Talk:Crash Course (web series)

Crash Course (web series) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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

Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention YouTube This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics 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.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: edit history watch purge A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Robotxlabs, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 23 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

On 18 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Crash Course (YouTube) to Crash Course (YouTube Channel). The result of the discussion was moved.

My opinion is that it is NOT, based on the on-screen title card. Confusingly the YouTube video title DOES say 'English', and frustratingly John did not speak a title in episode 1. Other opinions welcome, naturally. Radagast (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just was using this as a directory and so could the page be restored with its charts so that all people can use it. I messed with the editing a bit and have accomplished nothing. If you can't restore the lists of episodes could you please point me (via url) to a different directory. Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.180.82 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why is this series so pro-Islam and liberal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.1 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies took it upon him/herself to remove the entire episode listing without discussing it first. I would have reverted it, but there have been too many intermediate edits since then. Every other article on a given TV series has a detailed listing of all of its episodes. We may just have to revert back and lose all of the new edits. --Thorwald (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the episode list is excessive. Even if, however, concensus develops to replace the episode list, this can be done without a simple reversion that loses all the intervening edits. Please do not do that. LadyofShalott 16:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every other article has that, and that's a good thing. Moreover, this is not a TV program, simple as that--with many individual TV episodes, you find coverage in reliable sources--there is nothing of the kind here. The fact that there's edits after mine also suggests that editors agree with my cuts, that Wikipedia articles should not be directories (of the promotional kind). Drmies (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that a list of every episode for these series is "promotional". Nor do I agree that such a list does not belong on Wikipedia. In fact, as someone who regularly watches these series, I found this list extremely useful for keeping track of which ones I had viewed and which to view next (and listing YouTube does not provide in a useful way and something I suspect many other of the 400k+ subscribes might find useful as well). I propose a vote and will respect the will of the majority. --Thorwald (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. Unfortunately, that you find something useful personally is not a very valid rationale for keeping information. Relevant here is WP:NOTTVGUIDE, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not relevant at all. A TV guide, according to the page Electronic program guide, "provide users... with continuously updated menus displaying broadcast programming or scheduling information for current and upcoming programming". This list isn't something current or upcoming. A list of DFTBA merchandise, say, would be promotional, and perhaps linking the videos to the episode list might be as well, but the list itself, an index of existing work certainly isn't. Wikipedia commonly indexes lists of works, like, for example, every piece by Beethoven. Also, you seem to have denied connections between Crash Course and TV programs and then cited TV guides as your rationale. Chuborno (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chuborno. Also, yes it is a vote, as is everything on Wikipedia (and those guidelines are not written in stone). Drmies seems to have forgotten the entire point of Wikipedia: To provide a useful reference to its users with "free access to the sum of all human knowledge". Crash Course is the modern equivalent of a "TV show" with series and episodes. Go to any other TV show (e.g., 24) and you will find and in-depth list of every episode. Why? Because it is useful to WP's users. It is really that simple and we don't need to be too bureaucratic about it. --Thorwald (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been thinking of this for a while, and I'm going to support restoring the list based on Thorwald's last comment. I initially liked it because it was useful, but didn't see enough in that to support its inclusion. Thorwald's comment, that this is the modern equivalent of a TV show, is correct. It is a regular series, is hardly different from a TV show other than its length and method of transmission. I expect that we will be seeing more of these, and it might be good to get a guideline specifically for web based series. I'll also note that there is precedence for this at List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, Red vs. Blue (season 1) (and subsequent seasons), and List of Childrens Hospital episodes. For readability purposes, I think the best option would be to split the lists off into a separate article. Ryan Vesey 01:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we move this along? I think the idea of creating a separate List of Crash Course episodes is a good idea and has plenty of precedent. --Thorwald (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It's been two weeks since someone last objected; I figure that's enough time we've given for discussion? (I'm rather unfamiliar with discussion and major edits, so I probably shouldn't the one making them; I'll help assemble the lists when the separate page is crated.) Chuborno (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I've recovered the episode listing, and it's now on my sandbox, where there seem to be several problems with the "Infobox television" template; speaking of which, would the templates be better in the main article, with a link to the episode listing? Chuborno (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay. I have created the article. There are episodes missing (mainly those that were added since this discussion began) and it would be nice to add links to the actual YouTube video. Also, we need to added Categories to the end of this article. --Thorwald (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A list and/or article dedicated to it is rather excessive, given the lack of any third-party sources showing any WP:WEIGHT, and without such sources it certainly seems to fall under WP:NOTDIR. The list is also not necessary on the "it's useful" grounds, since it would provide nothing that a link to the channel itself wouldn't also provide. - SudoGhost 05:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be nice to keep the episode list so people actually know what episode there are and when they are made.Azndrumsticks (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the link to the channel itself is for. - Aoidh (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote either "Keep" or "Delete" to include a full listing of every episode in every series of Crash Course.

