Talk:The Nerdist Podcast

List of episodes

I removed the list of episodes. Listing every guest and every episode is excessive detail for encyclopedic coverage of the show. The episodes themselves aren't notable – they haven't generate significant secondary-source coverage like Star Trek or Seinfeld have. --Pnm (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe so. Episode listings exist for shows like The Simpsons and Mythbusters, and even though no one show is notable in its own right, the fact that the list exists is for those curious (like me) to see what was done on what episode, instead of blindly guessing. ShayDwight (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information is useless, but that it's too much detail for a two-paragraph article. So little has been written on this topic that there are only three reliable, secondary sources (two of which I added myself). The episode list is entirely out of proportion with that. --Pnm (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See #8 in Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY, which is the policy which applies to the argument I'm making. See also Wikipedia:Consensus for some background on editorial decision-making on Wikipedia. --Pnm (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pnm, you are removing truthful information that people actually use. This is my show and I am asking you as politely as I can to please put it back. It is very important to our community of listeners, which numbers somewhere between 150,000-170,000. I know that if you don't listen to the show, this might not seem of value, but it is. There are only two paragraphs because the guests are the main focus of each episode, thereby making the complete list the most valuable piece of information. I would prefer that people not use wikipedia as their main source of info, but since its SEO is so high, this is the case. Removing this info stifles the free trade of truthful and relevant knowledge and I feel hurts our show. I would humbly ask that you please look beyond what you deem worthy to a community of people who want and deserve this information.— comment added by Spamwick (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While I sympathize about Wikipedia's SEO results, another venue would be more suitable for the kind of information-sharing you describe. If the Nerdistry Wiki were named Nerdist instead of Nerdistry it'd probably appear in the results. The content license posted on that wiki is compatible with the one to which the contributors to this article already agreed. And without the Wikipedia-induced burden of verifiability in reliable sources, I think your fans could produce content about what goes on in the podcast which they'd find more useful. I'm sure it would be more entertaining. --Pnm (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate COI issues aside, I see no reason why the list should be removed. I disagree with the assertion regarding NOTDIRECTORY as applied to episode lists; these don't meet #8 because they don't attempt to include any but significant details. Weight is a matter for consensus, so we're discussing it here. IMHO, this is a historically significant programme list (and almost entirely bluelinked) per #4, almost worthy of its own pagespace as List of The Nerdist Podcast episodes, given the sourcing applied to the page. The material is easily verifiable via the official site. I've got to ask User:Pnm what changed to cause the user to delete the list of episodes, and why now? I acknowledge that the user has been a significant contributor to the page and has performed admirable stewardship. After all, if Pnm hadn't made these edits, it's likely this page would have faced deletion. The kept version included the list. I can see that the user felt strongly enough to delete the episode list on 1/25/11, but when User:Ahhhsean added it back four weeks later, Pnm didn't defend against reinsertion. The improved table wasn't removed until Halloween. Why now? What has changed? BusterD (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a break from active editing which spanned that time period. To my surprise, the dates are exact. I can see why the gap could be confusing. Thanks for acknowledging my contributions to the article, and the "keep" outcome in January. At the time, those two references were hard to locate – the one from LA Weekly is the one that cinched it. The list was added during that discussion, not before, and the "keep" didn't bless the list. Or even the title – the article wasn't even correctly capitalized at the time of the nomination Afd. --Pnm (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Writing as longtime editor who recently "retired" for a month then came back, Pnm's reply rings close to home. I hope you enjoyed your extended break as much as I enjoyed mine. I should have checked your contribs and seen this myself. Sorry if I seemed to be questioning your motivation. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't take offense. I'm glad I had such an easy explanation. --Pnm (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No information is being suppressed. Wikipedia is not Facebook, and is under no obligation to provide webhosting services for The Nerdist just because Wikipedia gets good results on Google. Keep your own history on your own website; don't abuse Wikipedia for the convenience of your listeners or the gratification of your egos. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed something. Who used the word "suppressed"? As I mentioned, I do see the conflict issues as valid, but don't see why this bluelinked table so offends. I tend to agree with Spamwick that the table is likely the most useful part of the article. While I agree that OTHERSTUFF applies, when we have enormous quantities and examples of OTHERSTUFF, we call it common practice, and this affects content norms. If Spamwick hadn't self-identified twice, I could see an argument, but since the editor is playing it fair, I don't see the issue. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Section break 0

Orangemike, the "We" is our community. I personally didn't add it. I don't know how to do that. I mentioned it on twitter and one of my followers took it upon themselves to roll it back for us. I don't know who it was. Glad to see another officious pencil-pusher join the convo, though Mike! My friend Melanie is on an advisory board to wikipedia so I'll reach out to them directly. And, you're wrong. An episode guide is a) relevant and b) not hurting wikipedia as an entity. Stating that we're trying to be like Facebook by listing the very relevant guests we have had is moronic. That's like saying that making your name a color is abusing the system, Orangemike. Who needs that to happen, really? That's the kind of dumb shit people would do on Facebook. I'm truly sorry that a polite plea to maintain information for our fans raised your ire. Enjoy Your Burrito, gents! :) (and thanks for the backup BusterD & ShayDwight.) Spamwick (talk

