Talk:Newsarama

Comment

Talk relating to a previous, deleted, version of this page is archived @ Talk:Newsarama/Archive01

Merge Talk @ Newsarama

Frankly, the Talk @ Newsarama "article" appears to be irredemible crap, but I thought I'd better merge-tag them for a week just to be sure. - SoM 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Okay someone has pasted the POV tag the top of the article, questioning its neutrality, without bothering to give any reasons here.

As the writer of most of it I obviously think the article is free of POV. It mentions Newsarama's strengths as well as some of the major criticisms of the site, all of which are painstakingly sourced and contextualised.

If some reasoning for the placement of the tag is not posted here in the next 48 hours I will remove it. Hueysheridan 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it relates to this thread on Newsarama itself, as does much of the vandalism of recent days - SoM 09:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in reading a discussion of the merits of the article (which prompted some major edits to the "criticism" section) by Newsarama staff and readers should follow the link. Hueysheridan 09:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of notable tag

The editor in question didn't bother to back up his claim. If he wants to put it back up he can put his reasons in here. Any objections? --Shaoken 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection. He posted the tag and deleted the entire article. He's a guy with a grudge and should be ignored. 71.255.88.166 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection. The notable tag should only be removed by a wiki editor not a disgruntled Newsarama Board members. They don't like it? play on their own board not this sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 March 2007

1. I am an editor. 2. I removed the tag from the page because the guy who put it up there failed to list his reasons for doing it. 3. Why should I listen to someone who doesn't have an account?--Shaoken 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection just to be on the safe side. I'm not worried about 71.255.88.166 from doing anything, but 12.182.37.131 has shown he hates Newsarama for some unkown reason.

P.S it was Leuko who added the notability tag. He did it for all Comic book websites. --Shaoken 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just did it to comic book websites that did not use any reliable sources to indicate passing WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria in any way. Leuko 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Marvel Comics and DC Comics think it's sufficiently important to justify regular promotional interviews with their creators and editors, so it shouldn't be impossible to prove notability. I'll drop a comment regarding this over at WP:CMC, where there are likely to be a few more editors with the relevant knowledge about where to find those sources. On a tangentially related note, the "What links here" page shows that quite a few comics articles have used Newsarama as a source... --Mrph 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Having had a look at the WP:WEB criteria, I'd say that the Comics Journal analysis of online comics industry news (as referenced in the article itself) counts as one example under "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (point 1), as magazine articles are specifically identified as acceptable. If other examples can be found, would that meet the WP:WEB notability guidelines? --Mrph00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Mrph. However I suggest we don't remove the notability tag in till we get a few more to appease all reasonable parties.--Shaoken 02:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly you might as well take this all down now, since very few sites if any even reffer to this site.

Frankly I doubt anyone will be able to come up with any citation for the site rather than the site itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 March 2007

Frankly, you need to shut the hell up. Besides, the Civil War article linked to Newsarama.--

Shaoken 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where outside mof the site itself, does anything refer to Newsarama, mostly this entry was started by members on the Talk@portion of the site as a vanity piece so they could see the section notated somewhere and their names on the site. (which more sensible posters have deleted since mainly they were doing a vanity piece.)

Don't tell me to shut the hell up, that was rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 March 2007

To 12.182.37.131 : please sign your posts. Darrik2 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as everyone here BUT 12.182.37.131 agrees that newsarama is notable, let's work on improving the article like Leuko said. Let's get a link from a third party that goes to Newsarama. It shouldn't be too hard, Joe Q posts there every friday, and plenty of writers from all over have interviews there. We do that and this article stays (actually it would stay regardless, we have enough people in favour to overrule the two oppossed (and we add a link and it's down to one, and since he isn't even a user...).--Shaoken 11:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would a small note from a USA today blog be considered a proper reference? If so, here it is (use find)--Shaoken 11:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have a reference from The New York times and EW. That's good enough for me. Unless anyone here can think of a good reason why these two references don't count, I'll remove the notablity tag in 14 hours or so.

I'm the "sensible poster" who erased the majority of the Talk@ portion. And yes, a lot of it was silly vanity. That being said, Newsarama is a significant source of information on the comic book medium, delivering regular interviews and columns from editors and editors-in-chief of the largest comic book publishers today, delivering [exclusive previews] of issues months in advance. A quick Google search, while omitting Newsarama.com itself from the results, turned up 690,000 results. It is the main source of comic book-related content on the internet.

Under WP: Notability guideline 1 and 3: "1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

"The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster".

Newsarama undeniably qualifies, as questionairres/interviews with Brian Michael Bendis have been reprinted in his comic book Powers' letter pages (one of the highest selling independent comic books out there).

