Talk:Up and Vanished

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Podcasting Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nieceymarie. Peer reviewers: Sophiiquee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review - Sophie Liang[edit]

Lead: The lead looks really good. It's super straightforward and very clearly written of what the topic is about. Nothing seems to be missing.

Structure: The sections are well-organized. Since it is a podcast that you are writing about, I think all the sections you have are pretty important to have. The article is clearly written.

Balance/Neutrality: Everything seems to be written in a neutral point of view.

Sourcing: The sourcing looks good. However, I don't know if it's possible, but I think you can try to source all the episodes and seasons that you have.

Overall: The whole article looks really good. I am mostly impressed with your lead of how clear and straightforward you wrote it. The structure of each section is also well laid out. I plan to reorganize my references like how you did it, instead of having a long list one after another.

Sophiiquee (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Not Split. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that the episodes be split into a separate article the same way that The Last Podcast on the Left has a separate article called List of The Last Podcast on the Left episodes. Right now the episode list takes up the majority of the page and although the word count might not be extremely large I think it's still too long (WP:SIZESPLIT) or if that's not a valid reason I'd say that the episodes constitute a different article because they are a slightly different subject (WP:CONTENTSPLIT). Either way it appears to be common practice to split episode lists into their own article once they've become lengthy (Category:Lists of podcast episodes). TipsyElephant (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in my view the article is not long enough to split as it would leave a short article behind, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I don't know if that's a valid reason to keep the list as part of the article. If the subject doesn't have enough coverage from reliable secondary sources to produce more than a short article without including a long list of information dependent on primary sources then perhaps the subject does not meet WP:GNG. [[User:|TipsyElephant]] (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, articles do not need to be split in most cases and there is nothing wrong with a start class article in terms of length in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: There has been a discussion at the podcasting wikiproject talk page (here) about splitting articles with long episode lists into separate articles and the two of us that have discussed it have mostly come to the conclusion that independent wikipedia pages dedicated to episode lists are generally unhelpful and receive an extremely limited number of views. We've proposed that collapsible tables are more appropriate for this circumstance. Would you be opposed to a collapsible table instead of a split? It makes the article much easier to navigate so people don't have to scroll forever to find what they're looking for. I went ahead and made the lists collapsible, but if you don't like it feel free to undo my edit. If you're okay with the tables being collapsed we can also close the split proposal discussion and remove the tag from the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, personally I support collapsible tables but there is a mos guideline that deprecates them so there may be opposition, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: would you mind linking to the guideline for reference? I'll look into it and mention it at the previously mentioned discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the link is MOS:COLLAPSE, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at the help desk and it sounds like pre-collapsing a table (setting it to be collapsed by default) is deprecated not collapsible tables altogether. I'm going to close this discussion as Not Split. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2021 (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.