Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)

"Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Alsee (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

After the RfC: now what?
So it's pretty clear that, while some may want to see a notability guideline for media, neither the current text nor the rewrite are it. (That said, some of the rewrite text may still be used to make the page easier to read and less US-focused.)

I'm listing some potential actions here and want some thoughts on them.


 * 1) Remove the text it reflects consensus for notability of media topics reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice. It might have 14 years ago, but it quite clearly doesn't in 2021.
 * 2) Change to an essay, at least for the time being, which would remove the last "explanatory supplement" in notability. If this is to stay as an essay, the newspaper and academic journal sections should be dropped and defer to the essays at Notability (periodicals) and Notability (academic journals).
 * 3) Add a box emphasizing that media outlets should be evaluated by GNG alone and noting that the programming section generally is accepted at a near-guideline level. (I really want it spun out, but I'm deferring to the pace of the NTV draft project.)
 * 4) Improve WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, perhaps using some of the rewrite text.

I also wonder if a split into print media, broadcast media, television programming (to be replaced by the WP:NTV draft), and radio programming is merited. Broadcast media is the heart of this RfC and, as we saw, its most contentious topic. The radio program area really has nowhere to go if this page is refocused into focusing on media outlets and the new NTV is accepted. The print media section could even be unnecessary if the periodicals and academic journals essays are treated as guidelines.

There was some interest in a guideline (and obviously any guideline made on this topic would emphasize the GNG). Given the number of interested editors, I found it hard to manage collaboration on-wiki. I had a triple edit conflict occur to me during the RfC, and I found it difficult to keep people engaged. I wonder if a forum or Discord server might be a more productive hub to figure out what a GNG-based media notability guideline might look like.

Please share your thoughts on these or other changes that should be made after this discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I hope you realize that it is completely inappropriate, in every way, to suggest that on-wiki changes should be discussed toward consensus off-wiki on "Discord" or a "forum". The answer to that is absolutely not, in any case, ever. Changes to this page are to be discussed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's fair, and I only said the word wonder. It was an exploratory remark. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to draft with other users off-wiki, then bring on-wiki for discussion. As long as this is all clearly disclosed, I don't see a reason why working out some issues can't be done with particular users in private. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:BCASTOUTCOMES was the catalyst that allowed us to add it reflects consensus for notability of media topics reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice. The continued North American radio station Keeps at AfD show that BCASTOUTCOMES allow us to keep that text.  Notability remains regardless of what a couple think.  NMEDIA is still an "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline".  It was the rewrite that was closed, not NMEDIA in general.  I feel if we remove that text, it will be a feeding frenzy led by a few and AfD will be stacked for days with radio station articles. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, someone just took care of it for you. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, it's getting a little out of hand. Basically everyone is declaring NMEDIA "dead" when it just reverted to pre-rewrite status, back to it's previous "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline" version (which it always was), but I don't think anyone understands (or cares) that. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't essay and explanatory supplement the same thing? Policy > guideline > everything else. I do think splitting this into smaller, bite sized pieces could be a good strategy. The more complex this document is, the harder it might be to RFC in the future, because there'd be more potential sections to object to. Finally, I wonder if now is a bad time to try to add SNGs in general. The community seems to be swinging a bit deletionist and anti-SNG lately, with ANIs and central discussions trying to reduce microstub creation, for example. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The docs on Explanatory supplement say Use this template carefully, only when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use this template on an essay that links from the relevant policy or guideline. As far as I'm aware there was never any "well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use (Explanatory Supplement) template", and there certainly isn't consensus for it now. The docs also say If consensus changes or content is outdated and the essay is no longer referenced in a policy or guideline, change the tag to the more common or  template, as appropriate. So it definitely does not get a supplement banner. However it is also not an essay or an information page. Drafting on Notability_(media) began in 2007, and it was drafted as a Subject-specific notability guideline. That's how it's written, that's what it (attempts) to be. Failed proposal says Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. I would say 14 years is beyond any reasonable definition of "consensus not being established within a reasonable period of time". This should have the banner Failed proposal. That does not preclude attempts fix it or re-propose it. However it does ensure people can't spam misleading links to this page in AFDs trying to claim support for a contrary-to-consensus position. Alsee (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , the only problem is that the TV section generally seems to have it. Would the immediate solution be to excise it from the rest of this? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sammi Brie assuming you mean WP:Notability_(media), IMO everything there seems reasonable. I can think of three paths forwards. One: Spin out new page(s) to RFC for guideline status. The copy-paste edit summary would have to link this page for attribution/edit_history purposes. Second option: Work on bringing the entirety of the page up to RFC-passable status. That would be ideal, but more challenging. However I think there's a third interesting option. Strip down the content of the page to RFC-passable content, perhaps RFC multiple sections simultaneously with the stipulation that any failing sections be stripped as the page gets promoted to guideline. Stripped sections can be recovered from history at convenience, for improvement and RFC-passage later. To be upfront, I probably won't be pitching in on that work. I'm horribly backlogged. There are serious issues relating to the Wikimedia Foundation I need to deal with. Almost none of the staff have any clue how editing or community work, and they pathologically refuse to respect or engage consensus. The "Movement Strategy Process" was so pathological that the majority of it is actively contrary to consensus. Alsee (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate the remarks. As to NTV, there is a separate RfC project to come that will propose a new television SNG, so I'm waiting for that to happen. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice for establishing Notability (television) as a guideline
This is a notice that an RfC has been started requesting comment on if the draft of Notability (television) should be implemented as a guideline and a WP:SNG. Comments are welcome at the discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Podcasts
I wanted to propose the addition of a section for the notability of podcasts. I know that right now the essay refers to WP:WEB when it comes to podcasts, but I thought a section specifically discussing podcasts might be helpful anyways. I previously brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting and decided to bring it up here.