I'm a Wikipedian but also a Hardwick fanboy (I've been to wootstocks, attended several Web Soups with Node peeps, been to Nerdmelt, listened to every Nerdist Podcast since well before they were called 'hostful'), I feel I've got to speak up. I'm not 100% sure Spamwick is really Chris Hardwick, nor does it matter a lot, though I'd guess Katie is a decent guess. The ultimate problem can be seen at WP:42. In other words, other articles that have episode information are generally backed up with semi-reliable websites. Note that not even the Adam Carolla podcast empire has full episode listings- part of it is the number of podcasts Nerdist and Acenet have produced, but part of it is the lack of verifiable coverage elsewhere. Think of IMDB and all of the TV listing sites.

The best answer would be to host the episode guide at nerdist.com, though you or someone could set up a Wikia site and promote it, which would allow fans to build it and keep it up to date. tedder (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

tedder I'll verify on the podcast this week that Spamwick is indeed me, Chris Hardwick. And excellent point, Tedder! I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why listing this info is damaging to Wikipedia in any way. It took MONTHS for me to get erroneous information removed from my personal page. No one seemed to give a shit about that. So what I'm learning about wikipedia is that truth is really secondary to interpreting rules in a weird way to suppress valuable information to the community that it is relevant to. Orange Mike is not in the community yet he is judging what is important to it. That's like walking into a classroom and having the Lit teacher throw out Catcher in the Rye simply because you don't get it, therefore it MUST be useless: Censorship through ignorance. This list matters to our listeners (about 150,000 of them) and I will make sure they voice their opinions here until meter maids like Orange Mike get tired and go useless power-tripping elsewhere. Spamwick (talk 00:59, 16 November 2011‎ (UTC)

I can understand the frustration about what is and isn't included. Again, see WP:42; Wikipedia isn't meant to be where original content is published. Instead, it tries to reflect what has been published in other reliable places. Yes, it took time for crap to get off of your wiki entry- but it happened, and quickly after you complained about it on a podcast. Slamming the Wikipedia community won't help. That's why you created Node, right? Tired of namecalling and things being crapped upon? Nonproductive shit? As a Noder said, it isn't Stitcher again, as there's a community here that isn't trying to make money off you. Instead of the unproductive stuff, tell your podcast listeners to help with a Nerdist wiki, like the Nerdistry wiki at Wikia.

You can verify with a little note on twitter (tedder42) instead of ranting on the beginning of a podcast, though neither one is terribly necessary. While impostor accounts is a bit of a problem, Wikipedia isn't a "verified" world like Twitter is. Finally, let me know if you want to be put in touch with official Wikipedia PR types. tedder (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, tedder (talk, I was trying to be as polite as possible but Orange Mike's douchey dig about this "not being Facebook" put me on the defensive. He was basically calling me a wiener for being stupid enough to think that this was a social network. And why the "ego" dig? I'm not sorry for calling him out on being rude. He was. And no amount of documentation will EVER convince me that, in an encyclyopedic construct, our list of guests is extraneous, useless information that should be deleted. If this were a bound book series, then fine. Space is an issue. But it's not. It's the Web. This service should be for the community, and the community of listeners wants it. If you don't know what the podcast is, you'd pretty much never click on the article, so in general people coming to this page are looking for as much info about the show as they can get. Deletion hurts us, makes you guys look petty (I'm sorry but it does) and impedes the free trade of good information. You're nice, and your suggestion is nice and I will absolutely look into it. But at the end of the day, people use wikipedia the most and that's why I'm being a dick about this. I saw your email and will absolutely talk to your PR folks. Thanks for doing your best to be helpful! Spamwick (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.147.121 (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Section break 1

I largely agree with what tedder wrote. To reiterate, I'm not challenging the truth of usefulness of this information. The problem I see is that the episode list provides a level of detail which is out of proportion to the material in the article which comes from secondary sources.

BusterD, in regard to #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it sounds like we disagree about whether a mention of each of the show's notable guests should be considered a significant detail or an indiscriminate detail. I don't think #4 justifies the list because I don't see how an episode or a guest appearance could qualify as an historically significant program if no one has written about it. And the bluelinks are the guests, not the episodes.

Creating List of The Nerdist Podcast guests would solve my concern about the disproportionate detail in this article, but raises other issues. There are some other examples – see List of The Daily Show guests and other Category:Lists of celebrities. But we'd need to satisfy WP:LISTN which in my interpretation requires substantial coverage of the guests as a group or set in reliable, secondary sources – something I haven't yet seen. There was a lengthy and somewhat interesting deletion discussion about the Daily Show list. It did not result in a consensus to keep or delete.

