Talk:Audio commentary

Flagged as personal essay / OR since 2009

There was no talk page entry created at the time that I can see here.

These flags are already nine years old, with no end in sight, because if this were a more serious Wikipedia topic, very little of this content would make the cut.

It just happens that in the film industry, audio commentary is inherently fandom facing, and what we naturally have here is a (mildly) curated listicle of prominent fandom landmarks.

I'm not opposed to a few excursions into fancruft where the page content is matched to the subject matter. I personal enjoy encountering a few of these pages, out on the fringes.

But I wonder if Wikipedia culture will ever evolve to where someone has the gonads to admit that this is at least minimally tolerated (in rare, appropriate instances), and knock down these derelict, tumbleweedy page flags.

Note that you can find many examples in human culture where a formal sign is erected "we do not approve" and underneath is scrawled "unless you do it under a formal sign stating that we do not approve, in which case, you may proceed to act as you always have, anyway". — MaxEnt 17:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see articles with tags that old. Instead of editors addressing the issues head on, they just add more and more content, with no end in sight. Audio commentaries are kinda fancruft in nature, with editors wanting to add their own personal favorites, without adding a reliable source. I tackled the tags, and removed a lot of OR, and excessive intricate details that can never be sourced. I also archived threads on this talk page that were were 14-18 years old. I'll attempt to keep an eye on the article for future issues. ⋆｡°✩🎃✩°｡⋆ Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead example

There was a lead example video of audio commentary, showing freely licensed commentary for Battle for Dream Island, officially uploaded on YouTube by one of the animators under CC BY. @TheDutchArchivist removed the video for being "object show autism", without providing a proper, policy or guideline-based reason. This is despite it being a valid example. Certainly unusual, but still valid.

What do you all think about the inclusion of the video in the article? Keep in mind, we don't have any other freely licensed examples of audio commentary. Oh, and the fact that the video has been nominated for deletion doesn't change anything, as the deletion reason is completely erroneous. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 11:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Support inclusion The strongest policy-based argument against its inclusion is that BFDI videos would be non-free, but if the file is freely licensed, then that argument may not work. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion My apologies for the comment. Tt was late at night since I wrote that, I'll give a proper explanation since "object show autism" wasn't technically a proper reason.

The online community surrounding BFDI and object shows are known for having a toxic environment that could easliy attract drama. While Toxic fanbases shouldn't be a reason why this should be excluded, BFDI is infamous because its fanbase consists mainly of children and special needs that contanstly overpraise the show and attack anyone who critize it, it had developed a notorious reputation over the years compaired to other internet fandoms.

It's one of the reasons why it took so long for the show to get a proper article on here, and even then it recieved a bluelock due to the constant drama on the page. And since the article's creation, vandalism occasionaly occurred with IP editors adding mentions of show on random articles. While the edit here is not vandalism, It would still put this article (a general topic that doesn't apply to BFDI), in risk of constant drama.

Simpily put, anything related to BFDI will simpily attract drama and vandalism from anyone who won't contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia. I'm not advocating for censorship, I only suggest that images and videos of the should only be used for articles directly related to show. Some people would consider it to be "gatekeeping", but I want this site to remain useful and free from these toxic spaces and drama in general. I suggest that another example should be used to represent the article better, such as from a old public domain release, or just nothing at all. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, if anything, you removing the video might actually increase drama. It was present for long enough on the page that some BFDI fans would notice that it's gone with little reason. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 11:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please point to the policy that prevents inclusion of material based solely on the chances of it attracting drama and vandalism. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 20:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)