• Keep: My reasons are outlined above. --Thorwald (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with some reluctance. Unfortunately there is no secondary source for the information beyond the YouTube channel itself, and this violates Wikipedia policy. Radagast (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the previous format was far more navigable (and relevant, certainly), and I certainly prefer it to a chunk of text. Chuborno (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template on John Green contains this article; shouldn't the template be on this page then? And also, should "(episodes)" be on the template as well? Chuborno (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done and done. Radagast (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list Emily Graslie under the Big History hosts section on the overview box? ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 11:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given she appeared in only about half the episodes, and for a shorter timeframe than either of the Greens, I think the maintext listing is enough to credit her work. In the TV world I think this would count as 'guest appearances'. Radagast (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• She's credited as "Special Guest Host" in the credit card, too, yeah. I added her to the infobox and series listing as part of my major edit. I feel like she should be in the series listing, if not the infobox, but I don't actually have an editorial reason other than "it feels right"... I think her appearances sum to less than Stan's substitute teaching in CCWH2, so I can't really justify this. ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As she is now the sole host of Big History 2, the above discussion has become moot. Radagast (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with the launch of CCIP, I think we should consider moving the crew into its own section under Production.

Currently, hosts are listed in the summary box, consultants/specialists are in the individual series' sections, and Stan, Nick and Michael are in the Production section, along with the sponsorship details.

I have a proposal, which I've been working on for a couple of hours, but which still needs expansion before it's viable: User:ATMarsden/sandbox.

Just a couple of notes:

The link again: User:ATMarsden/sandbox.

Thanks,

ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 18:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made a fuller mockup of the page, based on the latest revision, with the (full) crew lists in the top of each series' section. Comments and suggestions are welcome, specifically as to which credits are important and which aren't. This version is here: User:ATMarsden/sandbox2. ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sometimes heard that CrashCourse has been used as a teaching aid in schools. Should that be there? CoolGamer23 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is it "World Mythology" or "Mythology"?

It's "World Mythology" in the name of the preview video, the description of the first episode and on the Nerdfighteria wiki (https://nerdfighteria.info/cat/429).

The only places where it's "Mythology" are in the logo and the name of the first episode, both of which wher previously known to have shorter names in them.

So, what name should we use? 78.123.232.132 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this subject under the Science courses. Some analysis of its categorization indicates it is not considered to be in the humanities, and is certainly a social science. Also, it's produced in Missoula, so the annotations are easier that way. Radagast (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, I would propose two merge the two sections. The team was often insisting that there are no differences between hard and soft science; moreover, it begins to make less and less sense with "same field" series being produced in different locations. 78.123.232.132 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheile CCK has obvious conections to classic crash course, because its on a different youtube style and different style (lack of thought bubble) as well as not being referenced in any episoids of classic CC, should we list it as a spin off and not part of the main series? 22mikpau (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that CCK should be considered a season of Crash Course, albeit aimed at Kids. Alternatively, I would consider SciShow Kids to be a spinoff. If CCK one day comes to encompass several different disciplines then perhaps it would be too big to be contained within the gravity of crash courseBradley.Wayne (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CC Kids should be delineated any differently than it is, at least for now - if they ever revive it and do more courses, then maybe. Radagast (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been over two years since this course was cancelled, none of it remains publicly available, and there's no sign of a revival soon, I think it's best to reduce its appearance on this page appropriately - remove Nielsen from the host list, remove the course from the table, and condense it all into its text section.

I'll go ahead and do this myself soon, unless I get a strong counter-argument here. Radagast (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Radagast (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The How to College series is released on the main Crash Course YouTube channel. Therefore, shouldn't it be in the same grid, and not with other Study Hall series? 88.138.177.150 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]