This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Podcasting Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was listed for deletion, but I threw in a reference section and expanded the article to try to address the concerns. I think it is at least as notable as List of The West Wing episodes, for example, so I don't think we have to worry about notability. Each title is still linked to the page where it can be heard, however. This creates linkfarm concerns which could, I suppose, be gotten around with individual references for each, but this seems excessive. I'd appreciate any other thoughts from those more knowledgeable than I. --Briancua (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone help add new episodes please. I can't format right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.189.189.63 (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to include the shortest and longest episodes in each seasons? It sounds like WP:TRIVIA to me. I would argue listing the individual episode lengths is also trivia. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention by a question at the technical village pump that this article had issues.

• It's length is such that it's slow loading, and fails to render correctly, and attempts to edit the article in its entirety (not per section) are hindered.

I suggest splitting the article into separate pages, one for each season (to be named appropriately) – in this though, there is a concern about notability that might need addressing. fredgandt 16:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the episode tables are going to be transcluded here then we haven't solved anything. The references can be converted to untemplated form to reduce the include size. For example:

<ref>[http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/body-language/ Body Language]. ''HowStuffWorks''. Retrieved 2016-01-08.</ref>

– nyuszika7h (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing transcluding them. Feel free to de-template the refs. fredgandt 17:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support splitting the article per the rationale given by Fred Gandt. The article is simply too big, especially with so many templates. clpo13_(talk) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This should be dealt like any other TV series. In other words, one should have a page for each season while a global list for summarizing the whole thing. The template {{Episode list/sublist}} has been written for that. The series List of Pokémon episodes can be used as an example of this process. Pldx1 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pldx1: Transcluding them means all the references are still going to be there, so the issue might still persist. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying the references (de-templating) for technical reasons should be considered a separate (albeit related) issue to the page length in general. fredgandt 20:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User_talk:Fred_Gandt, there are so many television series whose fans have solved this kind of problems. Why this one will not be successful too ? Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pldx1 I am not suggesting that any methods to solve the technical issues should not be exercised, only that we should split the article. Other possible work should be discussed (or done) separately to keep this proposal on track. What is done after the split (if it happens) is also something for another discussion if needed. fredgandt 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above, and I'll do the de-templating. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support splitting the article, but oppose de-templating the references. The templates were created and used for a reason, and I for one find them very useful. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Briancua: There is a technical issue that prevents the references from showing up. If the lists are still going to be transcluded here minus the episode summaries as on other series articles, then we're going to need to de-template them. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is the number and size of the all templates used in this page. That includes 837 {{episode list}} templates which are the primary culprit here. As this page grows to include all of 2016, the relatively small reduction in template-include-size gotten by replacing or subst:ing the citation templates will be erased and this page will once again be too large to render properly. The correct solution is to somehow split the article into more manageable chunks.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Can we remain on track and discuss the splitting of the article separately to the technical concerns regarding template use? Reformatting will be part of the splitting process, and some of the technical concerns may be overcome in the process.