To be frank, what would most improve this article is to locate things others have said about the show which have been published in reliable, secondary sources, and add those to the article with their references. --Pnm (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll nitpick a bit. I tend to think of WP:42 as an essay and WP:V as a policy. When the two conflict, I tend to think the policy is preferred, but talk consensus based on policy is best. So I'm glad to see while we disagree about some interpretation and on merits, we're not that far apart as wikipedians. The Daily Show example is a good comparison, given a stand-alone list. Based on policy, independence is essential for establishing notability, and this hurdle has been surpassed. Once we're there, then connected sources can be used to accurately describe detail (WP:ABOUTSELF), so long as the connected source is regarded as generally reliable. I'm satisfied with reliability here, but others may disagree. For the record, the word "independent" doesn't appear on WP:V or WP:IRS, except on the second as a link to an essay, WP:IS. I think the big issue is weight, and that's still not explored very well in these discussions. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen WP:42 until today. It's good, and certainly a succinct, less jargony way to explain WP:N. And while we've established that The Nerdist Podcast meets notability guidelines, we haven't done that for List of Nerdist Podcast guests (see comments in my last post). It's interesting that WP:V doesn't mention independence of sources. It does briefly mention the idea of secondary sources, however. (And WP:NOR discusses them in detail – see WP:SECONDARY). WP:ABOUTSELF, which is specifically about self-published sources, says using such sources is acceptable provided the article is not based primarily on such sources. Measured in bytes of markup, the list of episodes made up 70% of this article. --Pnm (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of creating a separate article for the list of episodes like several other shows have? Just a suggestion to end the back and forth bickering. Toxicredm (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that a separate article for the list of episodes is warranted. There is not as much evidence of COI when the subject is tgrying to correct inaccurate information, perhaps the WP methodology wasn't followed. Seeing as how the Nerdist.Com brand has recently expanded into Television and other formats it will eventually HAVE the exposure of other franchises and WP should start tracking basic information such as episode guests, as the Podcast grows it will be more difficult to collate the information. Simply removing dense information such as that from WP is silly and pretty much defeats the purpose of WP. EraserGirl (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the comment above and my already expressed view, I've created the page at the link List of The Nerdist Podcast episodes. If anyone disagrees, then we can discuss it there, or take it to AfD, which would also garner the community consensus one way or the other. Hope nobody takes this as pointy behavior. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I added the COI tag to the article

See User:Spamwick's own admission at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Baffling removal of accurate information that "we" keep re-inserting information when editors without a COI/connection to the show take it out. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A selective reading might make that interpretation. A more thorough reading of the comment reveals: "Some fine listeners/users have been maintaining our page..." and in the next sentence the editor uses "we". I can't prove but have no reason to doubt the editor is using the "we" referring to listeners/supporters. AGF, dude. FYI, I'd never heard about this before this morning and have never listened to the podcast subject. I wouldn't normally think a podcast would be notable, but apparently User:Pmn did think so, and proved it with citation. Each citation Pmn added supplies information included in the list of episodes. I don't understand this selective approach to pursuing table removal. BusterD (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I also take "we" to mean that Spamwick identified with the listeners. He didn't say he encouraged them, as this edit summary asserts. There's no POV problem, so I think the {{COI}} tag is misleading. {{Connected contributor}} on the talk page, perhaps. --Pnm (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The page doesn't have large COI issues. tedder (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Company?

Why is wikipedia.com/nerdist about one podcast and not the company Nerdist itself? The company, which has a wide variety of ventures, certainly seems notable enough to have its own page. Nerdist is a content creating broadcaster, much more than the one podcast it was 2 years ago. We should build a company page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.191.193 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I also find it odd that the article (as currently written) indicates that Nerdist Industries was founded as a podcast. If I'm not mistaken, Hardwick first launched the Nerdist website, and the podcast came later. 50.72.166.225 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto those above. Also, there is absolutely no mention of the new The Nerdist BBC America show. I came here looking for an episode list, like I do for every show I watch regularly, and the omission entire came as a shock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.47.125 (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Nerdist Podcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chicagoist.com/2011/11/15/nerdist_podcast_will_record_live_in.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305121412/http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecouncil/2010/04/nerds_own_largo_the_nerdist_po.php to http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecouncil/2010/04/nerds_own_largo_the_nerdist_po.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The Nerdist Podcast → ID10T with Chris Hardwick – As already noted in the page, the program changed its title as of February 6, 2018; normally I would have just moved the page myself but due to the WP:BLP issues with the subject that came up this weekend it's best to request this move to leave a paper trail, along with concerns about the numbers in the title where it may be easier to just use Idiot. I'll be doing the same nomination with the list of episodes. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that reliable sources are using the new name. Andrewa (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.