Edit - Oh, and the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly citing it for info on Captain America's death today was an excellent example. Terram 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk section

Okay, now that the notablity issue is resolved lets get to improving the article. The talk section is pretty small, but the larger one was just terrible, espically the part about censorship. I've only seen one topic deleted since I've been there, and that was because it turned into a massive slapfight. Besides that Users only get banned when the break the most common rules, and they get warnings too. Anyway, could someone who isn't a member of Newsarama please fix it up? --Shaoken 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

All for having the Newsarama article if it has any importance of note, however the main reason before today for the article was a vanity piece for the regular readers on Talk@ --- Right now the Talk @ section is fine IF it is notable at all.

In the whole sceme of things the site itself it noteworthy while the Forum for members isn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 March 2007

Perhaps not notable enough for a section, but surely an article about the site should at least mention that it includes Talk @ as one of its features? Especially if Talk is one of the more popular elements, whether or not the actual contents of Talk @ are notable and/or warrant any detailed description. --Mrph 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Including the Talk@ section is nothing more than vanity on the part of the posters that post in Talk@. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2007

It might be if it goes into detail. But I fail to see how, for example, "The site also features a Talk@Newsarama section, a discussion forum for its readers" could be viewed as vanity. If anything, omitting all mention of Talk@Newsarama would seem to be wrong, as it's not fully describing the subject of the article. (On a different note - can you sign your comments, please? As per WP:SIG, all comments on talk pages should really be signed. It makes it much clearer who said what, and when. Thanks!) --Mrph 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should add back the Talk@ section, even if it's only the three sentences. It's not a vanity piece, it's more because Talk@ is a major part of the site, and is worth atleast a section (even a small one). As for 12.182.37.131 , he has some sort of grudge against this article, and it might be for the best if we take what he has to say with a pound of salt. Darrik2 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well come on it is clearly a vanity piece, and posting the entry only serves to delight the posters of said section. It is a major part of the site and has a mention, but there is not need to list names of posters, topics that are dicusssed, in jokes and may other things that only mean anything to the poster of TalK@ and nowhere else. If you are making the accusation that I have a grudge that is a gross misrepresentation, while you are a poster who clearly just "wants to see their name in lights".

Seacrest Out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 March 2007

Is anyone suggesting that we should list names of posters, in-jokes and topics discussed, though? I'm definitely not, Darrik2 doesn't seem to be, and you're certainly not - so if we're all in agreement on this, where's the problem? --Mrph 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the most Wikipedia has to explain about Talk@ is that it exists and what its function is (social discussion); simply as part of showing a comprehensive description of the site as a whole. I post there myself, but I don't really see the purpose of an description of Talk@ that stretches beyond 2 sentences. Terram 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that an entry on this Website is being retained here @ Wikipedia because of a single mention in a print news article, yet an article on another comic book news site that's been around just as long (and was even briefly partnered up with this one), namely Comixfan, gets deleted despite it's being previously part of a national print publication and having been cited in print news articles recently. Where's the sense in that?

Mrph... Darrik has edited this entry in the past to include posters names and other vanity items, he is clearly miffed because he isn't able tio keep these vanity items in the article and had to go on a personal attack portraying me as someone that had a grudge. He has been edited the article many times as if it was his own playground using in-jokes and personal items.

Terram thank you the m,ost we have to say about the Talk Section really has already been said.

Seacrest Out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.37.131 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 March 2007

1. Sign your posts 2. Darrik didn't do that, I checked the logs and Darrik's last edit only corrected the number of users. You're lying through your teeth. I suggest you stop. 3. Yes, you do have a grudge against the article. You've proven it every time you've talked here. Please, just leave this article alone. --Shaoken 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If 12.182.37.131 (who I think may be a sock puppet for a previous vandaliser) is the only one who objects to a Talk@ section, I'll add it back as a two-three sentence section. Darrik2 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finally added that sentence for the Talk@. I left it as part of the first section, but if someone wants to make Talk have it's own section, that's fine by me. Darrik2 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

has anyone notice

That Newsarama is down a lot I mean I have a 403 Forbidden showing up every time I go to the site Supermike(talk) 7:22, 03 June 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section

The criticism section reads a lot like "what Rich Johnston thinks about Newsarama". Why is so much weight given to this guy's opinion? By all means, criticism ought to be recorded when reliable, third-party sources attest to such, but why should so much weight be given to the opinion of one guy who works for a rival comics website? --212.32.102.5 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - It feels like Johnston wrote that stuff himself. It should also be pointed out that Newsarama had a looong standing tradition of calling Rich Johnston for what he is - a rumor monger. He writes whatever he wants with out producing one scrap of evidence to support his claims.

And where's the bits on the numerous Exodus's from Newsarama (the most recent because of the questionable moderator powers and the complete absence of Matt Brady). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.189.37 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification

The sentence Subsequently, under Siegel, the site's traffic has risen above that of many close rivals is sourced to newsarama.com - Quantcast Audience Profile but this does not appear to mention any "rivals". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newsarama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcj.com/272/n_online.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=43699

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)