If it's agreed that this very long/large page should be split, the work can go ahead. Any opposition? fredgandt 13:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I will try to help, but I've never done this before, so I will have to get up to speed. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously anyone can go for it, but as a courtesy I'm waiting (a few days) to see if anyone is opposed. When If the split goes ahead, it should be done by one person to avoid conflicts and wasted efforts (whomever it is should probably give other editors a heads up here before they start) unless multiple editors feel confident they can edit together as a consolidated and synchronised team. All watchers should be encouraged to immediately check the new articles over. We can then start tackling any remaining technical issues that may carry over. fredgandt 00:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With no clear opposition and plenty of support: I'm happy to go ahead. I'll do the bulky bit over the next (however long it takes - minutes is unlikely - more like hours) then we can all tidy up and flesh out. fredgandt 14:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two splits performed: Before going any further, I'd prefer to get any feedback any editor is perhaps itching to give. better safe than sorry I say. I've added no lead section to either list, which is not ideal or likely to be considered acceptable for long. fredgandt 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! --BrianCUA (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool =) I'm just about to take my dog out for a couple of hours, so if anyone feels so inclined, they can continue without fear of conflicts (with me at least). If so, be sure to follow the guidelines about attribution (note the edit summaries) and add diffs to talk pages etc. Alternatively, I don't mind carrying on when I get back. It's all dog good (genuine Freudian slip). fredgandt 17:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Briancua: - Carefull! That split to... and split from... stuff in the summaries is very important! Since I'm back, I'll happily carry on if I'm not treading on any toes by doing so. fredgandt 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This isn't my usual area of editing and is all new to me. I'll get my toes out of the way and let you take over again. Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- IKR!? It's all very technical and you feel like you're gonna break something - or everything. My area is entirely technical; it takes a village... fredgandt 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation - Stuff You Should Know (2011) has been tagged for speedy deletion and needs to be immediately fixed. @Briancua:, @Pldx1:, @Nyuszika7H: and anyone else listening - probably best to fix them all. The issue was highlighted in the section below. Better to wipe the summaries and replace them later with safe rewrites. fredgandt 21:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any pages need to be deleted, but it may require a revision deletion, including on this page. I'm not sure if that's possible without messing up other parts of the history though. As far as I can tell, the CSD criteria does not apply as it says "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". Although for the season articles it may be simpler to delete them and recreate them without any copyright-infriging text. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I am only performing the splits O.o (lol), the violations are mine so I have removed ALL the summaries. Hopefully that will stop the speedy deletions, and new summaries can be created without violation of copyright by anyone who feels inclined. Until I know where I stand (conversations started in several places), I'm not continuing and I recommend that nobody else does. It is possible that ALL the summaries may need to go ASAP. fredgandt 21:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I've left 2016 as is and transcluded the lead from this list into the lead of all the sublists (should be replaced with a unique lead for each ASAP). All the suspect summary text was removed due to possible copyright violations (better to remove it and replace it than have all the pages deleted). Now it's just the technical issue of too many templates to fix - which will be easier since the pages are much more responsive now. fredgandt 22:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the episode summaries are copied from HowStuffWorks.com. This seems problematic. The copyright notice on the site reads:

"The materials available through the HSW Sites are the property of HSW or its licensors, and are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. You are free to display and print for your personal, non-commercial use information you receive through the HSW Sites.

This is not acceptable for Wikipedia per WP:NFC. Also, these are not really complete summaries, but rather teasers. – nyuszika7h (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! Yeah, that's not good. I've seen a lot of films with verbatim synopses which I've been told "must be" verbatim (which confused me (open source hippy here)). Is this a case where copy/paste is inappropriate? fredgandt 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been concerned about them as well, but the problem seemed too big for me to take on. I will point out, however, that not all of the summaries are copied and pasted from HSW. See, for example, episode 709. Most of the copy and pasting has been done by User:Reider22, who has done tremendous work on the list. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All removed due to threat of speedy deletion and no time to go through them all one by one checking. They'll need to be composed afresh. fredgandt 22:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to proceed is summarized at User:Pldx1/LSYSK/List of Stuff You Should Know episodes for the whole list and at User:Pldx1/LSYSK/Stuff You Should Know (year 2015) for the 2015 list. Therefore, it only remains to decide to proceed or not, and wait for someone to step forward as volunteer to do the job. Pldx1 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. fredgandt 14:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great job by all, and especially Fred Gandt on transcluding all the episodes. Sadly, this did not fix the problem, however. There are still too many templates on the page, and the references are not appearing. They do appear in the individual year pages, but not here. Any thoughts? --BrianCUA (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said just above, the technical solution is given at User:Pldx1/LSYSK/List_of_Stuff_You_Should_Know_episodes. In the main list, it suffices, for each year, to recall the link to the table of contents of the official site of the series i.e. http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/archive/. If you really want to verify that "How Chili Peppers Work" lasted 56 minutes and not 57 (we need to be sure, or the cat would turn sick), the TOC link tells you where to investigate. Repeating 800 times the name http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com in the list page doesn't carry any more information. Acting that way in the pages per year is only useless, but in the list page this is useless+harmful. Remark: this TV series is not the first one to have a Wikipedia page. Perhaps looking at the other pages will convince you. Pldx1 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the splitting was not to fix the template overuse; it was simply because the page was very long/large.