Considering podcasts stemmed from blogs and radio, I believe WP:WEBCRIT and WP:RPRGM should be what we base the criteria on. I believe that indicators of notability for a podcast include:
 * The podcast has received a significant award such as a Webby Award, iHeartRadio Podcast Award, or the Ambies. (nominations do not count)
 * The podcast has been produced or syndicated on a national radio station such as NPR, BBC, CBC, or ABC.
 * The podcast has been listed within the top three on the iTunes charts for an extended period of time and this can be verified with independent and reliable secondary sources.

These are just a few ideas. I'm open to other suggestions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A few considerations. I think your first criteria should broadly define a "significant award" and make clear that the examples listed are not exhaustive. I would probably lean into the WP:WEBCRIT language: "The podcast has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. Examples of notable awards include, but are not limited to, a Webby Award, iHeartRadio Podcast Award, British Podcast Award, or the Ambies." There are likely other non-English-speaking-world awards that should be considered notable and gating them out automatically would contribute to WP:BIAS. I would also include the footnote from WP:WEBCRIT — "Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability." — rather than simply saying nomination never counts towards notability.
 * For your third criteria, because notable podcasts are now ending up as exclusive to some platforms, in particular Spotify, limiting the criteria to the Apple Podcasts charts (I believe that's the formal name now, not iTunes) may be too restrictive. At a minimum, it should be Apple or Spotify Podcasts charts, or describe it as "within the top three on a notable podcasting chart that updates at least weekly, such as Apple Podcasts or Spotify, for an extended period of time". There may need to be a footnote or an additional sentence helping to clarify what "extended period of time" means (Does No. 3 for eight weeks count? What if it hits No. 3 eight times, but not in consecutive weeks?).
 * The second criteria seems like it should be a possible indicator of notability, but not definitive. There are plenty of CBC, BBC, and NPR podcasts that probably don't rise to notability. There are ones by NPR-member stations, but not NPR itself, that clearly are notable. (NPR is also an outlier here because its program production is more dispersed among member stations and other producers than a lot of listeners realize.) If you do keep this criteria, it should probably be expanded to cover notable production companies, such as Wondery and Stitcher (now part of SiriusXM), too. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment and like the suggestions. I think it might be better if we just removed the examples altogether to avoid favoring any particular award, chart, or radio station. For criteria number two perhaps leaning more into the language of WP:RPRGM would be best. Something like "A podcast is more likely to be notable if it has been produced by a notable radio station or production company. However, the presence or abscense of reliable sources is more definitive than the podcast's affiliation with any particular entity." What'd you think? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd probably say "... a notable radio station, network, or production company.." but, yes, that sounds reasonable. I'm of two minds about whether or not to include some examples of notable awards, charts, or producers. On one hand, not including any does help avoid biasing towards only the named ones; on the other hand, having a few examples can help avoid disputes about what is or isn't a notable award, chart, or producer. The default, as I understand it, is if the award/chart/producer has an article, then they're notable, but it's always up for debate. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If a podcast meets these criteria would the host be considered notable as well? I've noticed that the criteria for podcast hosts to meet notability can be harder to meet because a lot of the notable activity happens in audio spaces that are difficult to cite, perhaps this would help establish such pages? Phifty (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be automatic, a program host should have to still meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:CREATIVE's notability guidelines. It is possible that a podcast could be notable, but the host isn't notable independent of the podcast (and thus wouldn't meet the WP:N threshold). However, if they are host of podcast with an article, then that might help in making the case. (And audio sources are still WP:PUBLISHED, so even if some people prefer their WP:RS to be online and quickly searchable, so long as it's reliable an audio source can still help determine notability.) — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would make the host notable. However, if the person is the host of multiple notable podcasts I believe that means they pass WP:NENTERTAINER (Kai Wright and Dan Taberski are good examples) so I don't think it's something we would need to expand on too much in this particular essay. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Reworked criteria
Alright, based on the feedback these are the two possible options for the notability criteria of a podcast:

