Talk:Hello Internet

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge into CGP Grey.

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freebooting

The article currently says: "The word 'Freebooting' was originally created by Brady on the podcast, and refers to websites taking videos and re-uploading them to their own website." Freebooting is an old term, derived from 16th century freebooter (pirate), and has been used for pirating generally; perhaps the author meant Haran created a new meaning/definition for the term? If so, a reliable source should be cited. Here's an 1828 dictionary definition of freebooting. Agyle (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle,

I made an edit to reflect that fact. You are correct, and even Brady Haran acknowledged that the word 'freebooting' had a prior meaning.

CSBurksesq (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSBurksesq, thanks for adding the reference to http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/5, but when citing audio or video content, it should also include a time for the reference. It's analogous to a page reference in a book, I don't want to read 300 pages or listen to an hour-long podcast to check if a claim is true. :-) If you just put in something like "12:34" after the URL, someone else can dress the reference up with nicer formatting. Agyle (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few refs for those interested

Since I guess this is going to get AFDd again, I'm going to dump some links here of most of the third party coverage I could find: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I haven't curated these links for quality, but all of them mention the podcast. Finally, there is the fact that it was briefly number 1 on iTunes. I can't really objectively judge the podcast for notability: I think it is notable, but not by Wikipedia's definition (possibly due to inherent biases in the ways modern journalism works, possibly just because Wikipedia's standards are different to mine). — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Intention Deficit, Mental Floss, and Portland Flag Association. For the #1 on Itunes we have Itunes Charts. That's all I could find. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I think the charting is the most compelling evidence of notability: The closest specific notability guideline is possibly WP:NALBUM, and one of the criteria there is The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. Of course, those criteria are not relevant to podcasts, but if there were specific criteria for podcasts I'd imagine they'd include a similar criterion. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing tags

@Chris troutman: I saw you tagged this article with multiple tags. I agree with the use of {{notability}}, but I am not sure why you used {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}} or {{primary sources}}. The article is currently quite heavily (perhaps over-) referenced, especially for a stub, and any reference to a primary source is currently backed up by a secondary source. Could you clarify as to why you added those tags? Thanks — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 08:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it tight

We need to make sure this article doesn't get too bloated: there is a risk that something like this will get full of fancruft. Really, content should only be included if it can be verified with an independent reliable source: the article shouldn't contain original research. To confirm: a topic generally shouldn't be included if either the podcast itself or Grey or Brady are the only sources for it. Thanks for contributing! — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with that. I understand the enthusiasm here but if the article fills up with fancruft then it will look more like a deletion candidate to a casual reviewer. I know some people may be tempted to feel that special rules apply here because this is clever people talking about interesting stuff but they really don't. This article needs to prove its notability just as much as it would do if it was about, say, a videogaming podcast and, as with any article, trivia and cruft only distract from that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the drivel about the "flag referendum" needs to be cut down to one or two sentences even if there are RS sources for it. If there are no good sources then it has to go completely. The penguin is the same. With RS sources it gets a passing mention, without RS sources, it goes. I am not ripping anything out for now but I have tagged for excessive use of primary sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I think this revision was the last time that most of the article was backed up with independent sources. I'd love the other editors (Devodevo2002, Mr. Granger, TheNicolaScheme, and Chickentheswap, for example) to come here to give their opinion on how we can keep this article compliant with content policy, especially verifiability and no original research. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with what has been said so far—the penguin, the flag, and the like should only be mentioned if they are discussed by independent sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree but i have to say that i think the Nail and Gear can be discussed without secondary sources if there aren't any very good ones. Devodevo2002 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]