hypocrisy of these mods is astonishing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:908:5C2:5E60:6330:460D:8788:AB9E (
talk)
20:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Who on earth has deleted all this valuable information about the podcast episodes that fans have put together over years?
That would be me. Check
the history tab to see past revisions of an article. See
WP:LONGTIME, doesn't matter it took people years.
Clearly some people don't understand that this is PRECISELY why people even visit this Wikipedia page in the first place, all the other info can easily find elsewhere.
Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of stuff. Feel free to start your own dedicated fanpage though. The internet's a big place. Fun fact: most of the internet doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia does, however.
If you want to make yourself redundant, fine, go ahead.
Thank you, I'm very glad to have your support in this matter. If I ever feel like it, I'll certainly will.
The hypocrisy of these mods is astonishing.
Wikipedia has administrators, or admins, not mods. I'm not one though. Are you sure you know what hypocrisy means? It's not like I'm removing this table while at the same adding massive amounts of trivial episode listings to other podcast articles.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK22:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ratings 4.7894736842105265/5
The Publication section of the Infobox currently says:
Ratings 4.7894736842105265/5
But ratings is not supplied in the source for the Infobox. What is this strange information? I will note that 4.7894736842105265 is very close to 91/19.
Brentonb (
talk)
18:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply