Category talk:Media coverage

You know, I think the Mephis Flyer probably has the best example of "getting it right" I've ever seen. -- Siege 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

References in comics

"Stuff that doesn't have an article yet" lists a number of reference in (online) comics, which I think should be in their own category under Culture, as I wouldn't class comics as media the way newspapers and magazines are. I'm not sure what a good name for that category would be. "References to furry in comics" is rather long-winded! -- Sine 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet coverage

I think we need a separate category for items which are solely internet coverage, rather than newspaper, magazines, or television media. At the moment, this category would include Something Awful, the webcomic references, and possibly Google Current (I'm unclear if that's an internet thingamajig or a television ditto). -- Sine 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Online media coverage and Traditional media coverage? Google would be online - it's video, but only distributed online (as far as I know). --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What about just Online coverage, with everything else to stay in Category:Media coverage? The less category-tweaking we need to do to articles which already exist the better. -- Sine 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think Category:Internet coverage would be a better category name, as a lot of print articles are also available online from the newspaper websites and the like. -- Sine 17:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Media coverage listing could be more useful if split in subcategories such as year, or light (negative/neutral/positive/dubious), or focus (fursuit, art, sex, cons), etc. Ekevu 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This category is an automatically-generated list of articles which are marked as within the category, not a listing which can itself be modified. As there is a Timeline of media coverage, categorizing individual articles by year doesn't seem necessary (at least to me or to GreenReaper; like anything, this can be discussed and a consensus reached for). A list of media coverage by focus could be of interest, although I'm not sure how one could determine such a focus. I don't think a WikiFur item could mark particular media coverage as "negative/neutral/positive/dubious"--that seems far too subjective, and suited external for a website (Pressed Fur comes to mind) or other external resource to do. -- Sine 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this working?

Looking at the sheer number of media coverage stubs out there, I can't help but wonder if this category is working. I wonder if, for instance, the numerous news stories about various cons couldn't better be linked in with the main articles? Think of the logical flow here: someone comes to read about Anthrocon, and wants to see more about how it's portrayed in the media. The way it's set up now, they'd have to know the names of the articles/videos/whatever, and search for them separately. Many of the media stubs don't even mention that the article is about Anthrocon (for example), so a search for Anthrocon won't yield that article in the results. This may be counterintuitive. Most humans search by subject, not title, when looking for information about a topic.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to either mention the media coverage in the context of the larger topical articles, or perhaps (less ideally) to have a single media page for each event? Media coverage which warrants special attention (such as the CSI episode) could still be given separate entries. I understand the desire to have a way to track all media coverage about the fandom in a centralized place, but I think the current practice is actually making it harder for readers to search in a meaningful way. My opinions, YMMV. --CodyDenton 06:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

mwalimu pointed out in his comments on Talk:Furry_convention_a_$3_million_cash_cow_for_city_businesses that merging these directly into the con articles could be problematic because of the way the media coverage timeline is set up. Good point. Would anyone be opposed to creating interwiki links between the media articles and the con articles? Sounds like a project I could work on, since I'm the one who opened my mouth. I'm new here so I'm very open to ideas from experienced editors. --CodyDenton 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The category works, it's just that it is not at the level of quality yet that will allow it to be a significant help, but it is already somewhat of a help anyways. I would propose that a Wikiproject be started, if I thought that would help at all, but considering that there are very few Wikifur members that are actually active, we each just have to do what we can and work with what we have. Silverseren^C 22:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It could certainly be worthwhile to add links. Timeline of media coverage may be helpful, if one goes by when the event took place to see what media coverage occured around that time. -- Sine 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)