With examples

Without examples

any thoughts? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm good with either option with a slight preference for the with examples version. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this makes it a lot clearer and also prefer the examples version, however I'd add some modifications there which could enhance clarity and make for a more durable reference. Specifically I'd include Third Coast International Audio Festival among the awards as this is a popular and well respected indie award (arguably more so than the Webbys among professionals) and we would want to support established indie productions in the same way we have with indie film productions that have reached a particular level of acclaim.
 * The other issue among the example list is "NPR". "Produced by NPR" is sort of an unclear example. Unlike the rest of these, "NPR podcast" is not always strongly associated with the main NPR production operation in DC. A good example of this might be This American Life, which is well known in its podcast format and is generally considered an NPR show, but was originally produced specifically by a NPR member station. Life Kit is a popular podcast at NPR but is (I believe) produced out of WNYC. 1A is another example, produced by WAMU. NPR also features works in partnership with PBS affiliates.
 * It might be more useful in this example to say "listed by" or "distributed by". Radio channels are especially known for (in both digital and broadcast) promoting exclusive podcasts that they do not "produce". Some of these are both popular and notable. It might be useful to say 'Listed' or 'Distributed' in the case of radio stations, which would (I think appropriately) include all podcasts on https://www.npr.org/podcasts-and-shows/.
 * Spotify also has a rather large production team these days, so they might make sense to add to the list alongside Earworlf etc...
 * Another open question I think, which is: does a notable host make a podcast notable? Bruce Springsteen and Obama have a podcast that was also turned into a book, but that show was not particularly popular as far as I can see. But it clearly was considered notable despite arguably meeting none of the given criteria (unless we include Spotify in the example list).
 * The final notability criteria I think we should consider is critical review. There are currently no infamously bad podcasts, but one might arise one day and this criteria doesn't really account for that. Or for little listened to but culturally valuable podcasts. Critical review by mainstream publications should be counted as a possible indicator of notability, though I'm not sure how best to phrase that. Phifty (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of distribution another good way to see how popular shows that are not "produced by NPR" but by affiliates and see which affiliates produced them is at NPR One Phifty (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might also make sense to add Pulitzers and the Murrow awards, which includes podcasts now, to the list of awards. Phifty (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement regarding NPR, we'll need to reword that. Gimlet Media is Spotify's podcast production company so I kind of already included Spotify in the list. The awards I selected are broad in their selection of recepients, which is why I chose them. Afaik the Pulitzer and Murrow awards are pretty specific and I've rarely seen them mentioned on articles about podcasts. There are quite a few examples of podcast awards (see List of podcast awards) and we can't include them all. As far as critical reception goes, that's covered by WP:N. This SNG should provide a few criteria that often indicate notability, but generally when a subject passes a SNG it's an indication that significant coverage exists. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * do we have a preferred way of handling NPR? We could simply omit NPR from the list or state that member stations also count. Or we could simply use WNYC Studios instead of NPR because nearly every podcast they've produced has a Wikipedia page (I've made quite a few of them myself). Phifty, it looks like you were suggesting that we simply change the wording from "produced by" to something like "listed by" or "distributed by".


