If we what a standard format for information on media on a topic, what metadata should be displayed?
|TV or Stream||Presentor||Program||Station||Originally broadcast||Description||URL to stream|
|Film, movie, motion picture||Director||Title||(Studio?)||Originally played||Description||ISAN? IMDb? ASIN (Amazon ID)?|
|Radio or podcast||Presentor||Program||Station||Originally broadcast||Description||URL to stream|
|Feed||-||Title||Publisher (twitter/instagram/..)||-||Description||Tweet/Instagram @name|
Too much info?
Most of these seem to include too much info. Publisher for books, presenter for TV... this is WV, we don't have to be that encyclopedic. All we need is enough information to identify the thing in question. Are there really cases where the title, author, and date aren't enough? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do not think they should be must fields. Traveler100 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought this idea was just for Read and Watch sections, namely books, film, and TV. This seems to be overreaching by including newspaper articles, podcasts, blogs, and social media feeds. Are there actually articles where we're mentioning any of those as sources for learning more about the destination? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I probably read more on my mobile phone today than any other format, and this is where most internet usage is in general. For example I have a Twitter account that includes local feeds for cities around the world I visit regularly and when I visit a new place will temporarily add local contributors before and during my trip. These really help understand what topics are active in the locality. Traveler100 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)