Talk:Webisode

Delete?

This article doesn't seem like it has much room to expand beyond a dicdef of a neologism. Unless someone presents a compelling reason to keep it, I suggest that it be nominated for deletion. Pburka 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No Keep as expanding industry and notable subject.

interesting information regarding webisodes http://hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=3368

Might want to merge to webcast

Disagree. Don't merge. Webcast is rather superordinate. Webepisode is not the same, it is rather more specific.

Merge doesn't seem quite right, but I'd be reluctant to recommend deletion. This neologism seems like an ideal candidate to be moved to Wiktionary, the lack of information on the wiktionary page for webisode certainly makes me question the notability of this page. I was tempted to suggest merging this page with the page for shorts but the term is popular enough I'm sure many are willing to argue how the term really is different and not just a confusing new word for an old idea. Most of the short episodes or various video clips I have seen described as "webisodes" have fit within my previous understanding of shorts. In some cases where these clips were part of a sequence and much more clearly episodic it hardly seemed notable or necessary to make the distinction that the clips got their first airing on the web. Take for example Happy Tree Friends which started out on the web and later moved to television, the article describes this (it is actually notable in this case) and without resorting to using the term webisode. Using a neologism like "webisode" just begs to be expanded to "web episode" just as many other abbreviations should be avoided to make the writing clearer and easier for readers, keep it simple. -- Horkana (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Webisodes.org

The link to webisodes.org doesn't work. -CRouleau 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Content: has a lot of good information, but maybe make it flow better
Structure: You organize it well, but include more examples in sections
Sources: add a few more sources
Tang.ca (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if "Articles" section is really necessary as it is redundant with the References section. Echoing above comments, it seems like some sources could be added to make it appear more NPOV. That said, considering this is a growing industry, recognized term, and the article itself is substantive soI disagree with the call for deletion. Considering there is a section on Web Comedies, perhaps a section on other genres? The first section may also be better labeled as "History" instead of "Post-Broadcasting", whereas the term "post" makes it seem like there should be something before it. RyanG9114 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The opening section does not clarify whether the Webisode is specific to the Internet or not. On one hand, you claim that it is part of Internet TV, and on the other hand that it is Web TV. Wikipedia defines Internet TV as non-medium specific (that is, the Internet is a mere distribution channel) and Web TV as medium specific (that is, the Webisode is produced first for the Web or targeting the Internet audience as its primary audience). Obviously Internet TV is a broader set than Web TV, that is, it potentially encompasses both TV-based series and Internet-based series. You need to decide whether the Webisode falls in the larger set or the smaller set, because from the opening sentences it is unclear.Mdseriis (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)