 * I believe I neglected to respond to Phifty's suggestion concerning whether or not to add a criteria for notable hosts. I think there is something to be said about whether or not the host is notable for other things, but I'm not sure it's worth including as a criteria. If we do, I think we should clearly indicate that the podcast does not WP:INHERIT notability from the host, but that it's just more likely that the podcast is notable if the host is too. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say "produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company..." "Broadcaster" covers both NPR and NPR member stations, as well as networks like the BBC, CBC, or even TV broadcasters like Telemundo. Media company would give cover to podcasts from The New York Times or other news organizations, as well as production companies like Gimlet Media and Stitcher. That said, at some point it becomes more practical to go with the version that doesn't list examples (maybe put them in a footnote) or else we're just adding words and arguing over something that should be able to determined based on GNG. I agree, "notable host" may be an indicator, but INHERIT applies and the podcast may better belong as part of the host's article. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it is reasonable to say that a podcast is more likely to be notable if the host is notable, but that isn't automatically the case.
 * I'm pretty new to the notability discussion but I think that some Wikipedia communities maintain mapped out levels of notability? I'm not sure if that's a core principle/process for Wikipedia in general but it might be even more reasonable to note that someone at an A (top) level of notability, if they are hosting, would seem to create a situation that makes the podcast notable, though that isn't the case for people who are rated notable, but less so. (To use my previous example, I think it is reasonable that every podcast hosted by a past president of the United State is notable, but every podcast hosted by some years' winner of a reality TV show is not, even if they are notable enough for a person page.)
 * I think "produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company" is a pretty reasonable phrasing and I would find that totally acceptable. I'm just trying to think through all the potential consequences and wondering if we have to be worry about how `distributed` might be defined? Is listing on NPR One `distributed`? I think it should be, but at the same time it could lead to someone saying a link on some site might be 'distributing'. Perhaps an even narrower wording is useful? Something like 'produced or distributed by and accessible through a notable broadcaster or media company'? I don't know if this is necessary but I wanted to put up the challenge now while we're setting this language rather than worry about dealing with it later. Phifty (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my mind "distributed" would include NPR One and BBC Sounds, but a lot of those are distributed through Spotify, Apple, and other platforms, too. That said, BBC Sounds caries a number of podcasts that aren't produced by the BBC, but are still exclusive to their platforms (and thus aren't on Apple, etc.). Those are the edge cases where it might come down to a distinction between produced and distributed. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * what about using the statement "proudced by or exclusive to"?
 * I don't see a benefit to that. The exclusive carriage of some programs shouldn't be elevated over non-exclusive distribution. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "exclusive to" works. NPR One-distributed podcasts should, in my mind, be closer to notable, but they, like almost any podcast, are not exclusive to the platform. With the exception of a very few shows almost no podcasts are exclusive to a platform. Almost every podcast is distributed on Apple Podcasts and Spotify along side other sites or platforms. Particular platforms like BBC Sounds and NPR One are useful indicators of notability because they are difficult to get in to, go through specific distribution and production processes, have to be vetted, and have to be approved. But getting on Spotify, for example, is pretty straight forward for everyone. Perhaps 'produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company' is too inclusive? Perhaps better to handle the concern here: 'produced by a notable broadcaster or media company or distributed by a notable broadcaster or journalism organization'? Since not every journalism organization is a broadcaster but they all do a significant vetting process for distribution.
 * This actually brings up a good point, should we include 'distribution' through notable podcasts as an indicator of notability? Many podcasts do "episode swaps" where they take shows they think are notable and promote them by broadcasting one of the other show's episodes through their own feed. Is selection by a previously designated notable podcast and re-broadcast via swap an indicator of notability as well? I'd think so. Phifty (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Third attempt
Based on the feedback I've reworked the criteria and provided four possibilities. We could also combine multiple of these if you'd like. For instance, we could do the prose version with notes. I decided not to include awards such as the Pulitzers prize, Murrow awards, or Third Coast Festival awards because I don't think they have widely established themselves in the podcasting medium and they are not specific to podcasting. However, if we decide that we do want to keep examples we can discuss these options more thoroughly. I also haven't created a new criteria based on the podcast's host because I'm still not convinced it's worth including, but if we discuss it more and come to the consensus to include it I'll revise the criteria. The biggest change I've made is add the phrase "produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company", which I think we came to a consensus on above. I've also provided examples of what it would look like with notes and how it'd look as a paragraph of prose rather than a list. Let me know what your thoughts are and which version you prefer. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks TipsyElephant. My first thought would be prose, but add the footnoted examples. The third criteria might still need a little more work to make clear what "an extended period of time" means. Is it for four consecutive weeks? Is it repeated (but not consecutive) appearances in the top three? How ever it is clarified could also been in a footnote instead of in the main text, unless it's pretty straightforward and simple to state. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not really concerned with how long the show has been on a chart or how high the show was on the chart. What I think is more helpful in establishing notability is that the appearance on a chart has been noted by a reliable secondary source. For instance, a few examples of articles I've written that have had reliable secondary sources discuss a show being on a chart include Blood Ties, Boomtown, Case 63, The Cipher, Archive 81, Eleanor Amplified, and Inside Psycho. I have occasionally seen editors cite websites like Chartable and iTunesCharts.net, but I'm not fond of using these sources. Perhaps something more like: It's also more likely that a podcast is notable if it has appeared on a notable podcasting chart and it's appearance has been reported in reliable secondary sources. What are your thoughts? Should we simply specify a spot on the charts and a period of time or specify that reliable secondary sources need to take notice of the appearance on the chart? I would also be interested in hearing what  thinks. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems be a move to removing charting as a possible indicator of notability. If a podcast's chart position is reported in a reliable secondary source, then it would seem to be either 1) an article about the podcast, so the chart position is just part of an article that otherwise would contribute to GNG; or 2) it's a report on the chart, and the mention of the specific podcast would be more likely than not a passing reference. This proposed guideline would maybe make the case that an otherwise passing reference would contribute to notability, but is that really the right marker to set? Compare to the first criterion at WP:NSONG: # Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.). It's the appearance in the chart alone that matters. If we're saying podcast rankings are a possible indicator of notability, then it's about appearing in that chart, not secondary reporting on the appearance. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the wording for that SNGs criteria and would be open to adopting a similar wording for the this SNG. I don't think we need to specify a position on the chart or a length of time, but we should clarify that it may indicate notability not that it automatically qualifies as notable. I do think making it onto a chart is an indication that the show is popular and more likely to be notable than a random show that has a few dozen listens. On the other hand, just because it appeared briefly in position #25 of a specific genre doesn't mean it necessarily received significant coverage. If we specify a position on the chart or length of time it will end up being arbitrary, but if we don't clarify that notability is not automatically obtained when there has been an appearance on a chart then editors may point to the SNG when a podcast appears very briefly at a low position on a chart. If we specify a position or length of time I still think we should use vague language such as has reached a high position on a chart for a significant length of time. Or completely omit the length of time like has reached a high position on a chart (Note again that this indicates only that a podcast may be notable, not that it is notable.) TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the latter works, and maybe down the road we look at trying to develop guidelines similar to WP:CHARTS to make clear what charts are significant. In the meantime, maybe adding a footnote after "a high position on a chart" that says "The chart should be a significant chart in line with the guidelines at WP:CHARTS; in particular, they must 1) be published by a reputable source or cited frequently in WP:RS secondary sources, and 2) be static, so that the data in the chart does not change (i.e., a static chart for a given month or week is always available, as opposed to a dynamic chart that changes regularly without any referenceable data for a specific day/week/month)." or something like that. We'd probably also need to add the word "significant" ahead of "chart" in the main text, too. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Without examples in prose