Personally I'd prefer to reduce the refs to raw untemplated, visually and functionally identical refs, and bob's yer uncle - another job I'm willing to do (a little regex goes a long way). And since all the short summaries died at the hands of copyright law, we can't just move the refs to that section of the sublists (until they're rebuilt at least). fredgandt 10:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly regexed where no one had regexed before, and unwrapped all the references in the sublists. I guess that's me done here. Everything's working, legal and tidy. I'll be removing these pages from my watchlist after a while, so if anyone needs anything - ping me or use my talk. fredgandt 17:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems to be fixed now, I think it's really unnecessary for the individual episodes, as I just noticed there is a podcast archive in the external links that contains a list of every episode, with clickable titles for more information. It can be added as a column reference for "Original air date" in the season articles if desired to make the source more obvious. That practice is used without issue on numerous other TV series articles. In any case, having references in the |EpisodeNumber= parameter breaks episode anchors such as #ep42 (for the numbers in the leftmost column), so if for some reason there is a desire to keep them, they should be moved to the |RTitle= parameter. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: has inserted an "onlyinclude" template into the lead. I'm not familiar with the template, and it doesn't seem to have done anything. Can you explain it, Mymis? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I actually did not include it, if you look closer at the edit, I only removed unnecessary spacing. However, it does have a purpose. Let's say, look at Stuff You Should Know (2015) and other articles, have the same introduction by adding {{:List of Stuff You Should Know episodes}}. 17:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Anon has been doing a great job of updating the recent articles. She has been including the Selects, however, which has been throwing off the episode count. The Simpsons articles are 1,032 and 1,033, for example. I propose that we create a new section for the Selects, and only include new episodes in the yearly sections. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--FriendlyChemist (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Arent selects just repeats? why add them?[reply]

The episode count should be consistent with how SYSK numbers their episodes. I think the more important aspect is only including the newly recorded episodes in the main lists to reflect the correct number of main episodes recorded. Teafed (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we add 2018 to the list? Im in dire need of an update and Id help updating it if I new how you did it. --FriendlyChemist (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @FriendlyChemist:. The tables are too much information to include all in one article, so the episodes have been split up by year. See, for example, Stuff You Should Know (2015). All the daughter articles for the individual years generally have the same introduction. You can copy and paste it into a 2018 article. Then, copy the format of the wikitable that you find in the daughter articles. Essentially, you want to copy everything under = 2015 season =. Just update the year to 2018 and all the article data. Then come back to this article, and do the same thing. Copy everything under =2015= and just change the numbers to 2018. Hope this helps. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added up to March 2021. 〜 ♥ (˘꒳˘ ) Teafed, (she/her) (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to fully transclude the episode lists for all years due to Help:Template#Template limits. I will try to mark the year pages with <noinclude>...</noinclude> to not transclude full {{Cite web}} references but only raw url's as suggested at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#List of Stuff You Should Know episodes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<noinclude>...</noinclude> was ignored inside <ref>...</ref>. Maybe {{#tag:ref}} would work but many editors probably don't know that notation, and the double noinclude tags breaking up the refs was also confusing. Instead I made separate references in noinclude tags and in includeonly tags in List of Stuff You Should Know episodes (2018).[1] Rendering of the section List of Stuff You Should Know episodes#2018 reduced the post-expand include by 46% from 382 kB to 205 kB. That may be enough to allow transclusion of all 14 years (some of them are shorter). Should we do this for all the years? I have a regular expression to do it easily. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it might be useful to link subjects in episode titles. This may be a laborious task, but I think it would be useful. Thoughts? Electricmaster (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]