Without examples in list

With examples in list

With examples in notes

Final draft
so this is what we have so far:

Do we want to adjust any wording or make any further changes? Before we add this to the essay, should we open an RfC to make sure it has consensus? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I checked with a few folks as well as well as taking a look myself. I think this is very solid! The one piece of feedback I heard was that, in part because it is a marketing communications effort, there is not a great deal of respect among professionals for the BPA, my sense of things being Third Coast is more noted, but I understand that as an award with a Wikipedia page it intrinsically meets notability, and discussion about that would really be a conversation for the page. Also, WP:CHARTS is pretty specifically about music. I understand what you are saying here is that it should follow the same rules as the music chart rules, but perhaps "The chart should be a significant chart following guidelines similar to WP:CHARTS" to make it clearer? These are both stylistic changes, so if you feel significant opposition to changes along those lines, I think it is fine to submit as-is. This is great work, and thank you for the taking feedback so gracefully here! Phifty (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks good, ., I think your suggestion regarding WP:CHARTS makes sense, but I would leave the BPAs in the list, if only so that it's not just U.S. awards listed. (It may be more of a marketing showcase, but that doesn't detract from notability in the WP:N sense of the word.) To the other question, this is an essay, not a guideline, so I think it's fine to be BOLD and to add it without an RFC. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the content to the essay. Should we create a wikilink for the section such as WP:NPODCAST, WP:PODCASTN, WP:NPOD, or WP:PODN? Are there other potential wikilinks that would be better? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NPOD (and maybe WP:NPODCAST make sense. Thanks! &dash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)